Gay marriage
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
Gays don't bother me period. But this is taking it too far. No I don't agree with Gay Marriage or for Gays bringing up children.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Gay marriage
Ted wrote: Neither Romans nor Cor. specifically mention homosexuality as a sin.
Homosexuality is not a choice it is part of the ontology of the being him/herself.
The Bible is Midrash and metaphor with kernals of history throughout. It is not a history book but a religious book and is to be treated as such. If we are not careful we can raise the Bible to the level of a "paper pope" and that is a form of idolatry.
Ted, welcome to the discussion. Have read your views on the authority and inspiration of the Bible in other places. Probably a separate thread would be useful in this subject, because there are many views besides your own.
Before I say anything about homosexuality and sin, once I witnessed to a gay man, and rather than bellow at him about what the Bible says, we went together to a coffee shop and ate together, and I just listened. I guess I had never thought about the fact that when you're a gay man, you don't get aroused by women, but by men. It's impossible to have the kind of romantic attraction to a woman to have a love relationship if they don't turn you on. This made me understand a bit better what gay men experience, and how much a challenge this is in a straight society, and though homosexuality is abhorrent to me, I felt compassion for this man. I also realized he could never reach the depth of commitment I have to God because his life experience and attitudes are in conflict with the Bible. To defend his own self-esteem, he would have to deny the authority of Scripture.
Any habit of thought or action- even if it becomes compulsive enough that it seems to be an inborn trait, actually starts with choices. Admittedly the choices that make a man homosexual may not all be their own choices. Some are molested as boys. I also have a good friend who once was homosexual (who was molested as a youth), but who has overcome through his faith in God and by the Spirit healing him and dwelling in him. At the bottom line, homosexuality results from choices, and it can be overcome by choices. They can be very hard choices, but choices none the less.
I could be an embezzler, and say, "Embezzlement is not a choice part of the ontology of being myself." All sin is part of the ontology of being human beings. This does not prevent God from inviting us to overcome it and promising us the power- that is, if we really believe Him and take His word for it.
None of us is without sin, so none of us is in the position to point a finger of condemnation at another. But there is a conspiratory nature to sin, when we are so afraid that we will have to deal with our own sin that we are afraid to counsel others about their sin. So we keep silent about it or excuse it, and wallow together in the muck. This is not the purpose God called His people for. He called us to confess and forsake our sins, and with compassion help one another out of the pit of sin, by directing others to the lift- that is Jesus.
Homosexuality is not a choice it is part of the ontology of the being him/herself.
The Bible is Midrash and metaphor with kernals of history throughout. It is not a history book but a religious book and is to be treated as such. If we are not careful we can raise the Bible to the level of a "paper pope" and that is a form of idolatry.
Ted, welcome to the discussion. Have read your views on the authority and inspiration of the Bible in other places. Probably a separate thread would be useful in this subject, because there are many views besides your own.
Before I say anything about homosexuality and sin, once I witnessed to a gay man, and rather than bellow at him about what the Bible says, we went together to a coffee shop and ate together, and I just listened. I guess I had never thought about the fact that when you're a gay man, you don't get aroused by women, but by men. It's impossible to have the kind of romantic attraction to a woman to have a love relationship if they don't turn you on. This made me understand a bit better what gay men experience, and how much a challenge this is in a straight society, and though homosexuality is abhorrent to me, I felt compassion for this man. I also realized he could never reach the depth of commitment I have to God because his life experience and attitudes are in conflict with the Bible. To defend his own self-esteem, he would have to deny the authority of Scripture.
Any habit of thought or action- even if it becomes compulsive enough that it seems to be an inborn trait, actually starts with choices. Admittedly the choices that make a man homosexual may not all be their own choices. Some are molested as boys. I also have a good friend who once was homosexual (who was molested as a youth), but who has overcome through his faith in God and by the Spirit healing him and dwelling in him. At the bottom line, homosexuality results from choices, and it can be overcome by choices. They can be very hard choices, but choices none the less.
I could be an embezzler, and say, "Embezzlement is not a choice part of the ontology of being myself." All sin is part of the ontology of being human beings. This does not prevent God from inviting us to overcome it and promising us the power- that is, if we really believe Him and take His word for it.
None of us is without sin, so none of us is in the position to point a finger of condemnation at another. But there is a conspiratory nature to sin, when we are so afraid that we will have to deal with our own sin that we are afraid to counsel others about their sin. So we keep silent about it or excuse it, and wallow together in the muck. This is not the purpose God called His people for. He called us to confess and forsake our sins, and with compassion help one another out of the pit of sin, by directing others to the lift- that is Jesus.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
telaquapacky wrote: I also realized he could never reach the depth of commitment I have to God because his life experience and attitudes are in conflict with the Bible. You may believe this but you cannot know it. Ones depth of committment to God is a matter between that individual and God. No person can know the details, know the depth, know the experience.
God's love trumps Man's imperfections, always.
God's love trumps Man's imperfections, always.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: You may believe this but you cannot know it. Ones depth of committment to God is a matter between that individual and God. No person can know the details, know the depth, know the experience.
You're right, Paul. I should have worded that a bit more accurately and less judgmentally, like, "I knew he wasn't interested in knowing God from my perspective." I stand corrected.
You're right, Paul. I should have worded that a bit more accurately and less judgmentally, like, "I knew he wasn't interested in knowing God from my perspective." I stand corrected.
Look what the cat dragged in.
Gay marriage
from an earlier post
What would Jesus do? Well, let's look at what he did in John 8. He protected adultress from being condemned to death by stoning. Then, he said, "Go now and leave your life of sin."
My understanding of the story is that JC did not condemn her or judge her behavuiour-let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc. the bit about leaving your life of sin was put in-well depends on which version you look at doesn't it.
If JC did not feel it his place to judge people then who are the religious who feel they and only they can interpret god's will. Why not leave gays alone, practice a bit if christian tolerance and let god decide when he meets them in heaven or wherever.
Marriage is a union between two people in the sight of god, whether it is religious or secular it is two people commiting to each other. Because they are gay does that make the union any less real in the eyes of god? Unless you are god no one is in a position to answer that and if you think you can well I don't know what to say to that one.
Maybe there is a sin in being too busy telling people what they should and shouldn't do and what they should and shouldn't believe that your own righteousness closes your mind to god's message.
On one level the message of JC is quite simple love each other, forgive enemies and those who trespass against us don't be judgemental. when did he ever say except -----. If it is a new testament that was to show the way then why keep harking back to the old testament? Is it because if you want to comdemn someone for their lifestyle you won't find it in the teaching of JC. You have to look up the old testament for that. Then you have to carefully select the bits you want because if you lookm hard enough you will find bits approving of homosexuality. You even find bits advocating equal rights for women in fact just about anything you want.
I can't understand male homosexuality, lesbianism i can understand, the attraction of sexual relation with a woman makes perfect sense. I was intolerant-you get brought up with certain attitudes don't you, now I have friends who are gay and their proclivities don't really bother me because I got to know them as people not objects of scorn.
There are ways to safeguard property etc but their getting married is because they want to show their commitment to each other, good luck to them. If it is a union in the sight of god then let god judge because I doubt if any man is in a position to make that call for him-or her.
Before you ask no I am not a christian.
What would Jesus do? Well, let's look at what he did in John 8. He protected adultress from being condemned to death by stoning. Then, he said, "Go now and leave your life of sin."
My understanding of the story is that JC did not condemn her or judge her behavuiour-let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc. the bit about leaving your life of sin was put in-well depends on which version you look at doesn't it.
If JC did not feel it his place to judge people then who are the religious who feel they and only they can interpret god's will. Why not leave gays alone, practice a bit if christian tolerance and let god decide when he meets them in heaven or wherever.
Marriage is a union between two people in the sight of god, whether it is religious or secular it is two people commiting to each other. Because they are gay does that make the union any less real in the eyes of god? Unless you are god no one is in a position to answer that and if you think you can well I don't know what to say to that one.
Maybe there is a sin in being too busy telling people what they should and shouldn't do and what they should and shouldn't believe that your own righteousness closes your mind to god's message.
On one level the message of JC is quite simple love each other, forgive enemies and those who trespass against us don't be judgemental. when did he ever say except -----. If it is a new testament that was to show the way then why keep harking back to the old testament? Is it because if you want to comdemn someone for their lifestyle you won't find it in the teaching of JC. You have to look up the old testament for that. Then you have to carefully select the bits you want because if you lookm hard enough you will find bits approving of homosexuality. You even find bits advocating equal rights for women in fact just about anything you want.
I can't understand male homosexuality, lesbianism i can understand, the attraction of sexual relation with a woman makes perfect sense. I was intolerant-you get brought up with certain attitudes don't you, now I have friends who are gay and their proclivities don't really bother me because I got to know them as people not objects of scorn.
