Gay Marriage
Against gay marriage, are you? Why? Is it because of your religious beliefs? Because you think marriage is supposed to be the union of a man and a woman for the primary purpose of having children? Because you think same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter our society for the worse? Because you personally object to legally recognizing a lifestyle that you find objectionable? Because you object to children being raised by two parents of the same gender? Or is it all of the above?
An interesting summary of numerous recent polls shows that about one-third of Americans support gay marriage. Almost two-thirds oppose it, with about half of that group agreeable to legal civil unions that give gay couples rights equivalent to married couples. So, according to the polls, if you’re against gay marriage you’re clearly in the majority.
And, in my opinion, you’re wrong. Let’s look at the objections you might have.
If you oppose gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, then you most likely consider homosexuals to be sinful people. Whatever your religion, I’m sure you can find ample basis for your position in religious doctrine. But I’m sure you also know that many other religious people who share your belief system accept gays as fellow human beings loved by the same God who loves you. They embrace gays as members of their congregations, and in some cases as ministers and church officials. Given that you share the same basic beliefs, how is it that they are wrong and you are right? If you’re going to risk error, then take that risk on the side of accepting and loving everyone. Isn’t that what your religion teaches you?
But let’s say that religious belief isn’t your reason for opposing gay marriage. Is it because you think marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman in order to produce children? Well, you’re right, to the extent that societies throughout history have recognized that the union of a man and a woman (or several women) is necessary to perpetuate our species. Moreover, encouraging the continuation of that union under law and custom ensures that children are protected and reared to adulthood. That’s fine, but so what? Do you think that permitting gay marriage will prevent other people from getting married and having children? Or do you harbor the idea that if we prevent same-sex marriage, then gay people will decide to marry people of the opposite sex? Nonsense.
If it isn’t religion, and you understand that gay marriage doesn’t interfere with marriage between people of opposite genders, is your opposition based on a conviction that same-sex marriage will alter our society for the worse? That begs the question, compared to what? With all the ills that infect our society, the presence of a relatively few married couples who are of the same gender is inconsequential. Better you should spend your time worrying about the threat of terrorism, drug abuse, violent crime, economic collapse–in other words, things that have an impact on your life and the lives of those you love.
Perhaps you oppose gay marriage simply because you object to legalizing a lifestyle you find objectionable. Well, if you find it objectionable, then don’t live that way. But by what right do you presume to prescribe how other people must live, given that their lifestyle doesn’t harm you or others and doesn’t prevent you from living as you wish? This is the weakest of all arguments against gay marriage.
Finally, there’s the issue of children being raised by two parents of the same gender. I confess to having a few concerns about this myself. In general, two women don’t equal a father, and two men don’t equal a mother. I think the healthiest environment for a child is a stable, loving family consisting of a mother, a father, and maybe some siblings. Unfortunately, the Nelsons and Cleavers were never real. Again the question, compared to what? Most families are broken today in one way or another. Unmarried teen mothers trying to raise children, divorced parents raising children alone, children suffering in abusive families that are far from stable. Compared to that, a child being raised in a loving and stable same-sex marriage is fortunate. The bottom line is it’s not the gender of the parents that matters as much as the environment the child lives in.
Gay marriage isn’t an issue of rights, at least in a constitutional sense. In my opinion, there’s nothing in the Constitution that confers a right of marriage, including the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. In fact, states can and do restrict and control marriage in many ways. However, others disagree. For a good discussion, go to A Stitch in Haste and read the opinion of a lawyer. Regardless of the question of rights in some formal sense, it’s really a question of humanity.
You can find a very wide variety of opinion on how many gay people there are in the U.S. The high is about 10 percent for men and maybe half that for women. This comes from the old Kinsey research, long discredited because of the survey samples and criteria used. Different research can be used to support different numbers, depending on the point you’re trying to prove. Realistically, most research with probability samples suggests that at least 3-6% of the US adult male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females. You can spend a long time looking for an answer, and you can find almost anything you want. Just accept that it’s a pretty small slice of our population.
I support gay marriage, and so should you. You don’t have anything to lose, and you’ll help a small number of our fellow citizens live happier and more fulfilled lives.
(This article was also posted at Opinion Forum.)
There will always be issues where people won’t agree. In this society, usually the majority wins (regardless of way of living) That’s it. Nothing more to it. Whether it be religiously based or not is not the point. People live by what they believe is true. One cannot say that religion is true, nor can one say that religion is not true. So in that case, since we all don’t know what is true, then it just becomes what the majority of the people “believe” is true. If you can’t live with that, then I don’t know what kind of society you can live in.
I am not a soldier, nor have I ever been, unfortunately my life took a different turn, however that does not mean that I do not know how to use various firearms nor defend myself either without weapons or with only those close to hand(and no I don’t live in a militia compound).
I agree that by no means are they all devout but you cannot dismiss all because of a few. The catholic church is used simply for conveniance, I could as easily have said protestant, jehovah, mormon, etc. Frankly if you look at the vast majority of religions they are almost all in it for monetary gain. In regards the bible being wrong,(for the sake of this discussion I will avoid the plagarism factor regarding story origins, I.E. Sumeria) the answer based in the bible is no, simply because god gives you free will, the ability to think for yourself, to seek out the truth, if he was to step in then it would no longer be faith but fact. If you are studying the bible as you say in your own way then great, but part of that study is to check the facts, to put it in a marine situation, you wouldn’t go walking into a square block, 12 story high building to extract a hostage just because a local baker said the bad guys have all gone home for coffee and a cupcake. The problem with the bible is that what is in has errors to certain degrees, but the other problem with it is that there are sections of scripture missing and also there are scriptures that have deliberately never been included, that is why, to a degree at least the bible must be treated as being incomplete and to a degree inacurate. As, when or if the bible should ever be properly translated and put together in it’s entirity(without using second, seventh or fortieth hand tales written down centuries after the instances occured) then the bible can be held up as being as accurate as is available to being correct.
Just because their Bible scholars doesn’t mean they are devout. Look at the catholic church you are so fond of bringing up. They are more interested in economic gain then anything else. Now let me point something out. If the Bible were wrong then don’t you think God would have done something about it by now? Or do you think that God would want everyone to be mislead all this time? As far as my credentials, the Bible says study to show thy self approved. I don’t like everything the Bible says but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
And the ramblings you refer to are by priests, bible scholars, etc, or do you claim to be superior in knowledge to those who have devoted their lives to god, the church/s, the scriptures, etc? If so I would gladly listen to you as soon as you confirm your credentials in this area of expertise.
USMC? What is that supposed to mean, are you claiming to be one? Or are you refering as to whether you need a gun or not, please attempt to make a coherent response.
You talk about not being a bigot? I quote “Bunch of dope smoking hippies”, you honestly don’t think that, that is a form of bigotry?
The catholics are where virtually all variants of the bible devolved from in it’s christian form.
I apologise if you misunderstand, i’m talking about accurate translations that have been and are being done by biblical scholars all around the world, as yes they do understand many of the languages that the bible has been translated into, unlike the early church scholars.
Leviticus is the third book of both the Bible, and the “Torah”. It was written by the Old Testament Patriarch Moses. Leviticus was written to the Hebrew people of Israel. The book has several main topics, some of which are the Jewish laws of sacrificing to God, and the work of the Priests.This book probably was written around 1400 B.C
Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans at the end of his third missionary journey after he had visited Corinth for the third time but before setting out for Jerusalem to deliver the money collected from his churches. This period time in Paul’s career as an apostle can be dated to between 54 and 58.
Paul founded the church in Corinth, then spent approximately three years in Ephesus. The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD.
The three remaining Pauline letters—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and the Letter to Titus—are called his “pastoral letters,” apparently because in them Paul provides instructions to two of his associates, Timothy and Titus, on the pastoral offices and their duties in the church.
The pastoral letters resemble one another in terms of vocabulary and style more so than they resemble Paul’s travel letters or his prison letters; it seems these three letters belong together, most likely because they have something in common with respect to their conditions of production. It is believed that the literary differences between the pastoral letters and the ten Pauline letters are too great to hold that Paul wrote them all; rather, it is generally held that the pastoral letters were written by someone who had been influenced by Pauline thought and wanted to use the authority of Paul to authenticate the ideas expressed in the letters.
These sections were taken from christian sites, it is interesting to note that paul is responsible or believed responsible for three of your quotes and the first is taken out of context from the original text, that of the torah, perhaps you should study your bible and where the portions you like come from before making assumptions. Try to remember, god did not write the bible, men did and man is a vain creature who always wants to put his mark or spin on everything he does.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
I Corinthians 6:9-11
I Timothy 1:9-11
Once again you have proved that you only pick out the bits that you like,
you talk about sexual perversion yet homosexuality has always been around, but if you want to get technical with the bible when it talks of matters of incest it forbids it in all aspects except fucking your daughter, do you agree with that, I mean according to you we should take note of what the bible says you can and can’t do
Yes I have read the bible, I have also read the hebrew texts from which it was derived, have you, and as regards all us pricks who say the bible has been mistranslated then I guess you are also reffering to all those pricks in the vatican as well who know just a little more about it than you, for your education look at the original arameic, then go through all the other languages it went through and while your at it take a look at the fact that the vatican originally did not want the bible translating into english, in fact it wasn’t even the vatican that made the first english translation of the bible.
As regards respect, on the contrary I have a lot of respect for both the usa and it’s people, I just don’t have any for intolerant homophobes who have no clue about the truth of things and would rather hide behind their ignorance and bigotry.
