When I listen to the radio I usually stick to a few trusted stations that I know play good music but every once in a while, the dial goes awry and I find myself listening in on the topic of gay marriage. Some say they're born gay; others deny the fact.
So what exactly is homosexuality and gay marriage? Why is it putting everyone in an uproar? Why is it so important to have a Constitutional amendment defining marriage?
Webster's New World dictionary defines a homosexual person as "of or characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as oneself." It goes on to define marriage - "the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony."
Last time I looked, a husband was male and a wife, female. So technically, there is no such thing as gay marriage. In the Bible, the first establishment God created was marriage. Genesis 1:24 clearly states, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Obviously, the latter part of this verse is referring to the intimate, sexual bond between a husband and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife. The first two people were Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. No, there is no such thing as gay marriage. Two people loving each other is not marriage because it is the loving union of a man and wife.
The subject puts people in an uproar because of many things. First, 'gay marriage' threatens the family. A family is made up of a husband, wife, and children - a model of the Biblical relationship between Jesus Christ and the church. Gay people adopting children perverts God's establishment by putting the children's minds in a warped environment. Two men or two women cannot raise kids in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" when they themselves are living in sin.
Second, gay partners think that they are entitled to the same rights as married couples. Take insurance for example. Homosexuals have a higher risk for developing diseases such as HIV and AIDS. The result? Insurance prices go up and hard working families have to pay higher premiums. That is not fair.
Third, gay marriage (and the whole lifestyle) is sinful. People are not born homosexual despite what they say. Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
God would not have stated that homosexuality is a sin and then create people that way. That would be like a murderer saying he couldn't help killing someone because that was how he was born. Humans have temptations, yes, but we do have self-control over what we do. No one forces us to act upon perverted, lustful feelings except ourselves. And it doesn't matter whether a person believes the Bible or not - it's 100% but that's a subject for another time. Homosexuals will be judged for their misdeeds one day.
People would also throw out the fact that Jesus was full of love and cared about people. This is true - Jesus loves every single person but not the sin we commit. Jesus never approved of our sinful lifestyles but he did come so that we might have eternal. Once again, I'm beginning to drift off subject so I will go back to the point.
And last, homosexual people become offended over what I just stated. No where in the Constitution does it say, "You have the right to not be offended." Homosexuals should be offended because they are living in sin.
Am I saying that there should be a law stating that no one is allowed to be homosexual? No, that would be an invasion of a person's free will. If a person chooses to be homosexual, so be it. Just don't ask to get married and expect the same benefits - you're not married, you can't have kids, end of story.
That's why there needs to be a law defining marriage. The sanctity of marriage and family needs to be protected against those who would try to corrupt and pervert the first institution of mankind.
Homosexuality is a choice. It is not fate not now, not ever. The practice of such a lifestyle is still *sinful and measures need to be taken now before this epidemic continues to spread. The only way to protect the future is to take care of problems now.
(edited by Fallon)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
This is from my original post (Homosexuality...born that way or not?)
First of all, homosexual and bisexual activity was very common before the Christ God ever came around, especially in ancient Greece. Some societies looked down upon it, but it wasn’t until the rapid spread of Christianity that homo and bisexuality was really seen as something terrible. Many historical figures of our times to include; Socrates, Michelangelo, Donatello, Alexander the Great and many others were said to have had sexual relations with people of the same sex. That doesn’t make it right or wrong to say the least, but it just goes to show that this isn’t something new that we’re dealing with today.
These practices have been going on all over the world and are still very much accepted in many places. When I was stationed in the Republic of South Korea, it was nothing to see guys walking around holding hands and whatnot. It was said that many men there in Korea usually had sexual relations with their best friends until it was time for them to marry. And then, the men would still remain friends, but they would no longer be “sexual” friends. I’ve heard that this still happens in many societies today.
For those of you (religious Right) who say “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, I must ask; what is your explanation when it comes to the animal kingdom? There are many species (especially social species) of animals that engage in same-sex activities / relations. Some of those include certain species of birds, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, monkeys, orangutans and many others. This discovery tells me that homo and bisexuality isn’t always a decision. The fact that homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom tells me that it is very possible that many people are born that way. Of course I believe that some people do indeed make the decision to be gay, but not 100% of the time. As well documented as homosexuality is in the animal kingdom; does it not make you wonder why God would create such animals? I mean what would be the point? Did God actually create gay or bisexual animals, but not intend for humans to be that way? I find that hard to believe and being that these animals do exist; then why is it so hard for people to accept homo and bisexual men and women?
I read an article, which stated that the Bonobo African Ape (which is very closely related to humans) has nonreproductive sex 75% of the time and almost all Bonobo Apes are bisexual. Another one worth mentioning are male dolphin calves. When dolphins are young, they are known to form temporary relationships (sexual) with other male dolphins. These relationships most of the time turn out to be lifelong friendships or bonds.
We as a society must get over the fact that not everyone makes the decision to become gay or bisexual and that it may just be the way they were born. The mere fact that homo and bisexuality exists in the animal kingdom should be more than enough proof that some people are just born that way.
Cases of animal homosexuality are now being brought into the court rooms to fight against states that ban gay marriage and whatnot. I’m not gay and obviously not Christian, but I hope that the animal kingdom will continue to be there to provide proof and to help the gay communities get what they deserve…their rights!
Tabias-
First of all, since you raised the point in your title, I feel compelled to addressed the point concerning Christians and intolerance. I believe this IS, at LEAST as much as every moderator weighing in on the topic said the original post was, a personal attack on the blogger. She is obviously a Christian, and you are calling her intolerant. But the powers that be probably overlooked that during this protracted "unpublished" status of this blog.
Second, the blogger never said that homosexuality was something new that we're dealing with today. Red Herring logic flaw. And of course, you made the point that I would have if you hadn't, that something being common doesn't make it right. I must preface my next statement by saying that I am drawing no correlation of action between the two groups mentioned in the following statement, only pointing out the error of making such a statement of "commonality" in the context of this discussion. Murder has been around since Cain. In fact, LONGER than homosexuality. In every society. Yet it remains socially unacceptable.