There are ways to safeguard property etc but their getting married is because they want to show their commitment to each other, good luck to them. If it is a union in the sight of god then let god judge because I doubt if any man is in a position to make that call for him-or her.
Before you ask no I am not a christian.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
I don't think being Gay, has anything to do with religion.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Gay marriage
I don't think the laws of this country have anything to do with religion.
People can defend their points of view on why they don't approve of homosexuals or their desires to marry.
People can wax quite poetic defending how Christian they are by pointing out that their bible prohibits homosexuality (questionable, but ok) and yet they themselves do not gay bash - at least violently.
But so what? Personal views are exactly that - personal. Each of us has the right to feel however we want to about it.
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
So until a solid reasonable argument is produced against homosexuals without using religion as a prop, I vote we let them have rights (civil unions, property rights, access to sick partners, and health benefits, etc).
People can defend their points of view on why they don't approve of homosexuals or their desires to marry.
People can wax quite poetic defending how Christian they are by pointing out that their bible prohibits homosexuality (questionable, but ok) and yet they themselves do not gay bash - at least violently.
But so what? Personal views are exactly that - personal. Each of us has the right to feel however we want to about it.
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
So until a solid reasonable argument is produced against homosexuals without using religion as a prop, I vote we let them have rights (civil unions, property rights, access to sick partners, and health benefits, etc).
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
A Karenina wrote: I don't think the laws of this country have anything to do with religion.
People can defend their points of view on why they don't approve of homosexuals or their desires to marry.
People can wax quite poetic defending how Christian they are by pointing out that their bible prohibits homosexuality (questionable, but ok) and yet they themselves do not gay bash - at least violently.
But so what? Personal views are exactly that - personal. Each of us has the right to feel however we want to about it.
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
So until a solid reasonable argument is produced against homosexuals without using religion as a prop, I vote we let them have rights (civil unions, property rights, access to sick partners, and health benefits, etc). That Wall between between Church & State is going up again in the EU. Just last week in the EU Parliament, an EU commissioner said that being GAY was a sin. www.euobserver.com
People can defend their points of view on why they don't approve of homosexuals or their desires to marry.
People can wax quite poetic defending how Christian they are by pointing out that their bible prohibits homosexuality (questionable, but ok) and yet they themselves do not gay bash - at least violently.
But so what? Personal views are exactly that - personal. Each of us has the right to feel however we want to about it.
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
So until a solid reasonable argument is produced against homosexuals without using religion as a prop, I vote we let them have rights (civil unions, property rights, access to sick partners, and health benefits, etc). That Wall between between Church & State is going up again in the EU. Just last week in the EU Parliament, an EU commissioner said that being GAY was a sin. www.euobserver.com
Gay marriage
That Wall between between Church & State is going up again in the EU. Just last week in the EU Parliament, an EU commissioner said that being GAY was a sin. www.euobserver.com
Yeah but look what happened. I have seen it suggested that one of the reasons the british seem as a people to have an aversion to extremes is a kind of cultural memory of the religious wars and especially the extremes of the english civil war. Maybe there is the same sense amongst europeans an aversion to extreme religious views. Extreme political views are maybe a different matter.
Certainly it seems to be only the devout that get worked up about it
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
Speaking as a complete outsider I do wonder if that is going to happen in America. Given half a chance I think they wouldn take america that way and impose their views on everybody. Our court system is far from perfect but I am not convinced a supreme court modelled on the american one with political appointees is a good idea. You can't trust politicians.
Yeah but look what happened. I have seen it suggested that one of the reasons the british seem as a people to have an aversion to extremes is a kind of cultural memory of the religious wars and especially the extremes of the english civil war. Maybe there is the same sense amongst europeans an aversion to extreme religious views. Extreme political views are maybe a different matter.
Certainly it seems to be only the devout that get worked up about it
Politically, we should have absolutely no say - at least not using religion as a basis for it. That wall of separation between church and state MUST stand. Otherwise, the US will become the Christian version of Afghanistan.
Speaking as a complete outsider I do wonder if that is going to happen in America. Given half a chance I think they wouldn take america that way and impose their views on everybody. Our court system is far from perfect but I am not convinced a supreme court modelled on the american one with political appointees is a good idea. You can't trust politicians.
Gay marriage
I think the desire to open marriage to gay couples has more to do with their wanting to be accepted as part of society than it has to do with proving they love each other. Since love is the important thing and not marriage I don't know why they care so much.
My accountant told me it is better to be single than married for tax purposes, in Canada anyway. So it's not for financial reasons.
I wonder if gay marriages will end up with the same divorce rate?
Maybe these people should examine what marriage has become in the society they long to be accepted by and they wouldn't want it so bad. I'll probably take a whipping for that.
Main point to ponder: If non-Christians can be married, which they can, than why does the bible prevent non-heterosexuals? Apparently they are both going to hell...just for different reasons, yet the pagan sinners can walk right in and sign up for this odd kind of hell on earth with no problems.
My accountant told me it is better to be single than married for tax purposes, in Canada anyway. So it's not for financial reasons.
I wonder if gay marriages will end up with the same divorce rate?
Maybe these people should examine what marriage has become in the society they long to be accepted by and they wouldn't want it so bad. I'll probably take a whipping for that.
Main point to ponder: If non-Christians can be married, which they can, than why does the bible prevent non-heterosexuals? Apparently they are both going to hell...just for different reasons, yet the pagan sinners can walk right in and sign up for this odd kind of hell on earth with no problems.
Gay marriage
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not prohibited by the Bible. The Bible no-where condemns it as a sin.
Yes some folks have managed to "change"from being homosexual to hetero. I put the quotation marks around change to make the point that medical and psychological research has shown that a true homesexual cannot change and in fact trying to force such a change could be dangerous to the individuals involved. I know of one case where the women married and tried her best to live a heterosexual life style. It did not work and the marriage ended in divorce.
Homosexuality is not a choice of any kind for the true homosexual it is part of their ontology.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Yes some folks have managed to "change"from being homosexual to hetero. I put the quotation marks around change to make the point that medical and psychological research has shown that a true homesexual cannot change and in fact trying to force such a change could be dangerous to the individuals involved. I know of one case where the women married and tried her best to live a heterosexual life style. It did not work and the marriage ended in divorce.
Homosexuality is not a choice of any kind for the true homosexual it is part of their ontology.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Gay marriage
This thread is convincing me, a serious Bible believer, that Gay marriage ought not to be banned. (what?!) I’ll get on to that in my next post… first…
Ted wrote: The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not prohibited by the Bible. The Bible no-where condemns it as a sin.
What is your understanding of these verses, Ted? Not that I’m trying to change your mind, just curious what you had to say.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Ted wrote: The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not prohibited by the Bible. The Bible no-where condemns it as a sin.
What is your understanding of these verses, Ted? Not that I’m trying to change your mind, just curious what you had to say.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
telaquapacky wrote: This thread is convincing me, a serious Bible believer, that Gay marriage ought not to be banned. (what?!) I’ll get on to that in my next post… first…
What is your understanding of these verses, Ted? Not that I’m trying to change your mind, just curious what you had to say.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Shalom :-6
What is your understanding of these verses, Ted? Not that I’m trying to change your mind, just curious what you had to say.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Shalom :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Gay marriage
telaquapacky wrote: This thread is convincing me, a serious Bible believer, that Gay marriage ought not to be banned. (what?!) I’ll get on to that in my next post… first…
Most of us Bible believers have a hangup over the "M" word- Marriage. We think Marriage means "Holy matrimony," the thing God invented in Genesis...
Matthew 19:4,5
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
That was Jesus speaking, and evidently Gay marriage has no place in His kingdom because it violates God's purpose in making them "male and female," therefore they can't become "one flesh" in the way God intended. But Jesus said in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world."
I used to say OK to "Civil Unions," but outlaw Gay Marriage. No more. It's a hang up on words. A gay couple will never get married in a church of my denomination anyway, and I think that is enough of a limitation. If other churches allow it, fine. Let everyone know which churches really teach the principles of Jesus' kingdom and which do not.
The problem is that Christians who want a constitutional amendment to outlaw Gay marriage basically want the government to do what they are too uncaring or cowardly to do themselves. They want government to call homosexuality a sin, so that they don't have to. They want government to force their views on people by law, because they don't have the courage or compassion to discuss their views in a caring and loving way, and face rejection from those who don't agree with them. They want government to force everyone to worship and pray and keep the same list of do's and dont's that they do so they don't have to face the difficulty of being different- of doing what Jesus wants us to do- to be in the world but not of the world. Someone reading this may be an exception, but most of the people I know who want prayer in public schools don't even pray with their own children at home! They want the government to fill the obligations they have to God that they are failing to fulfill themselves.