Oh by the way i’m sure you feel comfortable beind your AR-15, because lets face it, in a one on one people like you are all the same, cowards, you only ever feel tough either with a weapon or when there is more of your lot than the other guy
Get stuffed you arrogant prick, the track you refer to if you bother to look at your history was a pretty piss poor one in many aspects, yes without a doubt there were many, many fine people throughout the history of the USA, but there was also a far darker side. Try reading ALL your history not just the bits you like.
Before you start bouncing up and down in your chair and pointing fingers, etc, yes you’re absolutely right, all nations including my own have a dark side, etc, but at least I don’t look through rose tinted glasses.
A quote from your declaration of independance;
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Notice all created equal, and unalienable Rights, that among these are the pursuit of Happiness.
Got it now? Good, now be quiet and polish your six iron.
In regards your polygamy scenario, I would have to say that taken in the view of no control factors being in place, then yes it would be very dangerous. Having said that, as long as sensible measures are taken(as is done in harem laws and rules), and that the group does not go crazy and essentially marry everyone then it would not be an issue.
A good way of looking into the matter is to research the laws pertaining to both harems and polygamy, obviously different countries have different legislation, etc but you can see that in the more sensible areas that there are limits and/or rules, logistics in the matter of how they are allowed to proceed.
To A.J.Tokker, i’m glad that you have enjoyed this as much as I have, i’m pleased that I have had the opportunity to debate with you and perhaps we will debate on other things in the future. Just to be fair though, I will let you know now that I debate on many different things under many names, the reason for this is so as to stop people from gaining too much data on me(I enjoy my anonimity), though I will say that if people compare the writing style, i’m sure that they will recognise some of my work. One more thing to admit is that sometimes I act as a devils advocate so as to get a discussion going(the things I say as an advocate are not generally those I believe in). In the instance of gay marriage however this is my true current position.
Anyway, here’s to many more debates,
yours, Larn. =)
In regards to polygamy, that would defeat the purpose of marriage all together. If a man has 5 wives and each of those wives has 5 husbands and each of those husbands has five wives and each of those wives has five husbands and so on and so on…..we might as well all be married and live in one big community house. Who would know who’s child is who’s and from which husband. The only certainty would be the child’s mother.
This scenario is completely insane and I can’t be any clearer as to why.
As far as separation of Church and state goes, well not only is it practical but necessary in a society that guarantees freedom of religion. The real question is whether or not people can accept it and whether the issue will be one of the many that destroy the American society. In studying history it is easy to see that no Nation stands for ever. So in theory separation of church and state is practical.
In a society that guarantees freedom for all (all being the key word) those freedoms only work if they do not infringe on the rights of others. So the majority can’t deny the minority the same rights they have or else it would be freedom for the majority.
Now let me ask you what any of this has to do with gay marriage?
As for polygamy, yes, women would have the same rights. Did I say this was only for men?
Larn, in no way am I saying your conclusion is wrong. I am okay with your conclusion (you support gay marriage). It is just some of the arguments that you use to reach that conclusion that seems a bit off.
To both of you, maybe you can view religion as a way of life/way of thinking. If that is the case, then religion is no longer an issue.
As much as I would like to say it is wrong for this reason or that, the logic just isn’t there. From everything I have been looking at it might even be in our (humanities) best interest. If one looks at the population of the planet and the amount of people who are living in poverty they could easily draw the same conclusion.
I have enjoyed this discussion and would like to thank you for the links. They will help me explore the other subjects I have become interested in. I will also check back occasionally to see how this is going. It would seem we have nothing else to debate as I think we see eye to eye on this issue aside from religion.
?, I’m sorry, I forgot to respond to the issue of religion. Religion can not be a valid argument. For one there is the concept of separation of church and state. Therefore anyone is free to worship how they wish and any Church has the right to refuse to marry two people based on religious principle. This is evident in the fact that a public school is not allowed to teach religious principles yet a private christian school is. Second, the state would have to take a stand in favor of a single religion. Which religion would you chose? Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoist, or one of many others?
In regards the impact of gay marriage on society should it become accepted, I don’t feel that there would be a great impact overall except possibly an increase in tolerance towards others, after all it was quite well accepted before religion got involved so it would probably ease some of the pressure in society(people should remember that it was considered outrageous in many societies to even think that a black man had a soul, let alone could be a christian. This intolerance was perpetuated by many christian faiths for a long time, but thankfully that nonsense has mostly gone). Without a reason to hate people in society tend to take their aggresive traits out in other ways, some positive, sport for example, unfortunately you will get the ones who go bad, but then that is something that society can deal with, at least it should do by now, there of course will be those who might say that soiety would get worse, but frankly if that’s true and it does just because it cannot handle reasonable equality amongst one another then, to be honest, society doesn’t deserve to be allowed to continue.
Humanity should remember just that, humanity.
I think i’ve covered it fairly well, if not I apologise, i’ve had a bit of a rough day, oh, i’m glad the links finally turned up from where ever they were hiding, I hope they are of some use.
To ?, i’m not going to rehash what i’ve said previously, I will say that all arguments are by nature flawed either by incompletness or misunderstanding or whatever, I don’t know what exactly is flawed, but then again I don’t know what your reasoning for your stance is on each topic as you have basically not given justification or, well anything really. To be honest you just seem to be sitting on the fence refusing to make any true opinion one way or another, if you wish to continue solely on the merits of gay marriage and whether or not you are for or against then I will be glad to continue.
Yours, Larn
Second there is the issue of diversity. Going by the above model it would be impossible to keep record of who’s child was who’s. So then we would end up having more birth defects. Sure there is always your screening process but that would not be affective on a large scale. It would cause the decline of diversity in our DNA which would lead to the extinction of the human species.
Larn, let me explain what it is that I’m thinking and maybe you can help me narrow my search. What I’m trying to do is come up with a hypothesis (I hope that is the correct word) on what the effects of gay marriage could have on society. Or maybe I should say the eventual acceptance of gay marriage. When I went back to check on the material about China I found that it was in 1644 that the first laws were passed against homosexuality. I am curious as to why it became an issue. From what I have been able to gather it does not appear to be religion. If you are growing tired of this discussion I will understand. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
1. Religion is a valid reason if following the laws of the land.
2. Pro gay marriage people should have no problem with polygamy (which you have already said you are ok with) and incest.
That’s all.
To whomever runs the site, can you help I put a series of links on forA.J.Tokker and they still haven’t shown up, can someone please let me know if there’s a limit, or some other reason as to why they are not showing, thankyou.
As for the diversity thing. I think you misunderstood me. Were we not talking about kids from incestuous relationships having a higher risk of being born with a disorder? And you were the one using that as an argument against incest. That is why I brought up amniocentesis in the first place.
Lack of diversity? Interesting. Actually, not really. If you’re so worried about human diversity and that is what you want to prioritize, then shouldn’t we force all people to have kids? That will give you the diversity you want!……….I mean, this diversity issue really has nothing to do with this. I really don’t even know why you are defending A.J. in this case. Insignificant issue.
Any other argument(s) you may wish to bring to the table? Cause so far, your arguments are all weak, at least in my mind they are.
But at least we agree on one thing. Humans are flawed.
GENETICS.
https://www.dnaftb.org/
https://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/about_genetics.html
https://www.frontiers-in-genetics.org/page.php?id=genetics-all_en
https://biology.about.com/od/genetics/Genetics.htm
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/
https://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000141
https://www.nslij-genetics.org/seq/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122101914.htm
DNA.
https://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/dna/dna.htm
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
https://www.dna.ac.uk/
https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/notebook/courses/guide/dnast.htm
https://www.dnaftb.org/
https://www.eurekascience.com/ICanDoThat/dna_intro.htm
WORLD HISTORY.
https://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.html
https://www.historyworld.net/
https://www.fsmitha.com/
https://www.worldhistorycompass.com/
https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001196.html
https://www.camelotintl.com/world/
https://www.worldhistory.com/index.php
https://worldhistorymatters.org/
ECOSYSTEMS
https://www.geography.learnontheinternet.co.uk/topics/ecosystem.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/ecosystems/ecosystemsresourcesrev1.shtml
https://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/habitat/habitat.html
https://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/ecosystems.html&edu=elem
https://www.springerlink.com/content/101552/
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/rhynie/
I will leave it at that for now, if you wish to get more info a good way is to prefix what you are after with wordings such as, all about, details on, listings regarding, etc or even just typing in the word itself. Anyway hopefully some of these will be usefull, enjoy.
To ?, you say that a 1% risk is reasonable, but you as you mentioned it’s about a 20% to 30% risk naturally and then you are increasing the risk by taking the test which contains it’s own risk as mentioned and that risk is based on a competant clinician(note, that risk has be shown to increase with less competant clinicians), bear in mind these things always seem reasonable until you’re the one who has to undertake it.
I did not mention diversity, I think that was A.J.TOKKER, but to reference to diversity, i’m sorry but i’m afraid I must disagree, if you think logicaly the very fact of diversity in the human race helps to ensure it’s very survival, as an example let’s go back to the plague, if the human race had not been diverse then you and I would not be having this conversation as the plague would have eradicated us, the very fact of diversity is what creates the differences in the human genome which allows us have at least some chance of suvival when major outbreaks occur. What would you prefer, a homogenised race that could be wiped out because no one has a defence or a diverse one that has an increased chance due to it’s diversity?