Third, while you say that it bears no relevance on the topic at hand, you go on to discuss an example of what you may see in South Korea. Yet this time, you failed to acknowledge that this has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. So I'll say it for you. It doesn't.
And now on to your "animals do it, so people can do it" argument. First of all, I would like to point out that the interpretation of what is seen in the animal kingdom is a matter of debate, and I believed it has been irrationally colored by researchers would would like to dissociate homosexuality from morality in humans. Consider the following:
"Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."
The credit for this quote, as well as the full text of the article can be found at: http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The article makes a lot of sense for those who read it with an open mind.
Even if you don't buy the above-referenced article as a correct interpretation of relevant animal behavior, it behooves you to consider the natural outcome of using animal behavior as an excuse or standard for human behavior. Why? Because it is a fact that a male lion will often kill and eat the cubs of another male to force the female into heat so that he can impregnate her with his own DNA. I don't think I need to tell anyone the repercussions THAT kind of behavior would have in the human world! (This is something my daughter actually thought of first, so I will give her credit for quick-thinking here, but she is asleep at the moment). The next realization was mine. How about the Black Widow, which promptly eats the male after she has mated with him? That sounds like something that humans should emulate, right?! What about the behavior of animals who will ignore and refuse to provide life-sustaining care to their own newborns if they are touched by a human being? We'd be in very big trouble with that one. And I think that I have sufficiently proven that while such behaviors in animals are thought-provoking, using them (including apparent "homosexual" behavior) to explain, rationalize, or standardize human behavior is a HUGE mistake. And it certainly does NOTHING whatsoever to prove that humans are born homosexual. Animal behavior proves NOTHING about human behavior. The fact that it is being used in courtrooms proves nothing, either, except that the petitioners are pro-homosexual and as misguided in their reasoning as the rest of the crowd that uses this argument.
Homosexuals ALREADY have the same rights as the rest of Americans. They have the right to marry, but they have chosen not to, but instead to pursue a homosexual relationship. What they WANT is to REDEFINE marriage, in order to get the recognition and benefits which they would otherwise NOT be entitled to, and that is what the majority of Americans reject.
Florida is the 4th most populous state in the country. This year, we had a successful ballot initiative to place a marriage amendment into the state constitution. Floridians collected more than the required number of signatures, and more than any other state in the country with a similar initiative, and the language of the amendment is very strong, leaving no room for ANYthing, including "civil unions" to be recognized in a way that is equal to marriage. In an unprecedented move, the elections commission undermined the will of the petitioners and at the last minute, ordered an audit of the signatures (remember, this was a PETITION, not a vote). Near the deadline, because of moves and the like, there was not enough time to verify all of the signatures, leaving the petition 22,000 short. HOWEVER, in a determined effort to restore the amendment proposal to this November's ballot, volunteers went house to house. In a matter of a few days, more than 37,000 signatures were collected. This proposal WILL be on November's ballot, and we will see what the miniature melting pot has to say about the issue of gay "marriage."
Kim
I think not. The original blog above was edited to remove clear violations of this website's terms of service, and the reasons for this have been explained to you...at length. You can keep beating the dead horse all you wish, but it won't change the fact that ProU has rules, and that your daughter broke them and was censured appropriately.
The obvious flaw in your frankly offensive comparison between homosexuality and murder is that a murder harms another human, inherently depriving that human of their very life. Homosexuality, however, inherently harms no one. There is a rational basis for limiting murder. There is no similar rational basis for limiting homosexuality.
Your comment in this case is a canard. This partiuclar point generally arises in response to a comment from a religious person who claims that homosexuality is "unnatural." The reasonable response is, of course, to look to "nature" and see if homosexuality occurs naturally in other species, and to evaluate how those species are affected by the trait. What YOU are attempting is a shell game, which attempts to shift the criteria of consideration from what is "natural" (an objective question) to what is "moral" (a subjective question). If you want to discuss whether or not homosexuality is "natural," then the only reasonable measure of that concept is the natural world, and more specifically the natural biology of species that are more or less closely related to us, as humans.
Actually, it isn't really debated whether or not homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, and especially among virtually all of the studied species of primates which are our closest relatives. To suggest that it is leads me to believe that you are not well versed in the scientific literature on the subject.
This is a perfect example of the "shell game" tactic that I mentioned above. Whether or not a behavioral trait is "natural" is a completely different question from whether or not that behavioral trait is consistent with the pursuit of an orderly, peaceable society. In the examples you mention, filicide and canibalism present some rather obvious obstacles to a humane society, since both (obviously) promote an intrusive form of violence that violate the inherent personhood of the victim. Homosexuality, however, provides no similar obstacle, since the trait does not inherently infringe in any meaningful way upon the personhood of any other individual in the society.
On a side note, I would suggest that if it is your goal to be taken seriously in these discussion, you might want to refrain from quoting from NARTH. This is a extremely small, radical group that has no credibility in the scientific community. The group has a well-documented history of misrepresenting the work of legitimate scientists, and is not objective in any way.
Again, you comments lead me to believe that you are not well acquinted with the scientific disciplines that study both animal and human behavior. We can learn a lot about ourselves as humans by observing the behaviors and studying the biology of our animal kin. Human social interractions are obviously more complex than those of our less evolved relatives, but the basis for much of our own psychology can be found in the the animal world.
I disagree, obviously, and I think that one has to turn a very blind eye to the reality of living as a gay or lesbian person in the United States in order to advance such a position.
Your comment fundamentally (no pun intended) misapprehends the nature of the question at hand. This particular canard was addressed specifically in the landmark decision in Massaschussetts that paved the way for legal same-sex marriage in that State...
"A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families...("Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code"). ~ Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)
The mere fact that you are seeking a Constitutional Amendment in my opinion speaks volumes about the inherently unconstituitonal nature of the laws that Florida already has that limit the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. After all, if these laws were consistent with the State and Federal Constitutions, then you wouldn't NEED a constitituional amendment in order to protect the blatant discrimination you advocate.
What was "unprecedented" about it? All ballot inititives undergo a signature audit before being placed on the ballot.