Most of us Bible believers have a hangup over the "M" word- Marriage. We think Marriage means "Holy matrimony," the thing God invented in Genesis...
Matthew 19:4,5
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
That was Jesus speaking, and evidently Gay marriage has no place in His kingdom because it violates God's purpose in making them "male and female," therefore they can't become "one flesh" in the way God intended. But Jesus said in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world."
I used to say OK to "Civil Unions," but outlaw Gay Marriage. No more. It's a hang up on words. A gay couple will never get married in a church of my denomination anyway, and I think that is enough of a limitation. If other churches allow it, fine. Let everyone know which churches really teach the principles of Jesus' kingdom and which do not.
The problem is that Christians who want a constitutional amendment to outlaw Gay marriage basically want the government to do what they are too uncaring or cowardly to do themselves. They want government to call homosexuality a sin, so that they don't have to. They want government to force their views on people by law, because they don't have the courage or compassion to discuss their views in a caring and loving way, and face rejection from those who don't agree with them. They want government to force everyone to worship and pray and keep the same list of do's and dont's that they do so they don't have to face the difficulty of being different- of doing what Jesus wants us to do- to be in the world but not of the world. Someone reading this may be an exception, but most of the people I know who want prayer in public schools don't even pray with their own children at home! They want the government to fill the obligations they have to God that they are failing to fulfill themselves.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
gmc wrote: Yeah but look what happened. I have seen it suggested that one of the reasons the british seem as a people to have an aversion to extremes is a kind of cultural memory of the religious wars and especially the extremes of the english civil war. Maybe there is the same sense amongst europeans an aversion to extreme religious views. Extreme political views are maybe a different matter.
Certainly it seems to be only the devout that get worked up about it
Speaking as a complete outsider I do wonder if that is going to happen in America. Given half a chance I think they wouldn take america that way and impose their views on everybody. Our court system is far from perfect but I am not convinced a supreme court modelled on the american one with political appointees is a good idea. You can't trust politicians.
If its going to happen in AMERICA! You can bet It will. Jesus Bush is in the house.
Certainly it seems to be only the devout that get worked up about it
Speaking as a complete outsider I do wonder if that is going to happen in America. Given half a chance I think they wouldn take america that way and impose their views on everybody. Our court system is far from perfect but I am not convinced a supreme court modelled on the american one with political appointees is a good idea. You can't trust politicians.
If its going to happen in AMERICA! You can bet It will. Jesus Bush is in the house.
Gay marriage
telaquapaky :-6
Indeed were it that simple but it is not.
The word abomination is not a translation for the word sin. A close reading of Leviticus will inicate many other places where it was used. It was also an abonination to eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different fabrics. Such an interpretation from Leviticus is simply not possitle.
As far a Romans goes it refers to natural which is of course inplying the opposity of "unatural". This does not refer to something as a sin nor does it call such behaviour as a sin. Scientific researchers have as noted before that homese
xuality is part of the ontology of the person. Just because some don't like the results of the scientific research is simply no reason to play word games.
Science has shown that homosexual behaviour is a very natural sexual expression among many creatures not just humans.
Now let me see, we no longer stone recalcitrant children though the Bible does give us permission to , we eat shellfish even thought the Bible calls it an abomination, we wear clothing of many fabrics even though the Bible calls it an abomination, we no longer stone prostitutes even though that was the law back then., many of us eat "unclean" foods in spite of the Biblical directives to do otherwise.
The point is rather simple. We must learn to use the God given intelligence that we have to discern what is really of concern to God the Father and not play the silly games of literalism. We must learn to interpret the OT in light of the NT and we must learn to interpret the sacred writings in light of the profound fund of knowledge that God has allowed to to accumulate to this day.
Present day scholars have gone through the Bible word for word and phrase for phrase and concluded that there is in fact no Biblical edict against homosexuality. There is however and edict against promiscuity which has as much to do with heterosexuality as it does homosexuality.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Indeed were it that simple but it is not.
The word abomination is not a translation for the word sin. A close reading of Leviticus will inicate many other places where it was used. It was also an abonination to eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different fabrics. Such an interpretation from Leviticus is simply not possitle.
As far a Romans goes it refers to natural which is of course inplying the opposity of "unatural". This does not refer to something as a sin nor does it call such behaviour as a sin. Scientific researchers have as noted before that homese
xuality is part of the ontology of the person. Just because some don't like the results of the scientific research is simply no reason to play word games.
Science has shown that homosexual behaviour is a very natural sexual expression among many creatures not just humans.
Now let me see, we no longer stone recalcitrant children though the Bible does give us permission to , we eat shellfish even thought the Bible calls it an abomination, we wear clothing of many fabrics even though the Bible calls it an abomination, we no longer stone prostitutes even though that was the law back then., many of us eat "unclean" foods in spite of the Biblical directives to do otherwise.
The point is rather simple. We must learn to use the God given intelligence that we have to discern what is really of concern to God the Father and not play the silly games of literalism. We must learn to interpret the OT in light of the NT and we must learn to interpret the sacred writings in light of the profound fund of knowledge that God has allowed to to accumulate to this day.
Present day scholars have gone through the Bible word for word and phrase for phrase and concluded that there is in fact no Biblical edict against homosexuality. There is however and edict against promiscuity which has as much to do with heterosexuality as it does homosexuality.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
i guess i'll take it point by point:
gnr2 wrote: Anastrophe, i have been reading your posts and threads, and am somewhat confused by them, i have been striving to determine the exact nature of your arguments, perhaps even to categorise them, but as yet i have been unsuccessfull, then i thought perhaps you were an academic, a political scholar and so felt yourself above expressing and opinion and so sought to explain and contradict through logic and fact, although i am not convinced this is the case.i'm not an academic, i'm a college dropout. i'm not a political scholar, although i play one on the tiny TV in my head (i seem to have misplaced my tinfoil hat). i regularly, routinely, and quite often abrasively express my opinions here. i also routinely use logic and fact to try to counter opinions i disagree with - while at other times brazenly engaging in pure rhetoric for the sake of effect.
Your analysis of some other memerbs threads is detailed although i am sure not correct,well, most things discussed on forumgarden are in the realm of opinion, so "correct" is, uh, a matter of opinion.
however, your own posts have on occasion been inaccurateno doubt.
- for example claining America is not a democracy- what do you mean- it is not a direct democracy as switzerland, however, this does not mean that it is not "rule by all".the united states is not a democracy. it is a federal republic. it's really quite simple. democracy stinks, quite frankly. it's a shame it has been conflated to mean equality, diversity, tolerance, individual freedom, when it is none of the above.
Your stance on gay marriage is also suprising, although i agreee with it, what angle are you coming from?i'm not sure why it's surprising, unless you are presuming that because i express some opinions that cleave to the right, that i'm therefore on the right. which is a not unreasonable assumption to make, but an assumption it is. i consider myself to be a Classical Liberal, that is, completely unlike what is commonly referred to as a liberal today. think 'democratic party, 1950's'. Classical Liberals believe in the expansion of personal liberty, and tight restriction on the power of the state. neo-liberal thinking is of the sort that personal liberty is dandy if it falls within certain hideously warped ideological underpinnings, and that the power of the state should be *expanded* to "enforce" those liberties upon others.
another way to interpret my ideology: you've certainly heard of Libertarians. these days, a lot of folks refer to themselves as "small 'l' libertarians" - primarily to distinguish themselves form the tinfoil hat crowd that populates the formal Libertarian party. i might be characterized as a "micro 'l' and only for the sake of argument libertarian".
i believe me stance on gay marriage is consistent, and clear: the state should not, and cannot by definition, "sanctify" a marriage. only as a matter of faith, and culture, are people married. if the state is to ban gay marriage, then the state to remain consistent must ban straight marriage - by that meaning that the state get the hell out of the 'marriage license' business, and switch to providing civil union certificates to any and all consenting adults who wish to cohabitate.
the church - whichever church/faith - may choose not to consecrate gay marriages at their pleasure. marriage, being a matter of culture and faith, is within their purview, thus, if bob's new methodist and shinto baptist congregation chooses not to join in matrimony two people of the same sex, then by all means, they don't have to. if the first baptist church of berkeley chooses to consecrate the marriage of two people of the same sex, and the congregants affirm so, then they may do so, and wed those two people in the eyes of god, as they interpret their faith.
the county clerk, working 9am to 4:30pm in a dank, fluorescent lit office on the third floor of city hall, with his deeply held convictions in the sanctity of his state seal generating machine and form 10443-83g, and working at the pleasure of the people who pay the taxes to support him suckling at the government teat, shall be compelled to issue a civil union certificate to any and all consenting adults who wish to cohabitate, and send to the recycler all form 88981-b marriage certificate forms, since the government, again by definition, is incapable of sanctifying people in holy matrimony.
how more simply can i state my opinion?
now, where's that tinfoil hat..... :yh_bigsmi
gnr2 wrote: Anastrophe, i have been reading your posts and threads, and am somewhat confused by them, i have been striving to determine the exact nature of your arguments, perhaps even to categorise them, but as yet i have been unsuccessfull, then i thought perhaps you were an academic, a political scholar and so felt yourself above expressing and opinion and so sought to explain and contradict through logic and fact, although i am not convinced this is the case.i'm not an academic, i'm a college dropout. i'm not a political scholar, although i play one on the tiny TV in my head (i seem to have misplaced my tinfoil hat). i regularly, routinely, and quite often abrasively express my opinions here. i also routinely use logic and fact to try to counter opinions i disagree with - while at other times brazenly engaging in pure rhetoric for the sake of effect.