Your right about it going against their teachings, etc, but as I have said homosexuals were fine until religion came along, so homosexuals have at least equal right in regards lifestyle as they had been living their lives quite happily until religion came along. Whether it’s right or wrong in the eyes of god(whomever) is irrelevant, the why of that is simple, if it’s wrong then those who are gay will be dealt with by god, and those who are not gay and who behave with understanding will be seen well in god’s eyes for showing tolerance. I saying it this way for simplicities sake.
No one would sensibly say that laws are the ultimate truth simply because laws are written by humans and humans are flawed. This is why the laws are so varieted, they either jump on one religion or anothers concept of right and wrong, or if dictatorial make up laws that seem justifiable in their mind.
I will be honest if there is a higher being I wish he/she/it would come down and shut everyone up by telling them all what is right/wrong, mind you even then people will still b***h and moan, such is the madness of humanity.
Now for screening out DNA losing diversity. Well, I guess that is true. But in this case, I don’t see diversity as a positive thing, and I would think most people would agree. That is why I even mentioned that there is a screening method.
And as for infringing ways of life. It actually does because it goes against the teachings for those people. They have a right to vote/protest/live in a manner in which they believe. If they are doing unlawful things in order to achieve this, then I totally agree that they are being intolerant. But if they are abiding by the laws of the land, then I see no problem. That’s their right, as much as the right of gay people to protest/vote their way.
Again, I view laws as just things that, more or less, make a society run smoothly. If it were about right and wrong, then why are there different laws in different countries? If laws are the ultimate truth, why not have universal laws which all countries abide by? Of course, as we grow up, we have the tendency to just think of laws as drawing the line between “right and wrong”, but that is mostly just the “right and wrong” that the majority of the people determined to be “right and wrong”. Again, this may differ from what is ultimately “right and wrong”, but since nobody knows what that is, this is how things happen.
In reference to China I have researched a little more and discovered that you are correct. It was not until 1644 that laws were passed to suppress homosexuals. It would seem that I have a habit of trying to compare this issue with the wildlife from my home. Most of my insights come from those observations.
Would you please share some links to help me study further on Genetics, DNA, and world history. I know this is off subject, but I have not met many who would be willing to help me research this? I can understand what I read. Also ecosystems? I apologize once again for not stating my motivations in this debate at the beginning.
In regards the traditional family unit, if you take a look prior to christianity the gay unit existed quite happily alongside the hetero unit, it was not until religion got in on the act that the gay unit was ostracised, these gay units lived together for life as did the hetero ones so your point there is moot. In reference to your justice for all comment, this can be seen as redressing the fact that your religious freedom had represed the freedom of gays who had been living quite happily with everyone else prior to religious enforcement. In your comment being predominantly bhuddist you really need to recheck your data the suppression of religion by the state in china is one of the greatest examples of suppression in the world. Also in china prior to the communist takeover the was very little problems regarding homosexuality in the country.
You say about gay marriage infringeing on your way of life, well unless you are gay, how exactly would it affect you? If you cannot handle homosexuality then all you have to do is be courteous when you meet one and otherwise keep out of their lives, I hardly find it likely that a gay man is going to drag you to the alter insisting you marry him.
In the situation regarding separation of state and religion, you’re right it is a problem, the main one being that the church(I.E. vatican) is a political beast and doesn’t like it when people make decisions without their consent.
I’m in a bit of a rush so I appologise if this isn’t as clear as it should be, a lot of it is going off memory, so if anything needs redoing let me know, go to go, catch you later.
So if this is correct then the suppression of homosexual behavior could very well be a natural instinct in man that is their to regulate population. If we were to accept gay marriage it very well could upset this natural balance.
This is my line of thinking thus far and I am still considering others as well so at this point I will wait for feedback on these thoughts. you are right to say that this issue is more complex than we have looked at so far.
on the issue of incest, you must consider the issue of diversity.
even if we can filter out defects, it does not diversify DNA to insure the survival of our species. That is all i will say on that issue because it is off topic.
https://www.thefetus.net/page.php?id=1914
https://www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/amniocentesis-what-you-need-know
If you are referring to a different procedure, then I am sorry. Please enlighten me.
Second, I think you guys may want to reconsider what laws are for. I mean of course on paper it’s going to talk about “justice for all”, blah blah blah. But if you think about it, is that really the case? I think laws are just there to make society run in a smooth fashion. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not really about right and wrong. It’s just what the majority thinks is “right”, which of course may not be “right” in an ultimate sense.
And when people say, “everyone has the right to live as they wish.” Ok, how about religous freedom? In this case, I see it as a battle of preserving people’s religious freedom vs. gay marriage. I don’t see anything wrong with either. It’s just, I don’t see why people don’t accept religion as a valid reason. Again, it’s just a way of life. Please tell me how you separate your way of life from decisions that will affect your life. I mean it sounds great, and I agree, if possible, religion and state should be separated, but is it really possible? Maybe for some issues, but for things like this, I don’t think so.
I also agree with Larn. You state that this is all superficial as if you are above any input in this conversation. I for one would welcome the chance to explore this topic more in depth.
“Anonymous says: April 15, 2009 at 5:20 pm”
In the case of gay marriage as previously written there is no reason why 2 consenting people (not crossing the age barrier)should not be in a relationship and allowed to be married when of appropriate age.
Regarding incest, in a sense you are right, in practical terms any 2 people(as long as the are old enough to understand, I.E, age of consent) should be allowed to be a couple, the issue arises from the factor of children, you talk about screening but you are wrong, the screening processes can cause damage themselves and are only good for certain defects, this then leaves open the problem of defects that cannot be detected untill too late, with this in mind the knowledge that children born through incestous relationships are many times more likely to be born damaged must be taken into account, certain steps could be taken but would infringe upon the couples civil rights, things such as vasectomy, etc.
You talk about religion as being a way of life, this is true, but people come from across all belief, and non belief(and all points in between) systems, this is why state should be seperate, thereby allowing the best combination of freedoms and restraints for the maximum percentage of the people for whom the state is meant to protect.
One last thing, you say that the talk here is way to superficial as though you can bring something better to this discussion, well please do as that would finally show not only that you are something more than a mere question mark, but it may also make those who thus far haven’t done any real thinking to actually do so, i’m sure that there would be some at least who would welcome a more in depth approach to the subject, The writer i’m sure would almost certainly appreciate your views of the subject of gay marriage.
This is what I find funny amongst the people that I have talked to that are for gay marriage. Most of them say they are against polygamy and incest, yet for gay marriage. Frankly, I see no difference. People mention birth defects and bring in genetics as reasons for being against incest, but there is a method to screen that kind of stuff out with today’s science/medicine.
As for religion not being a valid reason for going against gay marriage, why? Religion is just like everything else. It’s a way of life. People say separation of religion and state is important, but since religion is a way of life, that statement is very impractical. That is why we even have these debates.
Everyone has their own belief system, religious people just have religion as part of theirs. I don’t see anything wrong with that since nobody knows whether they are right or wrong. It’s up to the individual to live and believe in what they want, of course within the laws of the country they live in.
And no, I am not using this for a paper. Quite frankly, most of the points made here cannot be used; they are way too superficial.
The relevant point is that individual citizens have nothing to lose where gay marriage is concerned. Those who don’t approve are completely free not to marry someone of their own gender. They’re also free not to associate with gay people at all if they don’t want to. The concept we’re dealing with is really freedom and the right to live your life as you wish as long as you don’t harm others. To be against that, you would have to think that your personal beliefs must dominate society and dictate the way everyone else lives.
I would hardly define your response as one as you have given reasoning, etc as to why you are for or not, rather it sounds as though you are trying to get others to do the work whilst you do nothing, perhaps you are utilising us for a paper or something, if so then have the decency to admit it, if not then join in fully.
To answer polygamy, as long as the people involved are happy with their relationship and the way in which they are respected, etc within that relationship, then I see no real problem.
As regards incest that is a different matter, in the main I would have to say no I do not approve of incest as this is usually initiated at an early age where it comes within the confines of pedophilia and the child has no idea that it’s wrong. There are however instances which are harder to deal with, one example occured in britain several years ago, two children were born and on both occasions taken from the mother who was not fit to look after them, the children were both adopted and never knew about each other, many years later these two met and fell in love, it was only when they went to get married that the truth came out, the devastation they must have felt must have been horrific, the problem is that they were deeply in love, in this case is incest wrong, I honestly cannot give that a reasonable answer as they were victims of a rare and unforeseen circumstance.
Now would you give a fuller and more accurate opinion on the subject which is gay marriage and your reasoning so as this topic can finally get back to it’s original reason for being created.
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I would presume that this would in actuality protect the rights of homosexuals. If I am correct in that assumption then I see no reason why they should not be allowed to marry.
I have two reasons for this. first would be this:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If I am correct in my interpretation of this it would mean that congress could not legally bar marriage to any individual based on religious principles.
My second reason is based on the definition of liberty.
Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, is generally considered in modern time to be a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.
My only question concerning this is the wording of Amendment XIV. in it it states that no state shall make or enforce any law. Is this to imply that congress can make such a law? If not, I am not sure why this is even in debate. The only thing i can think of is the social impact. Am I correct on any of these points or is there something I am not aware of?
On a side note i would like to ask for some input on my use of grammar in this post. If that is inappropriate I once again apologize.
Personally, I could careless if gay people get the right to marry or not. It doesn’t bother me either way.
I just think that if people are for gay marriage, then they should be ok with polygamy and incest.
And then I could get into a whole other thing, but let’s take things one at a time.
Was that good enough, Larn? Now can you give me an answer to my question?