That's not really true. The signature deficit for this initiate was reported when Miami-Dade County discovered that a system glitch had "double-counted" approximately 27,000 signatures. (LINK)
I think that it also says a lot when you realize that the groups behind this ballot initiative only barely reached the necessary number of signatures (8% of the voting population), quite literally in the final hours of the race, after having three years to collect support. Even so, if Florida passes this amendment, it certainly won't be the first State to do so, nor probably will it be the last.
Fortunately, the ultimate question of whether or not same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in this country does not lie with the individual States. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States offers an argument against which no State Law or State Constitutional Amendment can withstand. For example, the Florida State Constitution at one time flatly prohibited interracial marriages, as well...
"Section 15. Miscegenation Prohibited. Marriage between a white person and a person of negro descent through the fourth generation is prohibited."
...and we all know (or should) how THAT worked out when the question of anti-miscegenation laws was presented to the Hight Court.
I think it that this issue will ultimately HAVE to be decided, directly at the level of the Supreme Court of the United States. And, if the Court remains consistent with precedent, the nature of that decision will most likely come down in favor of those citizens seeking marriage equality, rather than those who wish to use the Law as a means of forcing their religiously motivated prejudices into the personal lives of other citizens.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Before I address your comment let me say that this will be the final time that the moderators weigh in on this. If you guys can't behave like adults, you're on your own and comments will be turned off here because at some point in time, people need to grow up and move on. No one was completely in the right here. To continue rehashing a senseless argument instead of focusing on the topic at hand is unnecessary and once again turns this post into what YOUR DAUGHTER never intended it to be. If you don't like the way the problem was handled, I suggest you either lodge a complaint through the proper channels instead of continually bringing discussion here back to the argument that was already handled or simply deal with it.
This comment was left because it was not part of the original fuss involving moderators, you and the others (none of whom received any further ToS violations save for moderators). Just as the terms sinful, the epidemic and perverted was left in the second edits your daughter posted, intolerance was left here. We could have edited all of it, we choose not to in order to leave the basic argument in place for discussion. None of you were in the right, all of you need to deal with it like adults or leave it alone. At some point, beating a dead horse with a stick becomes exactly that. It's pointless and promotes nothing but argument where debate and discussion could otherwise take precedence. Move on to the topic at hand and realize that you are no more innocent than was anyone else involved or continue to rehash it and take fault when comments are turned off because you can't stop and everyone gets involved in the same ridiculous argument yet again. Lodge a complaint properly or do everyone the favor of staying on topic as they are attempting to do.
As I mentioned to your daughter when I messaged her about the republication of her blog, the fault is ours for the protracted unpublish. There are only so many of us and this took a backseat to other things. I apologized for it because it wasn't particularly fair to her that this took so long, no matter what else was going on. There is, however, nothing else I can do about that now. The blog has been republished, the problems have been taken care of, end of story on this particular board. If you want to lodge a complaint, do so properly and let the discussion here remain where it should be; on the BLOG not on the argument that was, until your comment, no longer addressed here.
-----
~Fallon~
“What is insanity, anyway? Is it when you scream and everyone else whispers, or is it when you fight for what's right, even when everyone else thinks your wrong?” Ethergoth
-----
1) I agree with exactly one thing you wrote above, the comment regarding being offended. Coincidentally, you and I use exactly the same phraseology on that topic.
2) I was honestly unsure about who's the most likely to contract AIDS, so I looked it up. According to faqs.org, "Nearly half of all AIDS patients are gay or bisexual men." Which means that man-on-man sex is a high-risk activity. But that also means that lesbian sex is a pretty low-risk activity. And you cannot forget the lumping together of gay and bi men in that above statement. That's how AIDS was most likely passed to the hetero community. So you're vaguely right, but be cautious of too much rhetoric and too few facts. (To your credit here, TIME has reported that the percentage is more like 70% of patients than close to 50%. Once I get access to the databases at school, I'll be back with some solid information.) There's also the matter of men "on the down low" who claim to be hetero but participate in bisexual acts. They kind of skew the system.
3)Addressing the second part of your AIDS concern, the insurance part...about 35 million people around the world have HIV. Not all of them will get AIDS, but most will. However, as of 2004, approximately 32% of American adults were obese. Assuming there are 300 million people in the United States, that's 96 million people driving up insurance premiums by being ginormous. And what about the druggies? Not only do they put strain on the health care system by being addicts, they can get AIDS too! Gay guys who play "hide the sausage" with each other and get HIV/AIDS are not our biggest health caer concern in terms of pure numbers.
4) Unfortunately, I really don't have anything else to say. The rest of your post is typical Christian rhetoric, and as a Buddhist, I can't really pass judgment on its validity. I won't lie, I am a little uncomfortable by what you say, but I wont' say anything. My comments will be limited to confusion on one level: Why does God care? Daniel Tosh has some thoughts on the subject, but that's a story for another day. From what I hear from most of you conservative Christians, few things get God angrier or more disappointed in His children than men getting off on men. It seems like such an arbitrary rule, and by extension, one that was made to be broken.
--Samus
(if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention)
"Nearly half of all AIDS patients are gay or bisexual men." Which means that man-on-man sex is a high-risk activity. But that also means that lesbian sex is a pretty low-risk activity.
Assuming all three of those facts to be true and the idea that lesbian sex is a "low-risk" activity to the point that a negligible amount of people contract HIV/AIDS because of lesbian sex, that would mean, then, that over half of all AIDS patients are straight males or straight females.
Sounds like gay sex isn't any more high risk than straight sex. For that matter, not all people who have AIDS even had sex. They could have easily contracted it from their mothers at or before birth if their mother was a carrier.
Now, I know you mentioned that some sources you found showed different numbers, but you used this one as a primary point in your argument. This is obviously subject to change given different information.
That said, I found an interesting fact about the spread of HIV/AIDS while doing some quick research. While I was looking, I found that North America has 1.3 million people living with AIDS, with about 50,000 new cases in 2007. Sub-Saharan Africa, however, has 22.7 million people with AIDS and 1.7 million new cases in 2007. (Source) Now, I find it hard to believe that Africa has so many gays that they get more new cases in a year than we have total cases, so I did a little reading on it.