Your analysis of some other memerbs threads is detailed although i am sure not correct,well, most things discussed on forumgarden are in the realm of opinion, so "correct" is, uh, a matter of opinion.
however, your own posts have on occasion been inaccurateno doubt.
- for example claining America is not a democracy- what do you mean- it is not a direct democracy as switzerland, however, this does not mean that it is not "rule by all".the united states is not a democracy. it is a federal republic. it's really quite simple. democracy stinks, quite frankly. it's a shame it has been conflated to mean equality, diversity, tolerance, individual freedom, when it is none of the above.
Your stance on gay marriage is also suprising, although i agreee with it, what angle are you coming from?i'm not sure why it's surprising, unless you are presuming that because i express some opinions that cleave to the right, that i'm therefore on the right. which is a not unreasonable assumption to make, but an assumption it is. i consider myself to be a Classical Liberal, that is, completely unlike what is commonly referred to as a liberal today. think 'democratic party, 1950's'. Classical Liberals believe in the expansion of personal liberty, and tight restriction on the power of the state. neo-liberal thinking is of the sort that personal liberty is dandy if it falls within certain hideously warped ideological underpinnings, and that the power of the state should be *expanded* to "enforce" those liberties upon others.
another way to interpret my ideology: you've certainly heard of Libertarians. these days, a lot of folks refer to themselves as "small 'l' libertarians" - primarily to distinguish themselves form the tinfoil hat crowd that populates the formal Libertarian party. i might be characterized as a "micro 'l' and only for the sake of argument libertarian".
i believe me stance on gay marriage is consistent, and clear: the state should not, and cannot by definition, "sanctify" a marriage. only as a matter of faith, and culture, are people married. if the state is to ban gay marriage, then the state to remain consistent must ban straight marriage - by that meaning that the state get the hell out of the 'marriage license' business, and switch to providing civil union certificates to any and all consenting adults who wish to cohabitate.
the church - whichever church/faith - may choose not to consecrate gay marriages at their pleasure. marriage, being a matter of culture and faith, is within their purview, thus, if bob's new methodist and shinto baptist congregation chooses not to join in matrimony two people of the same sex, then by all means, they don't have to. if the first baptist church of berkeley chooses to consecrate the marriage of two people of the same sex, and the congregants affirm so, then they may do so, and wed those two people in the eyes of god, as they interpret their faith.
the county clerk, working 9am to 4:30pm in a dank, fluorescent lit office on the third floor of city hall, with his deeply held convictions in the sanctity of his state seal generating machine and form 10443-83g, and working at the pleasure of the people who pay the taxes to support him suckling at the government teat, shall be compelled to issue a civil union certificate to any and all consenting adults who wish to cohabitate, and send to the recycler all form 88981-b marriage certificate forms, since the government, again by definition, is incapable of sanctifying people in holy matrimony.
how more simply can i state my opinion?
now, where's that tinfoil hat..... :yh_bigsmi
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
Gentlegiant...hello and welcome to FG! i hope you will post often and enjoy being here. 
Gay marriage
Hi GentleGiant! Welcome! Hope you enjoy your stay in FG! :yh_peace
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Gay marriage
Welcome GentleGiant.
Let me assure you that I am not assured by your analysis of origins of homosexual behaviour. There are a lot of people in the world and you may have oddly met only those homosexuals who fit your description but I have known homosexuals who do not. Some people are born with a natural attraction to the same gender.
I do, however, agree that there should be more and better resource and recovery centres for sexual abuse survivors. I also agree that we should be allowed to decide where our tax dollars go when they are being collected. Tick the box for the services you wish to fund then present your "donation" card when you wish to use the service. Non-donators pay more.
Let me assure you that I am not assured by your analysis of origins of homosexual behaviour. There are a lot of people in the world and you may have oddly met only those homosexuals who fit your description but I have known homosexuals who do not. Some people are born with a natural attraction to the same gender.
I do, however, agree that there should be more and better resource and recovery centres for sexual abuse survivors. I also agree that we should be allowed to decide where our tax dollars go when they are being collected. Tick the box for the services you wish to fund then present your "donation" card when you wish to use the service. Non-donators pay more.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
This post has bothered me for a bit, so i'm going to respond to get it out of my system.
gentlegiant333 wrote: The debate(s) abought gay marraige always exclude what the gay lifestyle really contains and what kind of behaviors are performed etc. Do you also exclude the behaviors that heterosexuals engage in, that are virtually the same as those some gays engage in? That is, anonymous sex, group sex, anal sex, oral sex, foot fetishes, hair fetishes, bondage & discipline, sadomasochism, etc?
heterosexuals engage in those activities. homosexuals engage in those activities. curiously, those activities that generate approbation regarding gays are ....overlooked... with regard to your fellow heterosexuals. if you take umbrage with their activities, then you should take umbrage at those same activities engaged in by heterosexuals. however, that rather cancels out that umbrage having anything at all to do specifically with homosexuals.
Before elaborating on this statement I wish to assure you that homosexuals are not born homosexual but become such due to childhood unmet needs, irregardless as to whether this is percieved or is reality, in the case of these individuals in question. poppycock. you 'assure' me of nothing. i have childhood unmet needs, yet i'm a heterosexual. are you saying certain specific unmet needs 'create' a homosexual? if so, what do you deem those needs to be? i'd love an elucidation, as i doubt it can stand on its own.
the question of whether one is born with a particular sexual inclination is as yet undetermined. as yet no 'gay gene' has been found - but human sexual desire is so poorly understood that looking for same may prove fruitless, if i may be granted a lame pun.
a person's *actions* with regard to their sexual inclinations *are* chosen. this is patently true, and should be obvious. one can choose to be celibate. choosing celibacy, as many priests do, means that they are denying their sexuality - their desire for sexual intercourse et al. The mistaken leap often taken is that therefore homosexuals 'choose' to be homosexuals. that it is a 'lifestyle' or other such nonsense. What makes one attracted to another person is impossible to define. Whether men are attracted to women, or women attracted to men, God only knows what drives that. There have been men i've met or seen in my life who i found absolutely beautiful. I didn't have a desire to have sex with them, but i was definitely 'attracted' to them - hell, beautiful people are beautiful people, and it is a pleasure to gaze upon any beautiful human being, whichever gender. A homosexual can certainly choose not to engage in homosexual activity, just as a heterosexual can certainly choose not to engage in heterosexual activity. *most* people however choose to engage their sexuality. i do. you probably do. several billion others on this little blue and green orb also appear to do so, with relish. Why should a homosexual be expected to deny their sexuality more than anyone else? God created homosexuals, as he created heterosexuals. Even if you don't agree that God created homosexuals - God then certainly created within them the sexual desire for others of the same gender.
Consequently, the legalising of homosexual unions and/or marraiges is like a doctor who is continually prescribing pain killers to ease the pain provoked by a toothache of a given patient instead of insisting that the patient see the dentist to have the cavity filled! what a terrible metaphor. The legalizing of homosexual unions and/or marriages is like a heterosexual person who loves another heterosexual person choosing to commit to that person for life, in a celebration of the beauty of Love between two human beings.
clearly, you view homosexuality as a disease (cavity). I view people who stick their noses into other people's business, where they have no right to do so, and who are not being directly harmed by those other people's business, to be a disease on humanity.
Though homosexuals have the potential to love each other this love cannot be expressed through sexuality irregardless of how good it feels, because, in engaging in homosexual sexuality they are taking advantage of each other's childhood unmet needs (percieved or real). this is just getting downright weird. it makes no sense. homosexuals have the potential to Love each other, period. No more so, no less so, than their heterosexual brothers and sisters. They are God's children, and they can choose to love. I will continue to remind people that the first gay couple married in san francisco just short of a year ago were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. You're to tell me this is not Love? balderdash.