I understand the quantum psychology position but as a general rule…
In my previous statement I notice that it is only partially displayed. I
am not sure why this is but it is irrelevant as to the discussion at hand.
So i will leave it as it is.
April 12, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Come on, folks. Pedophilia has no place in this discussion. To inject it lowers the level of any argument that’s being made.
I agree with you, the problem is that unfortunately people like ? will insist on dragging in other things such as pedophilia, etc because they have usually been educated to believe that homosexuality and pedophilia, etc are forms of human perversity and this rationalises their excuse for bringing the other things in rather than dealing with it exclusively.
Had you topic been say about murder for example, those same people would have brought in rapists, pedophiles and most likely homosexuals as well, because they just cannot separate them in their minds.
Only when people are better (and properly) educated to see things both separatly and subjectively will real progress be made.
Definitions of pedophile on the Web: pedophilia – Sexual attraction to a child; clinically, a person sixteen years of age or older who is at least five years older than the child. Pedophiles will prefer males, females, or both. Generally considered to be an incurable mental disorder.
I am taking mental disorder as disease, disease having numerous definitions but I am going for the idea of it not being a normal, healthy function. Thing is, would be nice if you dealt with the point as I am fairly sure you know what I mean.
To clarify though, I do not see homosexuality as a disease or mental disorder. Pedaphilia is generally considered to be this and by the look of it, has been since at least 1927…so not to date me thinks.
A.J pointed a link to an article that linked pedaphilia to homosexuals. My observation was based on arguing that link as being tenuous when dealing with the subject of gay marriage.
I have a friend who is straight whose elder brother is gay, they share a good family and are nice enough people (the older brother got the good looks and the manners) so I tend to lean towards genetics but this is anecdotal and I suspect not valid as an agument.
To my tiny mind it strikes me that societies should and do attempt to advance to higher levels of social order and acceptance. To alter or deny the rights of one part of society due to sexual preference, because it does not fit in with what the majority prefer, does not head in the right direction. I think the pedaphila argument is a red herring; if all homosexuals were murderers, pedaphiles, rapists etc. then there would be a valid argument but they are clearly not. The religious argument is particularly weak, as different religions have different tolerances and customs. If we tolerate other religions then why not other sexual practices?
I think I have the answer: homosexuals should declare themselves a religion.
Please remember a discussion is only valid if both parties give their views and reasoning
People are naturally biased and as a result no statistical compilation or study or links can be relied on to accuratly reflect the truth of a matter. My personal opinion is that as long as you are of legal age (18/21 depending on your country)and both parties involved are happy with the relationship and does not push their way upon others whether gay straight or bisexual then there should be no problem. To compare this to pedophiliacs or murderers is unfair and misleading and muddies what should be a straight forward matter, an example is with pedophiles, the majority of pedophile abuse is done by adult males on underage females, so that should be considered when talking about the concerns expressed regarding adult homosexuals caring for male/female children. The gene question is of course still out, only about 10% of dna is used the rest is what they think is junk dna but they can’t be sure, the fact of the matter is they are decades away from knowing what everything does, likely human sexuality, eye colour, etc is a combination of genes, and enviroment(an example of the peculiarity of nature was quite well expressed in one case where a woman was impregnated by her partner and gave birth to twins one was black, one was white, both parents were black but she was accused of having sex with a white man, dna confimed that the black male was the father of both the twins, this shows how nature can do whatever it wants whether we like it or not. Some say well that makes it ok for pedophiles, this is where a lot of contention arises and I agree, pedophilia is where the young are manipulated by adults for their own benefit which is wrong and as a result should not be allowed. The case for homosexuaity is different in which many of those involved have always felt that way, this changes the situation in the regard that they have not been subjected to pedophile manipulation and as long as they are in suitable age relationships should be allowed to continue, I hope I have presented my logic clearly, if not please point out my error and I will atempt to clarify.
What is your definition of Mental Disorder/Disease?
And, I’m sorry but what do you mean by “pedophilia is a disease”? What is your definition of disease?
Human overcrowding does not consume resources as you say, it is human consumption that does this and at 2.6% to 10% of population as a gay regulatory system? I think you will find the deaths from starvation glabally outstrip being a shirtlifter many many times over.
Weren’t we talking gay marriage?
I was going to go thorugh all the links but I still feel weighing up statistics and other peoples opinions is not the way to go. It is clear that each faction has an agenda and those who are believing they are trying to unbiased influence the stats just by an attempt to be unbiased. Then again, I looked at some negative stats and found the presentation of them was dubious, for instance, when did the right suitability to raise children have anything to do with demographics? It is all merit. 100% of murderers are human, therefore humans should not adopt is the sort of statistical conclusions I am addressing here.
Is it not fair to say that homosexuals (not all)can have balanced, loving, monogamous relationships and that a child could benefit from this environment? Is it not also fair to say that if we are not prejudiced against homosexuality then we woul dnot care if the child then grew up gay as gayness is accepted? Top say otherwise would be a statement of obvious prejudice. Yes, it is true that we wish to protect our children from perverts and pedophiles but, let us first understand that pedophilia is a disease (https://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSAR.014.0189A) and none of the stats mention the occurance of pedophila in long term homosexual relationships. In these observances of demographics there is no consideration of merit. We must agreet hat the quality of the heterosexual populace is very diverse in terms of it capacity for quality parenting and it seems somewhat crass to expect perfection from the homosexual community. We only have to read the press to see the rediculous parents, raising children who go on about their rights to raise their children as they see fit. Yet, that fitness is clearly not of any standard. If you live in a trailer, have 29 children, claim welfare you have not committed any crime. Shocking.
To Statistical: I apologize i was only responding to the statements beforehand. In my culture one does not insult anothers faith and so i responded in kind. I would very much like to understand your point of view.
I hope you accept.
On a side note what does re mean? It is not in my english dictionary?
—————————————————
This link that you gave(https://nambla.org/pederasty.htm) is by David Thorstad who is a proponent of the concept of underage sex and does not represent average homosexuals. It is also a nambla paper.
—————————————————
The following are a few of the links I have to hand, I can’t remember off hand exactly which ones lead where as they are in a file that I have regarding homosexuality, for and against, but I think a lot of the ones i’ve picked are pro gay or trying to be balanced, when I have more time, and if I remember i’ll go through the file properly and pick out better ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
https://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?id=11034§ion=9
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread403143/pg1
https://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-04-15
https://levellers.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/sexual-orientation-the-scientific-evidence-such-as-it-is/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
https://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinseybio.html
https://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/alfredckinsey.html
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/GetItemDetailsHandler?iN=9780801854408&qty=1&viewMode=3&loggedIN=false
https://us.macmillan.com/biologicalexuberance
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826612.800-editorial-why-homosexuality-is-not-unnatural.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826613.900-gay-brains-are-hardwired-at-birth.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403
https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838786/
https://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board8/messages/354.shtml
https://www.debate.org/debates/homosexuality-is-natural./1/
https://www.sdakinship.org/anotherpov/07.htm
https://www.truthtree.com/gay.shtml
https://www.helium.com/debates/118879-are-homosexual-acts-natural-or-sinful/side_by_side
https://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html
https://politika.lv/en/topics/human_rights/15875/
https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488
https://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
https://www.soulforce.org/article/644
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
https://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=psychotherapists-trying-to-treat-pa-2009-03-26
https://nambla.org/pederasty.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
this it seems is non bias.
————————————————-
The following are other items written by the same individuals:
————————————————-
HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW | MAY 2005 | Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier
————————————————-
Call to Action or Call to Apostasy?: How Dissenters Plan to Remake the Catholic Church in Their Own Image by Brian W. Clowes
————————————————-
Springtime Decay, a study of the decline in enrollment in seminaries since the close of the Second Vatican Council by David L. Sonnier
————————————————-
Girl Servers Cause Sexual Confusion at the Altar by David L. Sonnier
(The Southern Renaissance is the best value in authentic Catholic Publications)
This is esentially denying girls the right to worship god in the same way as alter boys, as though girls are less in gods eyes(note, for the record i’m male)
————————————————-
He also writes for lordylordyhavemercyonme.blogspot.com
as well as several other catholic blogs
————————————————-
David L. Sonnier is also a member of “The Knights of Saint Thomas More” which is a Catholic Fraternity
——–
My list could go on for quite some time, but the essence of what I have shown is clear, whatever you read by these two individuals, you also have to take into account their religious views, if you look further you will see what I mean. Balanced information is best, where that is impossible then read all you can from both sides of the situation so as to avoid getting the wrong answer
Firstly, I study what creates opinion and belief, I have to in my business and often have to look at my own thoughts and review their legitimacy. Just as I had to slap myself over the ‘gay gene’ assumption, even though it was in error. It would have simply made my argument simpler had it been true.
The link was interesting.
If the question we are looking into is whether homosexuals should marry or be permitted to marry, with the same rights and priveledges as heterosexual unions then, I think they should. If the opposition to homosexual union is whether they should be allowed to adopt children due to a higher statistical liklihood of child molestation, then I think again, the union should be allowed because, the checks and balances for adoption, (if a homosexual couple), would be most stringent and a screw up by social services in this matter would be very well publicised.
A suitable couple to adopt is just that: suitable.
I do have a few issues with the way the statistics are reported and I do often run into not so much bias but are influenced shall we say, by the authors of such articles.