What I found was that the reason that Sub-Saharan Africa and homosexuals are at higher risk of AIDS is because of the break down of natural barriers that the male and female reproductive systems have. In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, you're looking at female genital mutilation. In the case of homosexuals (and anyone that practices oral or, more specifically, anal sex, for that matter, regardless of their sexual orientation), it's the lack of use of a vagina.
In the case of homosexuality, though, the pair can still take precautions to avoid diseases. Unsafe sex is unsafe sex, regardless of your orientation. The couple can also choose to abstain from sex altogether and still have a healthy relationship (in other words, like heterosexuality, homosexuality is not exclusive to the act of sex).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Dragonwolf, penile vaginal intercourse actually is 10 times riskier for HIV than fellatio. Cunnilingus is very low risk.
To say that gay people are at high risk for HIV is a little deceptive without a context (not that you did this, but I`m just clarifying for others}.
Some factors to remember...
~Women who have sex with women only are at extremely low risk for sexually transmitted HIV. Heterosexuals as a group are at much higher risk.
~Gay monogamous couples who do not carry the virus are at ZERO risk (which makes it very ironic that anyone would DISCOURAGE us from getting married... I don`t think such a person is really concerned with our health.}
~The vast majority of HIV worldwide is heterosexually transmitted, even if that is not the case in the US.
~Most cases of HIV are among black people. Of course, no one suggests that a good way to prevent blacks from getting HIV would be to prevent them from getting married. And most people would recognize, I think, that simply being black does not automatically put someone at risk. They should recognize the same thing about gay people. Monogamous gay couples who are not infected can not pass HIV to one another.
Thank you for clarifying that, since my point was to show that high risk acts are just that -- high risk, regardless of sexual orientation. The particular line you are referring to is a little deceptive and should have been worded differently. I was, however, using the information I had found while doing some quick research. Upon trying to find it again, though, I was unsuccessful.
I did, however, find an article regarding the matter this morning after searching again. The article states the following:
Promiscuous heterosexual sex carries with it a much higher risk for AIDS, primarily because of the sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) associated with it, causing a breakdown in the natural barriers of both male and female reproductive tracts. AIDS is primarily concentrated among heterosexuals in Africa because of the high rate of female genital mutilation, leading to much higher than average rates of anal and oral intercourse, and culturally-accepted extramarital sexual activity, including widespread prostitution. Rates of STDs are quite high in these populations.
However, AIDS is by far most common among the homosexual population in the United States, primarily because the type and frequency of sexual contact, combined with STDs, is the perfect method of spreading a body-fluid borne virus.
Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.
I would assume, however, that the whole thing is referring to promiscuous behavior and unsafe sex practices. Like you said, monogamous couples without the disease(s) will not contract them.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Dragonwolf, within the first few sentences of the article you linked, I saw some peculiarly deceptive wording, which made me wonder who wrote it and what this website was. It turns out that it`s a blog by the head of an anti gay religious organization. You have to be careful because the internet is bombarded by such groups, and they have very little regard for the facts.
I usually look to sources like the CDC for information on health in the US, and the WHO for worldwide information. Both of those sources are not perfect sources of health information, but certainly better than most political and religious groups` rhetoric.
Well, then, according to the CDC, more cases of AIDS are transmitted from man to man.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
LadyGreenEyes has a point.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
``LadyGreenEyes has a point.``
Yes, and this one point I have never disputed, and I even mentioned myself earlier that sexually transmitted HIV is mostly transmitted between men and women WORLDWIDE, even if that is not the case in the US (where it is higher among MSM}.
But it is the faulty CONCLUSIONS that LadyGreenEyes comes to that I dispute.
I can be in many potential categories besides MSM. She could look at me and say that I`m white, so I am LOW risk. A Canadian or Dutchman or Australian can look at an American and say ``you are high risk since you are American.`` A gay woman can look at a straight person and say ``you are high risk since you`re NOT a gay woman``
But the only category that REALLY matters in assessing my risk of sexually transmited HIV is the category of ``people who do not engage in unsafe sex.`` Gays, straights, blacks and whites, women and men in this category are NOT at risk, because, as you`ve said it is risky sexual activities that put anyone at risk, no matter who they are.
The idea that we shouldn`t get married because that will elevate our risk of HIV is totally nonsensical.
The Lady has also said that children don`t do well when raised by same sex couples, and that she ``can provide quotes`` showing that the reason same sex couples want to get married is to destroy other families. Obviously, both of these ideas came from anti gay religious groups. All the conclusions from every mainstream organization in the social sciences from the American Academy of pediatrics to the American psychological Association debunks the former claim (see quotes below}.* As for the latter, it reminds me of the claims that used to be made that Jews eat Christian babies. Inflammatory rhetoric from anti gay sources with no goal but to demonize gay people.
*The American Association of Pediatrics has made the following policy statement:
"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition." http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html
The American Psychological Association's stance is that:
"...In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
Indeed, most of her other statements are fallacies, though that particular comment, regarding the statistics, I felt was worth at least noting since it hasn't been mentioned before in this thread.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
My conclusions are not faulty. They are not based, either, on the politically correct, factually unsupported data that you have presented. Groups that have bowed to political pressure can no longer be trusted to present unbiased data.
"Obviously, both of these ideas came from anti gay religious groups. All the conclusions from every mainstream organization in the social sciences from the American Academy of pediatrics to the American psychological Association debunks the former claim (see quotes below}.* As for the latter, it reminds me of the claims that used to be made that Jews eat Christian babies. Inflammatory rhetoric from anti gay sources with no goal but to demonize gay people."
I could as easily state that your comments are obviously from anti-Christian gay groups, and are inflammatory rhetoric from gay groups with no goal but to demonize Christians, but that would be attacking a group, wouldn't it? Tsk, tsk.
that over half of all AIDS patients are straight males or straight females.
Sounds like gay sex isn't any more high risk than straight sex.