This is selfish. In 1st Corinthians chapter13 verse 5 one reads that love does not seek its'own but seeks the best for the other. The best in this case is the counsel to help the homosexual discover what made him/her homosexual and to guide the person back to hetrosexuality irregardless as to how long the individuals have bee living together!and you determined that's what's best, how? does the bible say to do that? nonsense. "Love does not seek its own but seeks the best for the other". Then show your Christian Love for your fellow human being, and allow those two human beings to follow their *own* path to Love. *You* do not decide for your fellow man or woman how they should Love, or whom they should Love. What is best for the other, is to let the other Love however they choose to Love. Or have you something against Love? I thought that God was Love?
I consider Love to be one of the most beautiful words in the world, and one of the most beautiful parts of being in this world. One of my two brothers is a complete arsehole, but i Love him nonetheless. I can love him, though he may not Love me back - how incredible is that? Love is a remarkable force in the world. Our job as humans is to *encourage* Love. To *foster* Love. To fertilize this loamy forumgarden soil with Love!
oh, sure, i don't *always* spread the love. few things are more annoying than people who spout off about Love at every damned turn. few things are more annoying than people who spout off about how *some* people should not be allowed to Love each other the way they want to because they disapprove of those other people.
What I find personallyappalling, is up here in Canada the Prime Minister is eager to render homosexual marraiges legal and is using my tax dollars to accomplish this agenda. I wonder what would happen if I was to ask him to give me some of those dollars back so that I could get the help I might need to get me back to being hetrosexual....the way I was until I reached thirty-seven years of age.wait. wait one second here. you're telling me you're homosexual? and yet you spew this castigation of homosexuals and their behavior, and their ability to love, and you are homosexual?
It sounds to me like you have a serious problem with your ability to love *yourself*. In my opinion, it sounds like you're being brainwashed by christian fundamentalists into believing that somehow you are defective for being who you are. I find that appalling, and very, very sad.
So, in closing, those who are for homosexual marraige a:) are very unfamiliar with the homosexual lifestyle.false. the 'homosexual lifestyle' is a catchall with little meaning. what is the 'heterosexual lifestyle'? is it really a lifestyle, what one chooses to do with one's own genitalia? if i ponder my navel, is that a 'navel lifestyle'? i'm left-handed. do i have a 'left-handed lifestyle'? say there...did i choose to be left-handed? i know, absolutely, that i could be trained to be right-handed. lots of lefties were forcibly retrained to be right-handed as children, in the not too distant past. causes extraordinary cognitive and learning problems. forcing someone to be what they aren't is wrong. (oh, and christ almighty, let's not get into 'well, should we let murderers just 'be themselves''? no, of course not. any way of living that *harms others* is a priori not an acceptable way of living. homosexuals don't harm me in any way by being homosexuals).
b:) have bought into the lies of the homosexuals who want to portray themselves as the same as the hetrosexuals accept for their choice of a sexual partner of the same gender as themselves. where is the lie? they are men and women, fellow human beings, working their way through this veil of tears, like you and me. existence is hard enough on its own - being told one is evil for Loving because it is different from other's way of Loving certainly does not ease the burden of living.
They want us to accept them as they are I was told by a church member at my church, to which I responded they don't want to describe the activities they engage in when they "cruise" or where they cruise, etc., so how can we "accept them as they are?" see above re heterosexual activity. some people, regardless or gender, and regardless of sexual orientation, engage in 'cruising' and other forms of sexuality that are bothersome to some people. as long as the activity is consensual, it is Nobody's Business But Their Own.
In summing things up the homosexual life style is not synonomous with the hetrosexual lifestyle. Therefore, it is not morally or psychologically sound to legalise homosexual marraiges or unions.In my summation, if you are indeed as you describe above, a person who discovered his true sexuality to be homosexual at the age of 37, and yet you deny that and are willing to damn others for being so, then you need some serious help. Not to turn you back into a good heterosexual, but to learn to Love yourself for who you are. And to not judge others for how they choose to Love.
Homosexuals who want to join together in a bond to one another, are not harming you, or anyone else. They are following their hearts. This is a good thing. Love is to be encouraged. Jesus commands us to do so.
Cast off your hatred. Let others Love one another as they wish. Let yourself Love yourself. The more Love in the world, the better. Period.
Happy Two Days Before Valentine's Day.
gentlegiant333 wrote: The debate(s) abought gay marraige always exclude what the gay lifestyle really contains and what kind of behaviors are performed etc. Do you also exclude the behaviors that heterosexuals engage in, that are virtually the same as those some gays engage in? That is, anonymous sex, group sex, anal sex, oral sex, foot fetishes, hair fetishes, bondage & discipline, sadomasochism, etc?
heterosexuals engage in those activities. homosexuals engage in those activities. curiously, those activities that generate approbation regarding gays are ....overlooked... with regard to your fellow heterosexuals. if you take umbrage with their activities, then you should take umbrage at those same activities engaged in by heterosexuals. however, that rather cancels out that umbrage having anything at all to do specifically with homosexuals.
Before elaborating on this statement I wish to assure you that homosexuals are not born homosexual but become such due to childhood unmet needs, irregardless as to whether this is percieved or is reality, in the case of these individuals in question. poppycock. you 'assure' me of nothing. i have childhood unmet needs, yet i'm a heterosexual. are you saying certain specific unmet needs 'create' a homosexual? if so, what do you deem those needs to be? i'd love an elucidation, as i doubt it can stand on its own.
the question of whether one is born with a particular sexual inclination is as yet undetermined. as yet no 'gay gene' has been found - but human sexual desire is so poorly understood that looking for same may prove fruitless, if i may be granted a lame pun.
a person's *actions* with regard to their sexual inclinations *are* chosen. this is patently true, and should be obvious. one can choose to be celibate. choosing celibacy, as many priests do, means that they are denying their sexuality - their desire for sexual intercourse et al. The mistaken leap often taken is that therefore homosexuals 'choose' to be homosexuals. that it is a 'lifestyle' or other such nonsense. What makes one attracted to another person is impossible to define. Whether men are attracted to women, or women attracted to men, God only knows what drives that. There have been men i've met or seen in my life who i found absolutely beautiful. I didn't have a desire to have sex with them, but i was definitely 'attracted' to them - hell, beautiful people are beautiful people, and it is a pleasure to gaze upon any beautiful human being, whichever gender. A homosexual can certainly choose not to engage in homosexual activity, just as a heterosexual can certainly choose not to engage in heterosexual activity. *most* people however choose to engage their sexuality. i do. you probably do. several billion others on this little blue and green orb also appear to do so, with relish. Why should a homosexual be expected to deny their sexuality more than anyone else? God created homosexuals, as he created heterosexuals. Even if you don't agree that God created homosexuals - God then certainly created within them the sexual desire for others of the same gender.
Consequently, the legalising of homosexual unions and/or marraiges is like a doctor who is continually prescribing pain killers to ease the pain provoked by a toothache of a given patient instead of insisting that the patient see the dentist to have the cavity filled! what a terrible metaphor. The legalizing of homosexual unions and/or marriages is like a heterosexual person who loves another heterosexual person choosing to commit to that person for life, in a celebration of the beauty of Love between two human beings.
clearly, you view homosexuality as a disease (cavity). I view people who stick their noses into other people's business, where they have no right to do so, and who are not being directly harmed by those other people's business, to be a disease on humanity.
Though homosexuals have the potential to love each other this love cannot be expressed through sexuality irregardless of how good it feels, because, in engaging in homosexual sexuality they are taking advantage of each other's childhood unmet needs (percieved or real). this is just getting downright weird. it makes no sense. homosexuals have the potential to Love each other, period. No more so, no less so, than their heterosexual brothers and sisters. They are God's children, and they can choose to love. I will continue to remind people that the first gay couple married in san francisco just short of a year ago were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. You're to tell me this is not Love? balderdash.
This is selfish. In 1st Corinthians chapter13 verse 5 one reads that love does not seek its'own but seeks the best for the other. The best in this case is the counsel to help the homosexual discover what made him/her homosexual and to guide the person back to hetrosexuality irregardless as to how long the individuals have bee living together!and you determined that's what's best, how? does the bible say to do that? nonsense. "Love does not seek its own but seeks the best for the other". Then show your Christian Love for your fellow human being, and allow those two human beings to follow their *own* path to Love. *You* do not decide for your fellow man or woman how they should Love, or whom they should Love. What is best for the other, is to let the other Love however they choose to Love. Or have you something against Love? I thought that God was Love?