Lechat, yup.
https://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
April 9, 2009 at 10:35 pm
To Lechat, I was reading your response to A.J. and I found it funny cause it seems like your gay friend is also a case of black and white theory. That’s 2 for black and white and 0 for shades theory =)
I understand what you are saying but it only proves that in his instance he is at the higher or lower(whichever you prefer) end of the spectrum. To see it only as that would be like saying that there is no such things as gray, in nature there is no two thins identical even supposedly identical twins have differences in things such as fingerprints, height, etc.
Anyway after this lot I am going to see if I can get some sleep, if not i’ll catch you later, have a good morning, afternoon, evening, night, where ever you all are. =)
As I said in earlier post, i’m tired so I hope this makes sense
The point that was the nexus of this post which was should gay marriage be allowed, I feel it should be allowed, the fact that it’s called marriage should be irrelevant, it is a word that describes a state of relationship, to force couples to have a different name for their relationship I feel would be to detract from their feelings to each other. As was said, I think by yourself, it was the government who defined the word marriage as being solely for the purpose of containing that particular state of relationship and as a result any couple whether they were believers of a particular religion or agnostic or even atheist had to use this form of “contract” if you will so as to have the society and government, etc to recognise the rights of each partner involved, for an example where a couple are married, when one partner dies the other becomes the next of kin and has certain rights, where they are not married they have far fewer rights. Another way to look at it would be this, if lets say the bhudists were to gain control of the world and they claimed the word marriage as there own and forbade anyone of any other religious/nonreligious persuasion to use it and then forced each type of religious/nonreligious or sexual persuasion to have a different word to the one they have grown to recognise as meaning the devotional bond between one another you create resentment, cause them to be catagorised as lesser beings, etc.
I hope I don’t unduly offend someone, but when you look at it like this it seems logical to allow it.
P.S. If any of it doesn’t make sense or is loorly spelled or constructed I apologise as I haven’t slept in 30+ hours and the is a lot of noise today.
‘nowhere in nature can two members of the same sex produce young’
and then
‘there are species of toads that can change sexes to adapt to their reproductive needs to insure their survival, however that is not the case with humans’
Well, the caveat of this needing to apply to humans was not mentioned and we were talking in ‘nature’ so I took into account everything from bacteria up. My point was missed so I will try again (Idid warn you that attention wained when I type). Just because nature does or does not illustrate something does not make it right or wrong. The reason, I believe (my caveat there), that people might think that nature was the standard by which all things should be measured, is because they beleive that nature is the produce of some devine being. I do not believe this, and I kind of recognise that there are some seriously shitty parts of nature. If a porcupine masturbates by rubbing itself on a stick, you will understand I don’t really consider it some indication of a devine Will with regard my own methods.
Now, this thing with suppression and regulation: it is so obvious (to me sorry) that we left behind natural systems of regulation so long ago as to be, well, rediculous to consider them (don’t be insulted, I know you are sensitive), we let malformed babies survive, idiots vote (and take office), we keep people who can’t produce a service to the tribe live off the tribe… Seems to me we have suppressed enough regulatory systems without giving much of a damn: why pick on gays as a population regulatory subsystem if indeed it exists/existed?
Now, lets look at this obviousness of my non-understanding of christiantiy. You stated that there was nothing in the bible that said one thing, I said there is, you then introduce the whys and wherefores of why you ignore those bits. Now, you are an intelligent guy, is it not plain that you said something that was not true UNLESS you put rules and regulations on how YOU personally interpret that thing?
If I say, well, anything, what you read and therefore answer, the impression I give, is directly related to what I write. If you have a list that I have to conform to in order to be correct, please provide it, hense the misunderstanding with regards procreation and religious whatnot.
I am guessing that English is not your first language, only guessing as I did mention the war and did not remove that as a possibility but neither entertained it as one. My point was an illustration of how going against traditions does not always lead to something bad and that if it does, is the tragic ending not worth the final liberation/emancipation? It is obvious you agree as you said so, though, the next bit (about extra wars and so on) seems like you are talking to someone else as I have no idea what that has to do with my position.
Before I apologise to ‘?’ I will try and clarify without giving you the hump or using complicated English.
1) It is my contention that taking reference from nature as a guide for moral or ethical conduct is without merit.
2) Regulatory systems no longer apply to humanity only economics/geography.
3) Traditions and customs are often based on ignorance and society does not progress without shaking these off.
4) A majority does not indicate what is right or fair.
5) I was not rude at any point, I did suggest your ideas were naive and asked questions which illustrated historical artifacts for illustration of my opposing view. That is not rude. I may have a different standard of rude.
6) A capital letter goes at the beginning of each sentence to enhance readability: not using them unless you are not from a country/culture that uses this system is rude.
Finally, ‘?’ you got me. I went and looked up my references and found things had changed a bit. So the position I have been holding has shifted to a none proven position. Apologies for the abject arroganc of saying it was a fact. I can only defend that by saying I do not generally bother to keep up to date on genetics, so when RELIGULOUS propogated the myth, I fell for it like a putz. So I am now reconsidering how this affects my argument/assertion, as you can imagine, I did not think to check before making that statement.
Apologies.
now if the suppression of such behavior in our society is somehow a part of this regulatory system then to remove it could have dramatic affects on the survival or our species.
now obviously you have no understanding of Christianity. if you did then you would not take thins from the Old Testament and throw them out of context. the complexity of the faith is more than i have time to write so i will suggest you read the New Testament to understand why we do not stone people to death.
as for women getting the right to vote and slavery being abolished, of course i don’t think it ended badly. i do think it’s funny that you would fail to mention the civil war. that was one of the most horrific wars in our history. the difference is other than the south the majority of the population was for abolishing slavery. now as much as you might not like it the majority of the population is a against the legalization of gay marriage. case in point, California. in light of this and the other wars we are currently fighting i hardly think that a civil war is going to help the cause. if you don’t think a civil war is a possible outcome then you should think about the Rodney King trial. there were many riots after that. people felt their rights were violated in that scenario and reacted accordingly. what do you think would happen if that took place nation wide. now a civil war scenario might be bit extreme but it happen in any society and no one knows what may or may not start it.
now butting in is fine as this is an open discussion but if your just going to be rude then whats the point. no ground will be gained on either side. so if you want to throw stones remember i will throw back, if you want to be civil i will be civil. only one is going to help gain ground in this debate.
Tokker, if you are a Christian and you believe the Bible does not say to force people to believe as you do, then why do people get punished for the smallest infractions of law? Stoned to death for spilling your seed on the ground is somehow not forcing someone to follow your beliefs about masturbation? The idea that as a species we cannot circumvent nature (man can fly for starters) is highly naive. As for overturning traditions on a whim, I hardly think that what is being discussed is whimsical and by your rational of overturning traditions ending badly…I guess then you feel that women getting the vote and slavery being abolished ended badly some how? Or is your point that the American civil war could have been avoided if we had just kept slaves? The idea that nature regulates itself…well, firstly nature is not a conscious mother nature like entity and is not going to be saying to itself what is my long term strategy. If it did, the sensible thing would have to have disposed of us humans ages ago. All regulatory systems that are witnessed in nature are emergent balances and are not governed by a consciousness. As such, your pondered conclusion is based on an assumption with no evidence to support it.
Sorry to but in…
my argument on this is purely based on homosexuals raising children. while i am a Christian nowhere in the Bible does it say to force others to believe as i do. nowhere in nature can two members of the same sex produce young. so to think that we as a species can circumvent nature is destructive to our species. we know far to little about the world we live in to think that we can break the rules and our society is to delicate to think that we can overturn our traditions on a whim. through out history when this has happened it has always ended badly.
i have thought a lot about this and have come up with a conclusion. please tell me what you think. nature seems to regulate it self with say checks and balances. if this is the case could we not say that a persons sexual orientation is in some way natures form of population control? i’m sorry i’m not as eloquent at writing as you but you seem to be intelligent enough to understand what i’m trying to say.
I’m more of a black and white kind of person.
in response to your statement on some species in nature raising the children by themselves (whether male or female). i would like to point out that this is not the case with human beings. while unfortunately that does happen in some cases that in way makes it right.
in response to artificial insemination. just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. in farming this was useful to insure mating to replenish stock. if we did not do this then we would not have a reliable food supply. when we speak of people this has been done to help couples who could not have children to just that have children. the key thing here is that these people were trying to have children the natural way and could not. when we consider it for two people who have chosen to live with the same sex and therefore circumvent nature all together then we are saying nature is of no consequence. i do not think that to be wise.
now lets get to marriage. marriage is a religious concept. the term was adopted by the legislative branch of our government. i will admit though that it is not strictly a Christian concept. however when people start wanting to use that term they should remember that they are going to offend people of that faith if their marriage goes against that religion. so if they don’t want to provoke these people they should find another way to achieve their goals.
the priest. the priest were only an example. but if you look at the statistics you will see that most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by someone of the same sex. whether that is male or female. i do think a lot of the problem is that many faiths require their priest and nuns to remain celibate. surely suppressing ones sexual desires is not healthy. but then again that is a choice they made.
on same sex households you are wrong. i do volunteer work at a psychiatric hospital. in my time there i have met many children who were raised in gay or lesbian households. the majority of these children despised their parents because of their sexual orientation. that could have a lot of outside contributors but never the less the children still suffered. i hardly think it’s fair to the children to subject them to ridicule from their peers because a gay or lesbian couple wanted to raise a child.
please reread what i said about the tax break. i think you will notice that i did not think that any married couple should receive a tax break that did not have a child.
as far as children raised in orphanages i think we need to do a lot of work to reform those orphanages. there have been way to many crimes committed in these places that go over looked. i don’t care if your a priest or nun if you do the crime you do the time and anyone who tries to cover it up should get double the punishment.
lechat if you throw stones at me i’m going to throw stones back. it’s that simple. now as to your “study”. it’s flawed. if this were the case then by your own admission there would not be homosexuals in our society because our society would have suppressed those desires. you should also realize that it is impossible to study a persons natural responses to any given subject if that person is aware they are being studied because it changes all the variables.
p.s. j smith i am currently reading many different case studies that document the benefit of the male and female influence on children during their development.