Gays make up perhaps 3% to 5% of the population. That tiny percentage which amounts to 10 or 20 million people, has almost half of the AIDs cases. The other 50% of the AIDS cases is spread over the other 95% of the population which amounts to nearly 300 million people.
You are vastly more likely to have AIDS if you are a homosexual male than if you are anybody else. The original bloggers point was well made and indeed male homosexual sex is indeed high risk.
Homosexuality doesn't Cause AIDS (nor does it cause HIV, which is the cause of AIDS). Unsafe sex causes HIV. This is a virus (unthinking genetic, nonbiological material that exists for no real purpose) that doesn't care about sexual orientation. Point and fact, Gays and Straights get HIV everyday.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
That AIDS is caused by unsafe sex.
Apparently gay men are much more likely to engage in unsafe sex. The evidence of this is that they are about 20 times more likely to contract AIDS.
I don't think that it is a punishment by God. And I don't think the the unthinking HIV virus has a particular hatred for Gay men (or anybody else).
But when less than 5% of the population accounts for 50% of the disease, it is impossible to conclude that there is not something about their behavior that is profoundly unhealthy.
I think almost everybody agrees that sharing needles is not particularly healthy either and the people who do it are another group with more than their share of AIDS.
Excellent points, all.
Sorry for the slow response, I've been ignoring this post.
However, I think the point would then be to then promote safer sex among gays, not to just sit around and complain about how terrible they are, wouldn't you?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Personally, it is my belief that any sex outside of marriage is wrong, which includes homosexual contact. This does NOT mean that I would be in favor of gay marriage (obviously, from my posts), any more than I would favor child marriage to make that activity more acceptable. No, that isn't a comparison of the two, or any insinuation; it's just an example. Plus, my goal in actually logging in to discuss this was to defend the right of the blogger to make the statements that she did. I do happen to agree with them, but that isn't the issue. I also believe that those in favor have the right to post their opinions. I believe that open discussion of ideas is a good thing, even when we disagree. I will debate with those with whom I disagree, but I will not tell them that they can't post. Besides, I never said that any person was terrible, just that I believe a certain activity (though it isn't the only one) is wrong according to God.
**
One point that I would like to make is that the DEGREE of a problem does not negate it.
First, if even 50% of AIDS patients are gay or bi-sexual, there is no other single group that is MORE at risk for AIDS than that group (and you can't really distinguish them, because, by their very definition, BOTH groups practice homosexual behavior).
Second, because the number of gay/bisexual men are fewer in number than those who are obese, does not erase the risk. The blogger, if you will notice, never claimed that it was a BIGGER risk than obesity; in fact she never mentioned obesity. It is my opinion that ANY risk that is behavior-based should be considered, and those that impose that risk should pay higher rates (including homo/bi-sexual behavior, drug use, smoking, AND obesity), just as smokers do and have done for a long time for life insurance, and just as wrekless drivers pay more for auto insurance, if they can obtain it at all. But that is not strictly the point.
I will comment on your question, "Why does God care?" The answer to that is, because He is not just some impotent being beyond the universe who is on an equal plane with His creation. He is God. And not like the Roman and Greek gods who were figments of their imagination, and as flawed as humans (if more powerful), but a God who, beyond omnipotence, is also holy and who has a right to impose that standard on His creation by reason of the fact that HE CREATED IT. It is HIS. Holiness doesn't MAKE standards, particularly arbitrary ones; it IS the standard. God made man to fellowship with Him, and He cannot, by virtue of His nature "overlook" sin; He cannot coexist with it. When God created man, He gave Him one rule, and man broke that rule, in spite of the fact that EVERYTHING else God gave Him, including his own body, was perfect. Yet man chose to rebel against God and brought sin into the world. The Bible says that death passed upon ALL men, for ALL have sinned. We were all born into the same state, so that none of us can or should be prideful. Yet God who is holy is also a God of enormous love. Romans states it in the most simple way: "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." God loved man so much that, because His justice demanded punishment for sin, He sent His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, "that the world, through Him, might be saved." Jesus, in obedience to His father's will, left Heaven (we cannot even imagine the glory), was born in poverty, lived a sinless life, and was finally tortured to death by one of the cruelest methods of execution known to man - crucifixion. When He said, "It is finished!" He said in 3 words what the rest of the New Testament teaches - that His sacrifice was sufficient payment for the sin of the entire world - not just homosexuality, but the sins of heterosexuals, too - fornication, adultery, murder, and even lying, cheating, and stealing. Three days after the crucifixion is what sets Christianity apart from all other world religions. Jesus LEFT His tomb alive, proving that He had power over death, something that no other religious leader in history has been able to do. Buddah is dead. Confuscious is dead. Joseph Smith is dead. Muhammed is dead. Jesus is alive.
So I would pose this question: if it were POSSIBLE for God to "not care," WHY would He have allowed Jesus to go through all of what He went through? If there was any other way? We have a living, immortal soul that will spend eternity one of two places. God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life; NO MAN cometh unto the father BUT BY ME." Some would say (critically) that Christianity is an exclusionary religion; and in the strictest sense, that's true. Why? "For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator between God and men: the man Christ Jesus."
And of course, many would simply argue that they don't believe the Bible. Disbelieving something doesn't make it untrue. There is certainly faith involved, primarily, in Christianity (as there is in any other religion); "for by grace are ye saved through faith." But this is not a blind faith, but a reasonable one. There is plenty of external historical, scientific, and archaeological evidence for the validity of the Bible. No hard evidence has ever disproved a single thing in it.
I respect your right to believe as you choose, but you referenced the validity of Christianity, so I thought I would address that and give you a challenge similar to the one a man by the name of Josh MacDowell faced. He was an agnostic who set out on a quest (quite literally) to disprove Christianity. In the end, he accepted Christ as His Savior, for everything he found supported the truth of the Bible. He also wrote one of the most thorough and enduring works on this quest: Evidence that Demands a Verdict (actually now, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict). If you are interested in a scholarly (including philosophical) study on the validity of Christianity, I woud highly recommend that book. Of course, if you are satisfied with Buddhism, you are free, without any condemnation from me, to believe as you choose.