I consider Love to be one of the most beautiful words in the world, and one of the most beautiful parts of being in this world. One of my two brothers is a complete arsehole, but i Love him nonetheless. I can love him, though he may not Love me back - how incredible is that? Love is a remarkable force in the world. Our job as humans is to *encourage* Love. To *foster* Love. To fertilize this loamy forumgarden soil with Love!
oh, sure, i don't *always* spread the love. few things are more annoying than people who spout off about Love at every damned turn. few things are more annoying than people who spout off about how *some* people should not be allowed to Love each other the way they want to because they disapprove of those other people.
What I find personallyappalling, is up here in Canada the Prime Minister is eager to render homosexual marraiges legal and is using my tax dollars to accomplish this agenda. I wonder what would happen if I was to ask him to give me some of those dollars back so that I could get the help I might need to get me back to being hetrosexual....the way I was until I reached thirty-seven years of age.wait. wait one second here. you're telling me you're homosexual? and yet you spew this castigation of homosexuals and their behavior, and their ability to love, and you are homosexual?
It sounds to me like you have a serious problem with your ability to love *yourself*. In my opinion, it sounds like you're being brainwashed by christian fundamentalists into believing that somehow you are defective for being who you are. I find that appalling, and very, very sad.
So, in closing, those who are for homosexual marraige a:) are very unfamiliar with the homosexual lifestyle.false. the 'homosexual lifestyle' is a catchall with little meaning. what is the 'heterosexual lifestyle'? is it really a lifestyle, what one chooses to do with one's own genitalia? if i ponder my navel, is that a 'navel lifestyle'? i'm left-handed. do i have a 'left-handed lifestyle'? say there...did i choose to be left-handed? i know, absolutely, that i could be trained to be right-handed. lots of lefties were forcibly retrained to be right-handed as children, in the not too distant past. causes extraordinary cognitive and learning problems. forcing someone to be what they aren't is wrong. (oh, and christ almighty, let's not get into 'well, should we let murderers just 'be themselves''? no, of course not. any way of living that *harms others* is a priori not an acceptable way of living. homosexuals don't harm me in any way by being homosexuals).
b:) have bought into the lies of the homosexuals who want to portray themselves as the same as the hetrosexuals accept for their choice of a sexual partner of the same gender as themselves. where is the lie? they are men and women, fellow human beings, working their way through this veil of tears, like you and me. existence is hard enough on its own - being told one is evil for Loving because it is different from other's way of Loving certainly does not ease the burden of living.
They want us to accept them as they are I was told by a church member at my church, to which I responded they don't want to describe the activities they engage in when they "cruise" or where they cruise, etc., so how can we "accept them as they are?" see above re heterosexual activity. some people, regardless or gender, and regardless of sexual orientation, engage in 'cruising' and other forms of sexuality that are bothersome to some people. as long as the activity is consensual, it is Nobody's Business But Their Own.
In summing things up the homosexual life style is not synonomous with the hetrosexual lifestyle. Therefore, it is not morally or psychologically sound to legalise homosexual marraiges or unions.In my summation, if you are indeed as you describe above, a person who discovered his true sexuality to be homosexual at the age of 37, and yet you deny that and are willing to damn others for being so, then you need some serious help. Not to turn you back into a good heterosexual, but to learn to Love yourself for who you are. And to not judge others for how they choose to Love.
Homosexuals who want to join together in a bond to one another, are not harming you, or anyone else. They are following their hearts. This is a good thing. Love is to be encouraged. Jesus commands us to do so.
Cast off your hatred. Let others Love one another as they wish. Let yourself Love yourself. The more Love in the world, the better. Period.
Happy Two Days Before Valentine's Day.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
So, since you can now determine the personal welfare and individual rights of those in their personal home that poses no immediate and direct harm to others by using some whacked out philosophy, I am curious to when God will be returning from vacation? Hey, lets kill eveyone who has an abortion too! Outlaw abortion and then kill the criminals that do in anyhow.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
So, since you can now determine the personal welfare and individual rights of those in their personal home that poses no immediate and direct harm to others by using some whacked out philosophy, I am curious to when God will be returning from vacation? Hey, lets kill eveyone who has an abortion too! Outlaw abortion and then kill the criminals that do in anyhow.
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
Gay marriage
anastrophe :-6
Very well put.
What Gentlegiant says is simply not supported by the scientific and medical research. It is simply untrue.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Very well put.
What Gentlegiant says is simply not supported by the scientific and medical research. It is simply untrue.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
Hello and Welcome to FG,
can't say I go along with all you say here.
can't say I go along with all you say here.
Gay marriage
Very well put anastrophe
posted by gentlegiant
Though homosexuals have the potential to love each other this love cannot be expressed through sexuality irregardless of how good it feels, because, in engaging in homosexual sexuality they are taking advantage of each other's childhood unmet needs (percieved or real). This is selfish. In 1st Corinthians chapter13 verse 5 one reads that love does not seek its'own but seeks the best for the other. The best in this case is the counsel to help the homosexual discover what made him/her homosexual and to guide the person back to hetrosexuality irregardless as to how long the individuals have bee living together!
What bothers me about a lot of the posts like this is the breathtaking assumption that only fundamental christians and those that think like them know god's will and understand christ's teachings, therefore only they have the right to make judgements for him.
posted by gentlegiant
Though homosexuals have the potential to love each other this love cannot be expressed through sexuality irregardless of how good it feels, because, in engaging in homosexual sexuality they are taking advantage of each other's childhood unmet needs (percieved or real). This is selfish. In 1st Corinthians chapter13 verse 5 one reads that love does not seek its'own but seeks the best for the other. The best in this case is the counsel to help the homosexual discover what made him/her homosexual and to guide the person back to hetrosexuality irregardless as to how long the individuals have bee living together!
What bothers me about a lot of the posts like this is the breathtaking assumption that only fundamental christians and those that think like them know god's will and understand christ's teachings, therefore only they have the right to make judgements for him.
Gay marriage
We are all human beings, nothing more and nothing less, and therefore entitled to the exact same set of rights.
anastrophe wrote: any way of living that *harms others* is a priori not an acceptable way of living. homosexuals don't harm me in any way by being homosexuals).
In saying "harm me" do you mean physical harm? Because some people would argue that they are caused psychological harm by being exposed to what they perceive as immoral behavior. I don't subscribe to that train of thought but just wondered what you might think.
anastrophe wrote: see above re heterosexual activity. some people, regardless or gender, and regardless of sexual orientation, engage in 'cruising' and other forms of sexuality that are bothersome to some people. as long as the activity is consensual, it is Nobody's Business But Their Own.
Off the subject, do you think prostitution falls into this category? As far as not harming others and it being consensual? And I don't mean exploitation of women (or men) at another's hands, I mean if a woman or man chooses to engage in that type of behavior with no coercion or outside influence? I hope that doesn't sound stupid, it was just something that occured to me as I read some of the posts. :-3
anastrophe wrote: any way of living that *harms others* is a priori not an acceptable way of living. homosexuals don't harm me in any way by being homosexuals).
In saying "harm me" do you mean physical harm? Because some people would argue that they are caused psychological harm by being exposed to what they perceive as immoral behavior. I don't subscribe to that train of thought but just wondered what you might think.
anastrophe wrote: see above re heterosexual activity. some people, regardless or gender, and regardless of sexual orientation, engage in 'cruising' and other forms of sexuality that are bothersome to some people. as long as the activity is consensual, it is Nobody's Business But Their Own.
Off the subject, do you think prostitution falls into this category? As far as not harming others and it being consensual? And I don't mean exploitation of women (or men) at another's hands, I mean if a woman or man chooses to engage in that type of behavior with no coercion or outside influence? I hope that doesn't sound stupid, it was just something that occured to me as I read some of the posts. :-3"A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle." -James Keller
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
Gay marriage
gmc :-6
Good point re fundamentalism.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Good point re fundamentalism.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
Enigma wrote: We are all human beings, nothing more and nothing less, and therefore entitled to the exact same set of rights.
In saying "harm me" do you mean physical harm? Because some people would argue that they are caused psychological harm by being exposed to what they perceive as immoral behavior. I don't subscribe to that train of thought but just wondered what you might think.
the question is, what behavior are they being exposed to? unless they're actually in the bedroom while sexual activity is, uh, in progress, then what harmful behaviors are they being exposed to? two men kissing? that's harmful? a gay cross-dresser? women's clothing on a man, yes, that'll scar someone for life.
i think more often than not the 'psychological harm' card is played in the same mindset as our ridiculously litigous culture has people suing mcdonald's for their being obese. personal responsibility seems to be out of fashion. frankly, i consider the notion that someone would sue mcdonalds on those grounds to be offensive, immoral behavior, and i don't want to be exposed to it!