Note: These are obviously overt examples but will suffice to get you started should you wish to look into the field further.
In regards the gradients of sexuality, i’m talking again about forms of repression in which the society for example may be intolerant of homosexuals(take A.J.Tokkers stance for instance), what happens here is that the individual growing up learns this attitude from the society around them thus creating the unconsious repression by the persons own brain of their natural inclinations, this allows that person to then function in society as a “normal” person, and in fact may go through their entire life never consiously being aware of their true desires. This has been shown in many studies throughout the world in which the test subjects are submitted to a series of images, smells, etc that stimulate the physical and mental responses which are recorded and compared to other data which comes from the same study material which has been exposed to lesbian, gay, and straight. These are compared and have shown that the sexuality of people is graded much like, for example a food item such as say chocolate in which some love the flavour, some think it’s o.k and others who detest the flavour, and all the points in between.
I hope that this has helped in clarifying the matter for you.
A side note to A.J.tokker, I notice you make a remark about spelling in one of your comments, you are aware that a great many famous people could not write let alone spell aren’t you? In fact, you yourself have made spelling errors as well as have I. Spelling ability does not negate a person’s opinion or arguement, if that was the case then the bible itself would be invalid due to the spelling mistakes that exist in the original and in many later versions as well. I only point this out as you claim to be above throwing stones and yet appear to be doing just that.
There are species in nature where the males or the females only raise the offspring.
Artificial insemmination has been around for centuries, check into farming, it’s only that it has recently been used for humans that people think it’s new.
Marriage doesn’t have to be about children, it’s love that defines marriage.
Both male and female priests/ nuns(whatever the definition) in all religions are guilty of child abuse and that is on both boys and girls, so talking about only male on boy abuse is silly.
I notice some say look at the whole picture, and then promptly only use one viewpoint.
There is no valid evidence to show that children raised in one sex households are dysfunctional or confused about their sexuality. This claim has been made mainly by homophobes. Where real scientific studies have been done there has been no increase in the percentage of children with dysfunction or sexual confusion.
Interestingly A.J.Tokker you seem to bring in a subject that has no relevance which is that of the tax break, just because a couple is in a gay or lesbian marriage, should not detract from the fact where they are raising a child.
One more point, you say that a child that is brought up in either a soley male or female enviroment is wrong and yet many religions did and do just this in orphanages run exclusively by one sex for one sex.
aside from religion i have many reason. the most important being children. they are after all the result of heterosexual people. therefore should be raised by a man and a woman. of course the rebuttal will be that homosexuality happens through out nature. but this argument is actually in my favor since nowhere in nature do these homosexual animals ever produce a baby from their union. or it might be that children are being raised in dysfunctional families all over the place. but thats not a very intelligent argument either because taking a child from one dysfunctional environment to another doesn’t rectify the problem. it only compounds it.
now lets go to religion. many on the other side want say many things about my religion. all their arguments are in fact based on what people of that religion have done in the name of that religion. this is of course ludicrous. the actions of these people is in no way supported by their religion so they are the problem not the religion. i for one am appalled by these peoples actions and do not consider them to be a part of my religion.
? you can read statistical’s statement for yourself. i am not going to presume to speak for him. i will only say that from my point of view that his argument seems completely illogical. i don’t think it wise to jump on the bandwagon because it sound good. we must look at the whole picture before we make a conclusion about something or we risk making even more mistakes.
the simple fact is that these people want to be accepted as a normal family and yet can not have children. if they were seeking to change the laws of civil unions i would be on their side. i do not feel it is right to deny these people hospital visitation rights and the other rights that go with what we call legal marriage. i don’t think we should allow them to adopt children or give them a tax break. the reason behind a tax break for married hetero couples is to offset the cost of raising children and since they can’t have children should not be entitled to a tax break. a married hetero couple with out children should not either.
Unless you are getting philosophical, I know at least one person in this world that is 100% straight. And I think that person is a part of nature indeed.
Plus, it’s quite simple. It’s either you like only men, only women, both, or none. There is no other option.
you are right about the catholic church at least. those people who are responsible for hiding the priest are not true Christians. neither are those priest. but thats besides the point because i am not catholic. i am also not guilty of any of those things mentioned above. but i will say this on that subject. the death penalty.
i have however studied a great deal about this subject. and as such understand the implications of gay marriage. what you fail to understand is that a part of marriage is children and those children have to come from somewhere. since a gay couple can’t have children naturally they will only have a few choices to obtain children. no matter how you look at it only one of them can be biologically related to the child. so now we have a child who will some day wonder where the truly came from. that is hardly fair to the child. but hey your not concerned with the rights of children unless it serves your purpose huh? that became evident in your remark about the priest. kind of ironic that those priest were men molesting little boys. you might not want to go there, it’s like a two edged sword.
as for my defending the church, well i didn’t. i defended my faith. if the church is guilty of a crime then they should be held accountable for that crime. after all it does say that the governments are ordained by God and that we should obey the laws of the land.
i could go on but i will be a good sport and give you a chance to catch up. oh but please learn to spell. and read the Bible before you judge it. people may do a lot of things in the name of religion but that does mean that there religion actually supports it.
Cause at one point he/she says that being gay is genetic. Then he mentions bisexuals being suppressed. If you can suppress something, I don’t think it’s genetic, at least it’s not 100% genetic. So that just seemed contradictory to me. That’s all.
Bible says something you people don’t like you want to say it was translated wrong! the Bible says what it says whether you like it or not.
the reason for the population boom is longer lifespans not suppression of homosexual lifestyles by the church. if you where half as intelligent as you want to appear you would have known this. the truth is if the majority of the population was gay or bisexual we would not be having this discussion. the only thing you have been right about so far is that homosexuality has been present in the human race since the beginning. so has rape, murder, war, greed, racism, and so on. does that make it right? i didn’t think so.
Regarding everyone turning gay and the species becoming extinct, have you ever heard of artificial insemination?
BTW, implying that they’re like the kkk is a pretty low comment, you cannot compare inborn sexuality to cowardly scum who can’t look past the colour of a persons skin.
religion was something to keep us on the right track even if you are atheist. what is there to lose if u are good. gay ppl would not be here today if their parents were gay like them. how can you be against ur self. it looks to me that you hate that you were born and u hate ur parents if you dont follow their way. maybe being gay is better. i hope this world will turn to the light one day cause if not our “eyes” will be useless.
p.s. the Dead Sea Scrolls did not contain the New Testament, i was mistaken
Anyway, good luck in your research
———————————————————
The answer: As human beings and fellow Jews, individuals created b’tzelem elokeem, in the image of God. Judaism may disapprove of homosexual activity, but not of the homosexual himself. “He is as beloved in God’s eyes as any other Jew, and is as responsible as any Jew is in all the mitzvahs,” according to Rabbi Shraga Simmons of Aish HaTorah.
——————————————————–
Today, however, the gay individual is perceived asa person desiring love and companionship, just like the heterosexual, but who can only find this connection with someone of the same sex. With some scientific and psychological justification, he or she is seen as someone subject to his/her homosexual drive. This may even be considered unfortunate; some homosexuals openly declare that they wish they were ‘straight’. However, it is seen as the reality. As such, the modern response to homosexuality is one of sympathy and support.
While, we, in allegiance to Torah, cannot support this alternative, the valid reasons for sympathy for the homosexual’s dilemma has initiated new discussion of the subject with specific focus on how to respond to the individual. Rabbi Norman Lamm in “Judaism and the Modern Attitude to Homosexuality”, Encyclopedia Judaica Year Book 1974, introduced the concept of psychological ones, duress. Moshe Halevi Spero in Judaism and Psychology: Halakhic Perspectives, chapter 11 and Handbook of Psychotherapy and Jewish Ethics, chapter 8 built on his psychological models of sin and neurosis. Rabbi Barry Freundel in “Homosexuality and Judaism”, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number XI, called upon us to view and treat the homosexual within an atmosphere of kiruv and outreach, the same way we relate to other individuals who sin. The arguments are worthy of review and are catalysts for further discussion and debate. What criteria, for example, are to be employed to clarify when a person’s inner drives approach the ones level? What comparisons are to be made between the unmarried heterosexual with no Halachically sanctioned outlet for his/her sexuality and the homosexual? There is, one issue, though, that is not addressed. Why did G-d create the homosexual drive? What is its purpose?
The simple understanding of the homosexual drive is that it is a perversion of heterosexuality. The many reasons explaining the prohibition clearly support the Torah sanction of sexuality only within the husband-wife/family context. Some modern research, however, points to a biological basis for the gay interest. A foundation of Jewish thought has always been that everything G-d created has a purpose (see T.B. Chulin 56b; Iggeret haKodesh,[— Unable To Translate Graphic —]chapter 2). The Vilna Gaon in Even Shelaima 1:7, building on T.B. Shabbat 156a, implies that every drive has some form of outlet that is acceptable within Torah
——————————————————–
An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination.
In other words, traditionally, a person with a homosexual inclination can be an entirely observant Jew as long as he or she does not act out that inclination.