Thank you again for your polite, though dissenting, response to this blog. There are many who could learn from your example.
Kim Tracey
(edited by Fallon)
First, if even 50% of AIDS patients are gay or bi-sexual, there is no other single group that is MORE at risk for AIDS than that group (and you can't really distinguish them, because, by their very definition, BOTH groups practice homosexual behavior)
The flaw with that argument, however, is that anyone that practices unsafe sexual behaviors is at more risk of receiving and transmitting diseases. It's a simple fact of risky behavior.
Second, because the number of gay/bisexual men are fewer in number than those who are obese, does not erase the risk. The blogger, if you will notice, never claimed that it was a BIGGER risk than obesity; in fact she never mentioned obesity.
The commenter mentioned obesity because the original poster mentioned health insurance. The commenter simply used obesity to show that if any group is going to raise insurance premiums, there are other groups that will do so before gays. For that matter, the only premiums that increase are the obese, smokers, and whoever else the insurance companies deem "high risk."
And not like the Roman and Greek gods who were figments of their imagination, and as flawed as humans (if more powerful), but a God who, beyond omnipotence, is also holy and who has a right to impose that standard on His creation by reason of the fact that HE CREATED IT.
Who's to say the Christian God is nothing more than a figment of Christians' imagination? The old myths have creation stories of their own, and you can't claim them false because they sound absurd, since they're no more far-fetched than the Christian creation story.
Jesus LEFT His tomb alive, proving that He had power over death, something that no other religious leader in history has been able to do.
Show me historical data other than the Bible that verifies that Jesus existed, died, and resurrected.
The thing about historical data is that it has to be able to be cross-referenced from multiple sources to be deemed valid.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think a better question is, "Why should WE care what YOUR 'god' thinks?"
And an even better question would be, "What actual, objective evidence can you show to us that would convince us that YOUR version of 'god' is more believable that the 'figments' of Greek and Roman myth?"
With all due respect, the converse is also true.
Really? Like what?
Unfortunately, the burden of proof in a rational argument lies with the assertion. The default position in a rational discourse is that all assumptions are false, until they are proved to be true. Shifting this burden is a logical fallacy to which virtually all religious assertions fall prey.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
“If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me, to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth.” ~ Socrates
You're certainly correct that the degree of the problem does not negate it; that was not the point that I was attempting to bring across. What I was trying to address was the validity of eaglesspirit's argument that homosexuality, as high risk as it is for HIV/AIDS, puts undue strain on the health care system. It is far from being the nation's main concern at this point, which is not to say that a lingering death from a crippled immune system is not a problem that should be solved as quickly as possible. It's just that we need to help as many people as possible, and more people can be helped by attacking obesity than AIDS. We're doing both, but if we were to choose which one to eradicate immediately in order to ease stress on our ailing health care system, our priority would most likely be the eradication of obesity.
I'm actually going to go you one further on the "Jesus is alive" bit. Don't even worry about Confucius; his doctrine was never a religion so much as a class structure to make sure everyone in China knew who bowed to whom. That didn't stop my school from assigning Confucianism as one of the topics for the freshman year World Religions paper...but whatever. I had Shinto...poor Shinto and its few thousand followers.
In order to explain my use of the word "validity" in regards to Christianity, I have to tell you that I view all religions, including my own, as having varying degrees of validity depending on who's doing the asking. With the possible exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which I have to insist is some of the better satire that the Web has come up with, on a par with Real Ultimate Power), the plain fact that somebody believes in something gives it a degree of validity to my mind. A new user recently said to me that I would mock him if he were to worship a red stapler. In answer, I told him no; I would find him silly, but Red Staplerism is fine as long as he's not going out and stapling people as part of the worship process. All religions get silly, and my own is certainly no exception; your guy may have been born without original sin, turned water into wine and walked on water, but young Siddhartha (before he was called the Buddha) made lotuses grow when he took a step and was talking immediately--both right out of the womb. See? We believe them, maybe on a more metaphorical level than literal at times, but you can't deny that when approached in a secular fashion, they're pretty silly. And don't get me started on Zeus. Bottomline: Everything's legit if it's backed up by someone's solid, trusting faith. I start having a big problem when people get hurt; then, all the legitimacy and free speech laws won't save you from me.
I've heard of Josh McDowell and his book before; I thought it was odd to set out to disprove the existence of God, since starting with a theory that you hope to prove kind of goes against the whole scientific process. But I'll cut him some slack and pick up his findings; right now, I'm swamped, but I'll put it on the waiting list.
I've been defending Christianity far more often in the past few days than normal. Feels weird. But it's good to have a calm discussion and clear up some confusion with one who believes as strongly as you do.
--Samus
(if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention)
It is refreshing to see a comment that does not accuse, nor attack, and supports the rights of ALL of us to post our beliefs. I surely don't agree with you on everything, but your post was a nice change.
You cannot use a dictionary definition as evidence.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
The last time I checked, a dictionary was a reference book that delineates the definitions of the words we use. That was the use eaglesspirit made of it in her post. I would additionally point out that according to that reference, in order for there to be gay "marriage," the definition of the word would have to be changed. As it stands, gay marriage is an oxymoron.
Kim Tracey
It was.
Thanks for playing, though.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
I'd love to see the source for that definition, and in particular the copyright date. This proves only that the definition is BEING changed. But is still a fact that "marriage" has never been understood as anything other than the union of a husband and a wife until very recent modern times. You won't find this definition in older dictionaries, and adding an entry does not validate the institution. I don't play about things like this.
Kim Tracey
Merriam-Webster
Also, I've cited a few other sources as well, below a little bit.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Since my point was that this represents a new change that was not ever before "understood" or accepted, part of citing a source here would require a date.