:o Off the subject, do you think prostitution falls into this category? As far as not harming others and it being consensual? And I don't mean exploitation of women (or men) at another's hands, I mean if a woman or man chooses to engage in that type of behavior with no coercion or outside influence? I hope that doesn't sound stupid, it was just something that occured to me as I read some of the posts. :-3
it's an interesting question, but i really think i'd rather reserve comment for a different thread....gay marriage is a big enough topic as it is!
In saying "harm me" do you mean physical harm? Because some people would argue that they are caused psychological harm by being exposed to what they perceive as immoral behavior. I don't subscribe to that train of thought but just wondered what you might think.
the question is, what behavior are they being exposed to? unless they're actually in the bedroom while sexual activity is, uh, in progress, then what harmful behaviors are they being exposed to? two men kissing? that's harmful? a gay cross-dresser? women's clothing on a man, yes, that'll scar someone for life.
i think more often than not the 'psychological harm' card is played in the same mindset as our ridiculously litigous culture has people suing mcdonald's for their being obese. personal responsibility seems to be out of fashion. frankly, i consider the notion that someone would sue mcdonalds on those grounds to be offensive, immoral behavior, and i don't want to be exposed to it!
:o Off the subject, do you think prostitution falls into this category? As far as not harming others and it being consensual? And I don't mean exploitation of women (or men) at another's hands, I mean if a woman or man chooses to engage in that type of behavior with no coercion or outside influence? I hope that doesn't sound stupid, it was just something that occured to me as I read some of the posts. :-3
it's an interesting question, but i really think i'd rather reserve comment for a different thread....gay marriage is a big enough topic as it is!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
Introduction of same sex marriage in Parliament. Ought to be interestingto see how the final vote turns out.
Gay marriage
Thought this might intrigue you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: frankly, i consider the notion that someone would sue mcdonalds on those grounds to be offensive, immoral behavior, and i don't want to be exposed to it! I agree!
anastophe wrote: it's an interesting question, but i really think i'd rather reserve comment for a different thread....gay marriage is a big enough topic as it is!Good enough.
anastophe wrote: it's an interesting question, but i really think i'd rather reserve comment for a different thread....gay marriage is a big enough topic as it is!Good enough.
"A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle." -James Keller
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
Say what you mean but don't say it mean. :yh_peace
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Gay marriage
Sexual orientation is not a choice. You do not wake up one day and say I am straight or I am gay. Okay.. that is fact. There is no evidence to support your statements. Legalization of gay marriage is about affording gay/lesbian couples the same rights and protections enjoyed by the general population. It is very simple if you think about it. The use of religous argument to prevent this from occuring is becoming very old. As Ted stated earlier in this thread, the bible doesn't say the homesexuality is a sin, and he seems to be extremely well versed in theology. Now, the statement that it would be important to legalize pedophelia if gay marriage becomes legal is totally and completely incomprehensable. To make that association is totally absurd. We are discussing the marriage of two consenting adults.. not a child rapist taking advantage of a minor. In fact that statement goes beyond the realm of civility. And to calm to know the real definition of love, from your comments I don't think you have found it yet.. or will ever find it. Good luck...
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
gentlegiant333 wrote: It is obviously wrong to deprive them of the right to marry. But they need the help necessary to become hetrosexual and be attracted to the opposite gender and want somebody of the opposite gender as a marraige partner.why?
Homosexuality is as a rule the result of childhood deficits.saying something is 'as a rule' does not make it so. where are you getting these 'rules'? this sounds like more fundamentalist christian propoganda.
When a young boy is mocked by his overly macho father because he is really sensitive and thus, is wrongly accused of being a failure to be, as a man, is prone to be at risk of becoming a homosexual.citations, please! this is random speculation in my opinion. i had extremely long hair as a teenager, and once - once - my father said 'you look like a girl'. it was one of the few times my father said something critical of me in my life, and cut me to the quick (and at 45, i still remember it, as you can see).
remarkably enough, it didn't 'turn me into' a homosexual, nor did it ever change my perception of other men. his hurtful statement didn't make me start thinking 'gee i think i'd like to sleep with men'.
so, "as a rule", i believe you're either making this stuff up as you go along, or you're just parrotting somebody's anti-homosexual propoganda.
A child who is in need of more attention than the other four or five children born before him/her is also at risk if the needed attention is not received. do you realize how many children your describing? homosexuals make up about ten percent of the population. you're asking us to believe that, oh, maybe half the population is "at risk". it's getting to be silly.
Therefore, where there is homosexuality there are childhood deficits as a rule.again, more essentially laughable proclamations. what is this from - "Why Johnny Turned Gay - A Fundamentalist Christian Treatise On Homosexuality and Other Perversions of God's Will"?
The end result of childhood deficits is by no means a guarrantee of becoming homosexual.well, i suppose i should at least give you credit for that.
Irregardless, homosexuals cannot express love to each other through sex because they are taking advantage of each others' childhood deficits. This is selfish. And according to Chorinthians13 love is not selfish. Thus, it is not edifying. ...but then you lapse back into the proclamations of what you believe real love is. I believe the definition of real love belongs within the heart of the person who is loving, and being loved.
"But, polititions have no right to legislate what goes on in the bedrooms of America!" It is important to be reminded that the debate in question is abought the legal definition of marraige. Not abought bedroom activities. If it were abought bedroom activities than it would be important to legalise pedophelia among other things...DING DING DING DING DING!!!! RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT!
ahem. Is a child capable of informed consent? The ability to make a rational decision uninfluenced by what persons larger, stronger, and older than them tell them? NO! A child cannot enter into a consensual sexual relationship with an adult, by definition. There is of course a large grey area, in the mid-teens, where everything gets horrible muddled by the child moving into adulthood, physically, but not necessarily emotionally. That's why most laws prohibit minors - those under 18 - from engaging in sexual relations, even though a pretty good majority do so before 18. By the same measure, children are not allowed to marry, either to other children, or to adults. This differs by country and culture, but for the sake of argument, i'm reserving this discussion to the U.S. (the above is a whole 'nuther' topic that could be discussed elsewhere!).
if only for the reason that this is America, we are free and thus should have the right to love who we want, how we want without interference from polititions! "The more love the better. Period." I cannot agree with these statements more. Especially the last one. The consequence of being loved by others their way was the driving force towards my turning towards homosexuality at the age of thirty-seven. I was tired of their way and no longer wanted to be loved as a consequence. My desires were conflicting as a consequence....between selfish ones and loving ones. It was only last year that I discovered the real definition of love and as a hetrosexual again am happier than ever. I therefore believe that the less love the better. Because, there is a lot of ignorance abought love. I, now like to encourage people to know what true love is before they search it, so as to know what to search.
Dougyou seem far too eager and willing to impose your definition of love onto others. if you were heterosexual, then became homosexual, then returned to heterosexuality, and are finally happy, in love, and at peace, then that's great, and i'm happy for you. Perhap you could allow within your heart the possibility that what is right for you, may not be right for others. Perhaps you could allow within your heart the possibility that there are those who are homosexual who are so not because of 'unmet childhood needs', but because they simply are homosexual in and of itself. Perhaps you could allow within your heart that the possibility that Love is not something that can be confined within anyone's narrow definition, but rather is outside of and unique from that which can be simply defined by our pathetically inadequate words, but rather resides in the heart, separate from intellect.
You would define love for another person? Then you would become the jailkeeper of their soul.
This Post Brought To You By Coffee.
Coffee - It Does A Body Good
:yh_coffee
Homosexuality is as a rule the result of childhood deficits.saying something is 'as a rule' does not make it so. where are you getting these 'rules'? this sounds like more fundamentalist christian propoganda.
When a young boy is mocked by his overly macho father because he is really sensitive and thus, is wrongly accused of being a failure to be, as a man, is prone to be at risk of becoming a homosexual.citations, please! this is random speculation in my opinion. i had extremely long hair as a teenager, and once - once - my father said 'you look like a girl'. it was one of the few times my father said something critical of me in my life, and cut me to the quick (and at 45, i still remember it, as you can see).
remarkably enough, it didn't 'turn me into' a homosexual, nor did it ever change my perception of other men. his hurtful statement didn't make me start thinking 'gee i think i'd like to sleep with men'.
so, "as a rule", i believe you're either making this stuff up as you go along, or you're just parrotting somebody's anti-homosexual propoganda.
A child who is in need of more attention than the other four or five children born before him/her is also at risk if the needed attention is not received. do you realize how many children your describing? homosexuals make up about ten percent of the population. you're asking us to believe that, oh, maybe half the population is "at risk". it's getting to be silly.