——————————————————-
Jewneric: A New Platform for the Jewish Voice
Home
About
Feed Icon
Posted June 2 2008
by Jonathan Kamens
Torah Judaism, Homosexuality, and Gay Marriage
The Torah does not like gays.
For some Jews, this is not a difficult challenge to overcome. The Torah may have been inspired by God, but it was written by men. Its intolerance toward homosexuals can be written off as the outdated bigotry of a bygone age.
For others, it is not a challenge at all. The Torah is the unchanging word of God. Since it describes homosexuality as an “abomination,” then that is how it should be treated.
And then, there are the rest of us, who try to take from the best of both worlds and are faced with the challenge of reconciling the seemingly irreconcilable.
I believe that the Torah is the word of the living God. I believe that every word in it has meaning, and that we don’t get to pick and choose which parts to believe. I believe that the Sages who have interpreted the Torah throughout history, while they are not infallible, have transmitted our tradition to the best of their ability, and we cannot simply dismiss the teachings we don’t like.
It is difficult for people outside of this belief system to understand the scope and complexity of the laws and traditions followed by observant Jews. They are referred to collectively as halacha, which literally means “the way.” Halacha weighs in on everything from the prohibition against murder to instructions for how to put on one’s shoes in the morning. Halacha is hierarchical in nature, with some parts (e.g., the shoe-donning instructions) less important than others, and with some parts more amenable to adjustment. The prohibition against homosexuality lies within the category of halacha that is important, stringent and unchangeable.
I believe that I am enjoined by God to follow halacha. I believe that following halacha makes me a better Jew, a better person, and a better citizen of the world. I believe that by following halacha, Jews make themselves a holy people and a light unto the nations.
And yet, at the same time, I believe that homosexuality is inborn and not an “aberration,” that gays deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to be allowed to live as full members of society, and that discrimination against gays is utterly and completely unacceptable
———————————————————
Question: Does Judaism Allow Homosexuality?
Like many religions, Judaism has a complicated relationship with homosexuality.
Answer:
The answer to the question of Judaism’s view on same sex relationships will be different depending on the type of Judaism you are talking about.
Partly, that because Reform, Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal groups have traditionally been more accepting of the GLBT community than have Conservative and Orthodox Judaism.
Many of Judaism’s traditional ideas about homosexuality come from a few passages in the Torah. (The Torah is often called the Old Testament by non-Jews, and it refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible). One passage that is referred to a lot comes from the book of Leviticus. It states, “A man should not lie with another man as he would like with a woman.”
This passage is often used to justify the claim that Judaism is opposed to homosexuality.
However, many people have pointed out that there are many more prohibitions for heterosexuals spelled out in the Torah, than there are for homosexuals.
Additionally, there is nothing written in the Torah about sex between women at all. Yet, people opposed to lesbian relationships have often applied what is written about men, to women.
In modern times, both Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have allowed the ordination of openly gay and lesbian rabbis. They have also recognized same sex marriage since the 1990s.
In April 2008, the leading Conservative Seminary, the Jewish Theological Seminary, changed their policies to allow openly gay individuals to become ordained as Rabbis.
—————————————————–
What is the Jewish view on homosexuality?
by Rabbi Tzvi Shapiro
Library » Intimacy » Sexual Issues | Subscribe | What is RSS?
PRINT EMAIL COMMENT
(continued)
The Short Answer:
In Judaism homosexuality is an act, not a person1. The Torah2 prohibits the act, but it doesn’t ostracize the individual who desires it.
The Askmoses Answer:
Getting It Straight
There is much confusion when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and Judaism, not the least of which is the misconception that Judaism doesn’t like homosexuals.
For the record: Judaism has nothing against an individual who has an attraction to members of his/her gender.
The Torah doesn’t even recognize the term homosexual. Judaism sees people, not sexual labels. And all people are respected equally.
————————————————————
P.S. Sorry if this comes out a bit messy as I didn’t have time to tidy it up
The polls you refer to are on an average of about 1200 people, it says nationwide but does not say where(for all we know this could be polled in an abtigay rally, also it’s not truly two thirds as you have to take into account the don’t knows and the refuse to says, etc. Ironically in these polls very few have a problem with gays fighting for the rights of your counrty in conflicts, etc, rather hypocritical don’t you think, to say “yes save our way of life but don’t have the same rights?
I have never considered popes/priests, etc as the voice of god and consider them to be nothing more than distorters of the bible who only benefit themselves rather than the people who look towards them for help, as regards christmas that was just a way of getting another religious group to fall within the belief system of the catholic church more easily.
You are rather presumptous to assume that your opinion is in the majority, I myself am heterosexual, married with children and I find no problem with gay or lesbian relationships, if you want to be foolish and proclaim that the bible is accurate then according to pedophiles the bible says it’s ok to have sex with your daughter, do you do that? I certainly hope not, the facts still remain that throughout all the translations, mistakes were made and until they are properly rectified you have no right to state homosexuality is wrong(the scholars who study the bible even admit that the original statements are ambiguous)
Love your fellow man and stop throwing stones as you are not without sin your self.
To Carless, https://www.gotquestions.org/Lillith.html click on this link to answer your question. In response to your reference to the Cathloic Church thats the biggest farce ever created and has led more people to hell than any other created in history of mankind. Priests and Popes are mere mortals they have no more power to forgive sins than I do. Saying 3 hail Marys and putting money in the poor box only makes the church richer next I suppose your going to say that you believe in Christmas and Easter too ( now this statement will really get things going)!! heres a website for you to look at since you want to know the truth so much thercg.org/books/ttooc.html.
Folks I am not trying to force anyone to belive one way or the other you have that final choice. It is about time that the majority stand up and defend what is right and wrong instead of standing in a cornor and thinking ” if it dont effect me I guess its alright ” I am just standing up for what I believe in and this is my opinion nothing more. Thanks for taking time and responding to my opinion. I look forward to reading more comments.
Many of you base your arguments on the Bible, or your interpretation of it. You seem to miss the point that our government is secular and law-based, not religion based. Beyond that, the Bible generally supports polygamy, and many significant biblical figures had multiple wives. So why wouldn’t you support polygamy, given that the Bible can be read to support it and that it wouldn’t hurt you or anyone you know?
I also believe what you said about washing your hand of the whole subject, but we can’t. You see if you open marriage up to the homosexuals as a minority group them we must open it up to the polygamists of the Mormons. And after that we must move to NAMBLA, so they can marry children and what about those who love animals, they are also a special interest group. Tell me when you open the flood gate when do you close it, is it when the homosexuals are offended, the Mormons, NAMBLA, when?
You see we must pick key battles to save our society and this is one of them. We can give them equal rights under a legal partnership. This way any couple can file for those rights. Call it domestic Partnership, work out some tax law but do not call it marriage. This way it does not need to be explained to your children in school that this is normal, because we both know it is an abomination before God.
This whole gay marriage thing is about making them normal. Since when did the minority rule. California passed an amendment to its constitution and it is held up in the courts, why because the minority seeks to be considered normal and by whom, society still looks at them like they are freaks. Hollywood disenfranchises the majority in their programing to prove they are normal and the ratings prove the majority doesn’t want to waste their time watching men kiss each other and they certainly don’t want it for their children. I know I don’t. Am I homophobic, no. I just know that behavior is unnatural. As posted earlier, even animals don’t act this way.
As far as sharing my faith, it is done in a loving manner to those who wish to know. I lead a life that is Christ centered and I am a light to others. I do refuse to kowtow to those who bash my faith and I will defend it.
The people who we have engaged in this forum are Christian bashing fools who will end with their eternity in Hell. I speak so loudly of that because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding. I have been over the top in some of my posts, that is because some people have forgotten just what the sin is and how bad it really is. It leads to an early death, ruined family relationships, ostracism from society, disease, suicide and a host of other things. I see no up side in type of behavior and see no reason to normalize it, in or out of marriage.
My comments are made to wake people up from their tolerant slumber and bring them back to the truth. Sin is Sin no matter how much you decorate it.
If the church truly desires reaching out to the people then it should get down off it’s pedastal and be as its originators were and went out and did good rather than telling everyone else to. It’s like in war time the leaders who got the greatest respect out of their soldiers were those who were willing to do the same as their men, those who hid in the background were often derided and ignored, much as the church is today. To order is not to lead, therein lies a lesson for the church.
Dual, you are correct that Jesus had brothers and sisters, you are incorrect about the virgin birth. This birth was to Mary’s first child only. The doctrine of the Virgin Mary remaining a virgin is Catholic doctrine and not believed by any others.
When I address the homosexual agenda with, as you say, a lack of love, you are incorrect. They must be made aware that their life style will lead to death and eternal damnation. If it is not loving them telling them the truth of their actions then I don’t know what else is. I also speak from a position of understanding. Everything I have said is true, but not candy coated for the benefit of tolerance or political correctness. And if you are as you say, a brother, then I must call into question your understanding of scripture. 1) We are called to share our faith boldly, not as one who is timid 2)When Jesus was speaking about turning the other cheek He was referring to other believer not the unbeliever. 3) Christ was not afraid to speak His mind to the Sadducee or Pharisee nor was He afraid to turn the tables in the Synagogue and throw out the money changers. 4) God is a long suffering God, but in the end He always disciplines his children (Old and New Testament)4) you say that marriage is not taught in the Bible, then I must ask you where was Jesus when His mother asked Him to help the bridle party with refreshments. I believe, and you can correct if you wish, it was at a wedding. 5) The church is also considered the bride of Christ, another reference to a wedding. 6) You are willing to compromise your faith to allow sinners to destroy what God has created, the union of One Man to One Woman and to become one in the eyes of God. 7) The Bible does not call for tolerance, it call us to speak out against sin and offer a way of relief from it. I do not believe Christ would be so tolerant in this world as you believe. Every time He saw sin He called those people on it, the woman at the well, the group of men and the woman who was to be stoned, Peter, Paul on the road to Damascus, need I go on.