Kim
Your "point" in this case is based upon a flawed assumption. In fact, there are a wealth of historical examples (both ancient and modern) of societies from all over the world that have at various points offered legal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples. There are literally dozens of examples from the African continent alone, included the including the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name the most well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. The Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the practice of Shudo (in Japan) respesent similar culture who fully accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. To suggest that same-sex marriage is a concept of purely "modern" invention is a remarkably uniformed position to take.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Click the word "it'. I don't ever make an argument I can't defend. If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that the first word in the commet was a link. And it doesn't mean "being changed" it means that there are multiple definitions for the same word, like every other word in the English language. Marriage is understood to be the union between two human beings.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
The interesting thing about definitions, though, is that not all sources say the same things.
For example, here's Princeton University's definitions of "marriage"
# the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
# two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
# the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
# a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
Wikipedia elaborates on the institution of marriage by saying the following:
Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created as a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution.
The most common form of marriage unites one man and one woman as husband and wife. Other forms of marriage also exist: for example, polygamy—in which a person takes more than one spouse (marriage partner)—is common in many societies. In some jurisdictions civil marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage.
With the exception of Wikipedia acknowledging that heterosexual marriages are the most common, neither source says anything about the institution of marriage being exclusive to one man and one woman.
So, while using a dictionary definition can be used to keep the readers on the same page as the author, to clarify the author's connotation, it cannot be used as "proof" that something is a certain way.
Also, definitions change more often than you might think. For example, the original definition for the word "geek" is a carnival performer who does things like biting heads off chickens. The modern definition, however, is someone who is eccentric, or obsessed with a certain thing, such as computers or comic books.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Since this clearly is an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), let's see what else the bible has to say:
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36)
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
Wow, what a lovely little book you allow your daughter to read.
First of all, you misunderstand the "appeal to authority" logic fallacy, or are at least mis-applying it. Normally, this is when someone relies on a credentialed PERSON to back up their argument. The reason it is a fallacy is because human beings, even credentialed ones, can be mistaken. The Bible, however, is not an authority figure, so relying on it in argument is not a fallacy. The authority BEHIND the Bible, however, is God, and God is NOT fallable. Therefore the appeal to authority doesn't apply. Now, you may disbelieve in the existence of God (I can only assume you do by the - ironically enough - fallacious comment with which you ended your post), but that doesn't prove anything. Of course, no one can conclusively PROVE the existence of God (though one day He will prove Himself - again, as He has done already in the person of Jesus Christ). What you really seem to be attacking is the Bible, and that's an area about which I may start my own blog. But the fact of the matter is, that in order to believe that this book which no aspect of science, history, archaeology, mathematics, etc. has EVER proven WRONG is actually just another fallable book written by ordinary men under ordinary circumstances, you have to have a lot more faith than I do. The Bible was written over a period of about 1,400 years. By about 40 different authors, most of whom never knew each other, and many of whom would not have had access to each other's writings. Yet not only has the Bible never been proven to be wrong, but it has been supported with all kinds of external evidence, and has also become a single book with a single theme. 100% of its Old Testament prophecies that have been prophecied for this age or earlier have come to pass EXACTLY as they were foretold. History backs this up. There is no dispensational doctrinal discrepancy between any of the writings. Just THAT MUCH would be a phenomenal coincidence; I would be very interested to see statisticians come up with a chance figure on that alone. I DO know that they have gone to work calculating the chances of even 4 of the over 300 prophecies about Jesus being fulfilled EXACTLY as they were predicted. The number would be equivalent to layering the state of Texas with silver dollars 2 feet thick, paiting ONE of them blue, and having ONE grab (blindfolded) to find the blue one. That puts a good bit of perspective on what the odds of the entire Bible's integrity happening by accident are.
With the exception of the Ephesians reference, every passage you quote is in the Old Testament, hardly an accurate picture of the Bible in its entirety. During the Old Testament was the period of time known as the Law. While some of the laws sounded very harsh, they were 3-fold in their purpose: 1 was God revealing man's sin; another was God dealing judiciosly with what WAS, and not necessarily what SHOULD HAVE BEEN (i.e., laws regarding slavery was a reflection of what was, and not, as some have claimed, an endorsement of slavery); still a 3rd was providing a contrast to the coming age, which was the age of grace. Morality didn't disappear, of course; the law, as Romans says, was our schoolmaster, pointing out our need of a Savior. Once Jesus came, He took the punishment for our sin and offers us salvation by grace through faith to all who trust what He did for us through His death on the cross and His resurrection.
It is errant and, as I pointed out, fallacious, to pull few verses out of the Bible (and it IS comparitively few) and pass judgment on the entire book, and thus on whether or not I should allow my daughter to read it. Your entire "arugument" here could be called a red herring, but probably more appropriately appeal to ridicule.
Since you have addressed the Bible, though, let me quote what is probably the key passage in the ENTIRE Bible and the best reason I have for not only letting my daughter read it, but reading it to her her entire life, explaining it to her, encouraging her to read it on her own, and encouraging her to share it with others:
"For God SO LOVED the WORLD, that HE GAVE His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. That WHOSOEVER believeth in Him SHOULD NOT PERISH, but have EVERLASTING life.
For God sent not His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world, but that the world THROUGH HIM might be SAVED." John 3:16-17
Kim
This statement invalidates your argument concerning the misapplication of the fallacy of appealing to authority that you allege. Logic dictates that in order to reach sound conclusions, the premise of an argument must be known (not "believed") to be true. Since you admit that you cannot demonstrate objectively that the existence of the being you call "god" is a fact, your entire argument falls prey to the logical fallacy known as "begging the question," and thus fails (logically speaking).
When that happens, please feel free to come back and restate your arugment. Until then, however, your position remains unsound. As for your asserition that nothing in the bible has ever been proved "wrong," well...one need not look very far to find biblical assertions that are plainly and demonstrably false. Even without delving into the scientific inaccuracies found in various verses (bats are not birds...insects have six legs, not four...snakes do not eat dirt...snails don't melt...the earth is not a "circle"...etc.), there are passages in the bible that clearly contradict one another (such as the count of King Solomon's horses...4,000 in 2 Chronicles and 40,000 in 1 Kings). Such direct, literal contradictions are undeniably (from a reasonable perspective, at least) flaws in these texts. Heck, the various sects of christianity can't even agree on which books are actually part of "the bible" to begin with. Most protestant bibles have 66 books. The catholic version has (depending on how you count them) 73. Greek orthodox bibles have 78 books, and the Ethiopian orthodox cannon has 81. Just on that criteria alone, we can safely say that there is a significant amount of inconsistency in the collection of books that are commonly referred to as, "the bible."