Therefore, where there is homosexuality there are childhood deficits as a rule.again, more essentially laughable proclamations. what is this from - "Why Johnny Turned Gay - A Fundamentalist Christian Treatise On Homosexuality and Other Perversions of God's Will"?
The end result of childhood deficits is by no means a guarrantee of becoming homosexual.well, i suppose i should at least give you credit for that.
Irregardless, homosexuals cannot express love to each other through sex because they are taking advantage of each others' childhood deficits. This is selfish. And according to Chorinthians13 love is not selfish. Thus, it is not edifying. ...but then you lapse back into the proclamations of what you believe real love is. I believe the definition of real love belongs within the heart of the person who is loving, and being loved.
"But, polititions have no right to legislate what goes on in the bedrooms of America!" It is important to be reminded that the debate in question is abought the legal definition of marraige. Not abought bedroom activities. If it were abought bedroom activities than it would be important to legalise pedophelia among other things...DING DING DING DING DING!!!! RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT!
ahem. Is a child capable of informed consent? The ability to make a rational decision uninfluenced by what persons larger, stronger, and older than them tell them? NO! A child cannot enter into a consensual sexual relationship with an adult, by definition. There is of course a large grey area, in the mid-teens, where everything gets horrible muddled by the child moving into adulthood, physically, but not necessarily emotionally. That's why most laws prohibit minors - those under 18 - from engaging in sexual relations, even though a pretty good majority do so before 18. By the same measure, children are not allowed to marry, either to other children, or to adults. This differs by country and culture, but for the sake of argument, i'm reserving this discussion to the U.S. (the above is a whole 'nuther' topic that could be discussed elsewhere!).
if only for the reason that this is America, we are free and thus should have the right to love who we want, how we want without interference from polititions! "The more love the better. Period." I cannot agree with these statements more. Especially the last one. The consequence of being loved by others their way was the driving force towards my turning towards homosexuality at the age of thirty-seven. I was tired of their way and no longer wanted to be loved as a consequence. My desires were conflicting as a consequence....between selfish ones and loving ones. It was only last year that I discovered the real definition of love and as a hetrosexual again am happier than ever. I therefore believe that the less love the better. Because, there is a lot of ignorance abought love. I, now like to encourage people to know what true love is before they search it, so as to know what to search.
Dougyou seem far too eager and willing to impose your definition of love onto others. if you were heterosexual, then became homosexual, then returned to heterosexuality, and are finally happy, in love, and at peace, then that's great, and i'm happy for you. Perhap you could allow within your heart the possibility that what is right for you, may not be right for others. Perhaps you could allow within your heart the possibility that there are those who are homosexual who are so not because of 'unmet childhood needs', but because they simply are homosexual in and of itself. Perhaps you could allow within your heart that the possibility that Love is not something that can be confined within anyone's narrow definition, but rather is outside of and unique from that which can be simply defined by our pathetically inadequate words, but rather resides in the heart, separate from intellect.
You would define love for another person? Then you would become the jailkeeper of their soul.
This Post Brought To You By Coffee.
Coffee - It Does A Body Good
:yh_coffee
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
Not to stir the pot or anything, but did you know that the same percentage of homosexuals can be found in ....get this...
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Gay marriage
Jives wrote: Not to stir the pot or anything, but did you know that the same percentage of homosexuals can be found in ....get this...
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
You are too funny dude.
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
You are too funny dude.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Gay marriage
Jives wrote: Not to stir the pot or anything, but did you know that the same percentage of homosexuals can be found in ....get this...
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
Oh ... this is even funnier than the attempts to justify any arguement against gay marriage by the religious right and the redneck contingent.. please.. I am gonna wet my pants.. I can't even pretend to know how to anwser this....
ALL MAMMALS?!!
that's right, 10% of all cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, mice, etc are homosexual. Interesting, eh?
Moreover, I always used to think that human brains were all the same. A man and a woman were certainly different outside, but the brains were identical..
wrong. A man's brain has certain structures in it that are not present in a woman's brain and vice versa.
So I wasn't too surprised when it was discovered that a homosexual man has structres from a woman's brain in his head.
Homosexuality is a birth defect. (Jives pulls up his body armor and prepares to meet the assualt)
Oh ... this is even funnier than the attempts to justify any arguement against gay marriage by the religious right and the redneck contingent.. please.. I am gonna wet my pants.. I can't even pretend to know how to anwser this....
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
Gay marriage
Hey! No really! I read that somewhere. A medical journal..I think...or was it the National Enqueerer?
yeah...umm...well...Hey, it made sense at the time. (I might have been drunk then, though.)
(jives slinks away quietly)
yeah...umm...well...Hey, it made sense at the time.
(I might have been drunk then, though.)(jives slinks away quietly)
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Gay marriage
Jives wrote: Hey! No really! I read that somewhere. A medical journal..I think...or was it the National Enqueerer?
yeah...umm...well...Hey, it made sense at the time. (I might have been drunk then, though.)
(jives slinks away quietly)
Yuh gotta watch that beer. It'll make you think funny things. I guess we'll just have to wait this out.
yeah...umm...well...Hey, it made sense at the time.
(I might have been drunk then, though.)(jives slinks away quietly)
Yuh gotta watch that beer. It'll make you think funny things. I guess we'll just have to wait this out.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Gay marriage
Jives, I'll save you from a lifetime of slinking...because I'm nice, and because slinking is horrid for your posture.
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Libra ... r20.26.htm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... dian2.html
1.BIG OLD SQUIGGLY THINGS. (cover story) By: Hsu, Caroline. U.S. News & World Report, 8/16/2004, Vol. 137 Issue 5, p66, 1p, 1bw; Abstract: Examines what is known about the giant squid. New clues to the squid's sex life which may include homosexuality, cannibalism and group sex; Mating rituals; Limits of knowledge which are due to the fact a giant squid has never been seen alive; Plans of Steve O'Shea, of the Auckland University of Technology, to try to tempt the invertebrate from the deep.; (AN 14072241)
See also USA Today, June 2004, Theory of Sexual Selection Needs Updating. I'll try to attach the pdf file below.
Attached files Mag Article.pdf (269.7 KB)
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Libra ... r20.26.htm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... dian2.html
1.BIG OLD SQUIGGLY THINGS. (cover story) By: Hsu, Caroline. U.S. News & World Report, 8/16/2004, Vol. 137 Issue 5, p66, 1p, 1bw; Abstract: Examines what is known about the giant squid. New clues to the squid's sex life which may include homosexuality, cannibalism and group sex; Mating rituals; Limits of knowledge which are due to the fact a giant squid has never been seen alive; Plans of Steve O'Shea, of the Auckland University of Technology, to try to tempt the invertebrate from the deep.; (AN 14072241)
See also USA Today, June 2004, Theory of Sexual Selection Needs Updating. I'll try to attach the pdf file below.
Attached files Mag Article.pdf (269.7 KB)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Gay marriage
Be patient if you try to open the pdf file. It takes a minute or two but it works.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Gay marriage
Yeah, that's something like it. I'm vindicated! (Well kinda..) Thanks AK!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Gay marriage
Let's all be glad we are not Giant Squids! 
You're welcome, Jives. Hope it helps a bit...though there are some things I'd rather not know about. Monkeys just aren't as cute when you picture them in compromising positions.
You're welcome, Jives. Hope it helps a bit...though there are some things I'd rather not know about. Monkeys just aren't as cute when you picture them in compromising positions.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Gay marriage
Jives wrote: Yeah, that's something like it. I'm vindicated! (Well kinda..) Thanks AK!
Does this mean that the wait isn't over yet? (head held in hand with a shaking in the shoulders)
Does this mean that the wait isn't over yet? (head held in hand with a shaking in the shoulders)
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
this is all dandy. the conclusion reached however was that this assorted evidence of 'female parts of the brain' in male homosexuals indicated that "Homosexuality is a birth defect".
homosexuals are about 10% of the human population, give or take. they can apparently live happy, fulfilled lives, and even enter into lifetime-long monogamous relationships. they do not all die of AIDS, or hepatitis, or whatever. hell, my high school AP english teacher in 1976, dear old nello carlini, was a 'confirmed bachelor' back then, and still kicking now (he was easily in his 40's when he was my instructor in 1976, so he's pushing 70 now).
so, as birth defects go, apparently it isn't terribly serious.
homosexuals are about 10% of the human population, give or take. they can apparently live happy, fulfilled lives, and even enter into lifetime-long monogamous relationships. they do not all die of AIDS, or hepatitis, or whatever. hell, my high school AP english teacher in 1976, dear old nello carlini, was a 'confirmed bachelor' back then, and still kicking now (he was easily in his 40's when he was my instructor in 1976, so he's pushing 70 now).
so, as birth defects go, apparently it isn't terribly serious.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]