I am sorry for my sarcasm, but in all my years as a Christian I thought meek meant to be silent and non combative, boy was I wrong. God tells us 365 time in the Bible “Do not be Afraid”. We will face persecution for our faith, but we must stand firm in our faith without swaying or being tossed about like flotsam a jetsam.
I guess you could say I am chastening you Anonymous for failing to stand with your faith and buckling to the desires of the sin filed homosexuals agenda.
I did look for the web pages that Fact Seeker alluded to. I found them fascinating to say the least and full of speculation about our faith, these were based on some apparent mythology and how you could tie it into our bible. Unfortunately it was based on supposition and hearsay some what similar to evolution or global warming, interesting yet unprovable or based on faulty science, although people believe it like it’s true. Those are the belief systems I find remarkable. As disproved as they are people just can’t let them go.
The Christian faith, not religion, is based on the word of God as presented in scripture. I grant you that human beings will distort, profit and generally give it a bad taste to many. Those people will get to the judgment in Heaven and God will say I do not know you, same as the gays who flaunt the sexuality before God asking for the right to marry, as if it would ever be ordained by God. No, man in his arrogance will do what his free will allows, particularly thumbing there noses at God to prove that they are in control. Unfortunately, in the end (no pun intended) God will judge them and they will all go to Hell.
I hope that this latest translation of the original writings is both accurate and is allowed to be printed, I also hope that at some point in the future that the church has the courage to release the other writings of the time. It’s long past time that the church released these writings and allowed the world to see the truths that they keep hidden.
To all I say, “LONG LIVE FREE WILL”
“I don’t see why gay’s should be able to get married. Not that I don’t think they shouldn’t be together, because I’m not into controlling everyone’s daily life. Nor do I oppose this because homosexuality is a sin (which it is, but it’s not my place to hate them for it).”
I’m sorry, I don’t usually flame people online, but I just had to tell you how #*$*ing funny it was to read this in the context of your chosen name.
Thanks for giving those of us who still have our own will a laugh.
Also admitted is the fact that they have no evidence in the original arameic of homosexuality being a sin, the more responsible scholars admit that this was most likely introduced by later preachers of the early church.
So to sum up, you are attacking me because you don’t want the bible to change but the fact is that the bible has already been changed and the vatican and many scholars are currently doing it again right now, tell me will you attack the church if when the revised bible comes out it contains something you don’t like?
I also get the idea that you think i’m gay, sorry, wrong again, I’m happily married with children and eat good food so I am statiscally likely to live longer than someone who stresses out because some people have the temerity not to agree with you. Get YOUR facts straight before you attack someone.
You are quick to dismiss the Bible as an irrelevant book. You toss false information around like it is truth and yet you back it up with conspiracy theory or better yet the Da Vinci code. A book based on fiction but presented like fact.
Please seek a biblical scholar and get informed. You can go to the Huntington Library and view an original Gutenberg Bible. I grant you they will probably not let you near it because you probably don’t have the credentials needed. Again I will tell you there more original manuscripts to validate the bible then any other book on this planet. You cannot say the same about Plato, Shakespeare or possibly one of your life heroes, Darwin, the great deceiver.
You must understand that every copy of the Bible can be destroyed and it could be put back together again in its original text from all the sermons that have been presented from it. I also note that you are quick to use scripture to prove your point and like all heretics and false preacher, you put it out of context to suit your self serving purposes, how very liberal of you.
You wish to have homosexual marriage yet you cannot offer any real reason for this atrocity other them attacking people who have the truth to draw from. The Bible is the word of God whether you wish to believe it or not. The Bible also says “we are created in His image, both male and female”, he never said both male and female, homo and lesbo, no just male and female. He also said that a man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife, not his or her same sex partner. You see God is a God of order and specifics. He said to engage in sex with the same gender is an abomination both in the Old Testament, the Torah, and the New Testament. And even though I don’t subscribe to it but it is also in the Quran, Book of Morman and a belief held by the Jehovah Witness.
What I see is a small group of people that are deviant in their behavior and want the rest of the world to accept them as normal. Sorry but it is not normal, it is, as God says, “an abomination”. It is unnatural and causes discomfort for most heterosexuals. I’m sorry again but we view you as a freak show and you generally present yourselves that way.
Your life style leads to an early death (statistically true). I don’t see much joy in it except for your freedom in sex, which without love is nothing more then an animal act which is why I think Darwin must be your hero.
https://www.biblediscoveries.com/content/view/31/45/
https://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm
https://www.answering-islam.com/allah.htm
https://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/about/15.php
https://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/11/books.humanities
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/vatican-rewrites-history_n_153232.html
https://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_mar02.html
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8173486.html
https://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/The_L_and_The_S.html
https://www.tldm.org/directives/d182pdf.pdf
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
https://www.uuclr.org/Programs/Sermons/2006/2006Apr9.pdf
https://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm
https://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm
https://www.lightingthewayworldwide.org/LentHasNoBasisInScripture.htm
https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/catholic.html
https://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A245
Ttruth is only true when proven.
To quote a phrase which is believed to have been said by Jesus, “Let him who be without sin, cast the first stone”, It seems a lot of you are doing just that without true evidence that, A, you are without sin, and, B, that you have the right to do so
Back to the basic question–what do you or anyone else have to lose if a very small minority of people want to marry someone of the same sex? How does that harm you or anyone else you know?
I disagree with this article. I don’t see why gay’s should be able to get married. Not that I don’t think they shouldn’t be together, because I’m not into controlling everyone’s daily life. Nor do I oppose this because homosexuality is a sin (which it is, but it’s not my place to hate them for it). I think we should give gay’s every right that accompany’s being married without actually calling it “marriage”. Yes, I know that sounds trivial and silly, but at least hear me out. Names in our society have become very important. And I don’t see why the gay community wouldn’t want to stand out, and have a union of two people be under their own name. But marriage is a sacred name, a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
To stress my point, how would many Americans feel if I built a crummy shack in my back yard, and officially called it the World Trade Center Towers? I bet they would be pretty put off.
Also, to the others, I am sorry you seem to hate Christians so much, but it seems you have a few of your facts mixed up. First of all, I would love to see some evidence that Eve was the second wife of Adam and not actually the first woman. And secondly, if there were people in the Roman empire willing to die for their beliefs why would they change those beliefs just so a few dudes would do each other? That sounds highly unlikely. And if you know anything about history than besides the Greeks every other society has focused most importance on literal translations and making sure everything gets passed down right. And yea Jesus never said anything about man not laying with man, but then again it never came up. Paul said it, and if Paul was inspired by God (which belief in the Bible implies) then God “said” it.
God doesn’t hate homosexuals. God views every sin the same. So to ME (the other commenter, not me) if you will lose your soul just by condemning gay marriage then the next time you sin go ahead and sign your soul away because its all the same to God. And please, please, please stop posting your “christian” views that just make us all look like idiots.
That being said, your life style is a choice, unlike the black brother who cannot chose his skin, you can choose to be straight or gay, scientifically proven folks. So all this hullabaloo is a guise to gain tax relief from the federal government.
Now for the few of you who truly love your life partner why are you destroying 5000 year of tradition, is it so you can appear normal, fat chance, you will never appear normal. Kids will still point to you and ask their Mommy “Why are those people doing that? It’s not right!” This is why you want to indoctrinate them through the Pubic School system so you can feel normal and have a new pool to practice your deviant behavior on.
There are quite a few of us who understand what it is you are really after and it’s the children.
As far as the Bible goes, there are more then 15000 manuscripts available to verify its authenticity. That is more then any other book on this planet. Josephus, a historian of the times verified much of what happened in the biblical times. Along with the dead sea scrolls, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, to name a few, the entire bible can be verified as true and exact to the original documents.
It is so tiresome to listen to you uneducated people slandering what you clearly do not understand to make yourself right in the eyes of man so that you can live your sin filled life out in the open instead of in the darkness where it belongs. What you should be really be worrying about is what God going to do with you for eternity because Hell will be the eternal price, but I guess if you came from ooze it really doesn’t matter does it.
All idiots aside, gay marriage shouldn’t be an issue in this country since our Declaration of Independence against the British included the phrase that all men had the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness.” In other words, all citizens have the right to live freely while pursuing a lifestyle that pleases them so long as it doesn’t infringe on these same rights of another person. And so long as a person’s lifestyle does no harm to another, we have no right whatsoever to infringe on their right to live it.
To T. Carter, in regards your question, I have no peoblem re gay marriage, my brother in law has recently married his long term partner which I support fully. Those you see such as “ME” who quote the bible conveniantly forget that the bible as they read it now was rewritten in medieval times by the catholic church when they needed more people to fund the church, therefore needing people to be hetero as opposed to homo because that was the only way to produce aforementioned populace.
Further, if my son were to tell me one day that he was gay, I would love him just the same as I do today (and that’s alot!!) and any struggles I had with it I would keep to myself because I have no right to tell someone how to live their life, especially if they are safe, loved and happy.
Jackie in BC Canada