Really? Can you name even ONE such prophecy which can be objectively proved to have been fulfilled "ECACTLY" as you claim?
Of course, none of this is really relevant since the bible does not form the basis of the Laws of our country. The Constitution of the United States holds that honor, and unilike the bible its tenets hold an actual authority that is relevant to this issue. That gay people have the right to engaged in consensual adult relationships with one another is no longer a question. Our Supeme Court answers that question definitively in the decision of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). As to the question of whether or not gay people across this country must be afforded the freedom to marry that is guaranteed to other citizens, we are still waiting on a case that will compel the Court to issue a definitive decision, but considering the fact that the Court refused to overturn Goodridge v. Public Health (2003), that decision seems likely.
Nor does the bible inform the disciplines of science that inform us as a modern society as to whether or not homosexuality is a "natural" part the human condition. The vast majority of professionals in the relevant fields (most noteably biology and phychology) are in concensus on the idea that homosexuality is a perfect normal trait expressed by a relatively predictable portion of our society. Your biblical objections are noted, and dismissed to the ONLY place where they are relevant, which is inside the walls of your church. You have a right to believe as you wish, of course, but so does everyone else. That's the beauty of this thing we call freedom.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
``Webster's New World dictionary...goes on to define marriage - "the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony."
You need to read farther than the first few words of your dictionary to get a comprehensive definition of a word. I look at Merriam Websters and I see the union of a man and woman, and then of a couple of the same sex, all incorporated into the `a` and `b` segments of the first definition.
`` Genesis 1:24 clearly states, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." ``
Of course, that will occur. Strawberries will be harvested in August, too. But that doesn`t mean that blueberries can`t ALSO be harvested in August or that strawberries can`t also sometimes grow in July or even January. Obviously, Jesus didn`t think that cleaving to a woman was something everybody MUST do since he didn`t do it himself. In fact, He was very accepting of the sexual minorities among Him.
`` Gay people adopting children perverts God's establishment by putting the children's minds in a warped environment. ``
There is nothing in the sociological data to support such a prejudiced statement. Someone can just as easily say that Christians who adopt children warp children`s minds, but I wonder if you would see how hateful it sounds when someone refers to YOU that way. The fact is the sex of parents has not been shown to in any way determine a child`s well being. Children do well with responsible, involved and loving parents who are willing to put time and energy into their well being.
`` Romans 1:26-27 says...``
You need to read the rest of that letter (preferably in Greek} if you want to understand it, instead of taking one paragraph out of context. That is the opinion of Saul of Tarsus of an orgy that he saw married men and women involved in at a religious temple as part of rituals to worship birds and reptiles. It has nothing to do with gay couples.
`` And it doesn't matter whether a person believes the Bible or not - it's 100% but that's a subject for another time. ``
I don`t understand what this means since the words don`t have a context that makes any sense.
``Am I saying that there should be a law stating that no one is allowed to be homosexual? No, that would be an invasion of a person's free will. If a person chooses to be homosexual, so be it.``
No one chooses his or her sexual orientation, though if we could, there would be no reason it should be seen as an undesirable way to be.
I think that you might want to consider buying a more up-to-date dictionary. In the English language, definitions are assigned based on useage, and as that useage changes, so too does the definition of a word. Even your own source (Mirriam-Webster) has already incorporated same-sex unions into its more recent editions.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \'mer-ij, 'ma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
Fortunately, our country protects its citizens from religious establishments, and offering "the bible" as a defense for your point-of-view reveals the essentially unconstitutional nature of that argument.
Setting aside (for the moment) the fact that the bible is not a valid source for making arguments as to what should or should not be a part of American Law, itt is interesting that you mention the Genesis 1:24 as a defense for the idea that only opposite marriages are biblically valid. In fact, the suggesting that husbands and wives should "cleave" to each other is not unique to husbands and wives in these texts. For example...
"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." (Ruth 1:14-17)
Not that just like Genesis 2:24, the story of Ruth and Naomi utilizes the same word to describe the nature of the relationship. Ruth "cleaves" to Naomi in the same manner that a husband "cleaves" to his wife in Genesis 2:24. In the original Hebrew, the term in both cases is identical... "דבק" or (transliterated) "dabaq."
Your suggestion that kids being raised by gay parents are in a "warped" environment is completely subjective, and frankly a little offensive. In reality, however, there has been a great deal of research conduced into effectiveness of gay and lesbian parenting models and the results that those models produce in the children living in those families. The APA has written an excellent summary of the findings of this body of research, located here.
"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but please understand that this point-of-view is not well-supported by the evidence.
What's "not fair" about a gay person wanting to insure the security and safety of their families?
The first thing you might want to consider is the fact that not everyone in this country is a christian, and as such are not likely to be swayed by biblically-based arguments. After all, we live in a country that respects the religious freedom of its citizens, and that includes the non-christian ones. The Constitution prohibits religious establishments, and for your argument to be effective, you must be able to frame it without turning back to purely religious sources.
The second thing you might want to think about is the fact that in the original Greek texts, Paul never makes the homosexual connection that the oft-mistranslated English versions of these verses suggest. The "vile affections" (or rather "atimia pathos") was not in the original Greek a criticism of homosexuality per se. The passage is specifically referring to the sexual pracitces of pagan temple worship that was common in Greek society, and in context applies to both same-and-opposite-sex situations equally.
Your unilateral evaluation of my relationship with my husband as "perverted" and "lustful" is not only insulting, but extremely presumptuous considering that you have never met us and have no actual idea as to the actual nature of our feelings for one another. It is true that "it doesn't matter whether a person believes the Bible or not" since that book has no authority whatsoever to compel the citizens of this country to abide by such discriminatory attitudes. A source that DOES have that authority however is our Su