 |
|
|
|
|
November 28th, 2012
05:49 AM ET
Rick Warren on gay marriageAmerican evangelical Christian pastor Rick Warren discusses homosexuality and gay marriage with CNN's Piers Morgan. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
GLAD.... to read your commentary on your lack of any resemblance of knowledge of GOD.A
See the atheist are in full force today.
Bold. Aren't we.
GOD still loves you.
Hmm. Interesting choices on speech pattern and capitalization.
"GOD still loves you"
'But if you don't love him back he will set you on fire'.....that is an abusive relationship.
It is not possible to have knowledge of god.
Oh also help me, you don't seem to have any "resemblance" of knowledge about the English language. LOL
@cheese...
GOD loves. Your comments on fire means you have no clue on what the purpose of salvation is
Hell was created for the devil and his demon angel, not mankind.
The FALL of man left man in the same state. However, GOD made a way.
JESUS.
He paid the price for all of mankind sins (missing the mark of GOD'S plan and standards).
Accept GOD'S plan of salvation and you miss hell.
Tough choices. You have options. You decide. GOD already did.
Help...not: sounds like your god is a vindictive jerk. No thanks.
Post by 'Help me Help you' is a form of the flawed argument known as Pascal's Wager.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Because of basic biology and physical differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.
What the hell are you talking about?
While I don't care one way or another what term is used, I don't see how biology has any hold on how we define this word?
Saraswati
Because biology is reality.
Language needs to be literal, or communication suffers.
A classic language issue is "having children" or becoming "parents"
Last I heard that was a purely hetro activity, but many want to manipulate the language to chase an agenda
Fox News uses the same childish ploy, and I hope the left dosen't absorb the same stupidity.
Why would anyone call their marriage something else? Seems kind of silly to me.
@WD, you wrote:
"Language needs to be literal, or communication suffers."
Are you saying defining marriage as a union between two adults is somehow metaphorical as opposed to literal?
I believe language needs to be as precise as can be, but I see no reason that it cannot precisely be defined as a union between two people rather than between two people of opposite se x. Words are defined by human usage, and evolve to suit our changing culture...that's why we aren't all speaking PIE but modern English. If you want to argue that the term should apply to as small a group as possible, then why not have terms for marriages where the man is older, where the woman is older, where one member is black and the other asian? We can't label everything separately, or we lose communication and fall outside the ASHA definition of language. We need the most generally useful term for our context, and if there is to be no legal difference, I see no reason why that word shouldn't be marriage.
I imagine they will call it a marriage, however, if you want too you can call your relationship a straight union if you want.
Saraswati
Because many who entered into it under the original definition object to your desired new one.
I support civil unions. I would banish marriage as a religious relic if I could, but I do understand the rights of those within a given group to have some say over what the group is defined as.
Seperate marriage and civil unions and all sides are honored.
You wish to create a blind society. Perhaps nobel in your mind, but many might disagree.
Marriage is a religious construct, and I believe in the seperation of church and state as an absolute.
Get the government out of marriage, except in the context of contractual law defined as a civil union, and then open civil unions to anyone who wants in.
Why do many Christians feel the need to lamblast everyone who believes or acts differently than they do? Is it any wonder that so many people detest Christianity? And a lot of the reasons they will tell you are not their fault! How many people have been offended by Christians, clergy members or other people affiliated with the religion? How many of these "Good Christians" have told them that they are going to Hell?
This is not what Jesus taught! He taught love, patience, kindness, goodness, charity, and humility. But at the same time he ate dinner with tax collectors and prost.i.tutes and he loved them.
To all of those who have been offended by Christianity, you have my sincerest apologies. I am sorry that Christians are known more for what they are against, than what they are for. I am sorry that many Christians, especially the ones who get in the media, don't display the love of Christ. So I ask for your forgiveness. What was done to you or said to you is not and was not right. Your anger and resentment is completely understandable, I just hope that one day we can come to reconcilliation. That these wounds would heal.
If you are saved, you are still cryin' in the crib. Hopefully you have the time to gwow up.
Plus one additional question!
Why dosen't Christians Gaydar go off when they read the bible?
In all honesty, it seems quite obvious Christ was gay.
I realize that is incendiary to some, but I don't intend it that way. So many things in his behavior, his demeanor and his actions seem to fit the bill.
I wonder, has anyone else drawn the same conclusion? To me it seems self evident.
William, Scarabs don't help the human race.........""multiply"
occurs 46 times in 42 verses in the KJV"
Well Christianity has always been at conflict with itself as much as with others. That's a big part of the problem. I think it's what drove one Christian to say:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
And that Christian was James Madison, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution. He said those words to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785. It involved an issue that had Anglicans at odds with Baptists in his home state. Jefferson, Washington, Mason also witnessed the same bickering between Christians in that same state around the time our government was being established. Quakers were being hung in Massachusetts around the same time.
Still, there are many good Christians who are very selfless and caring people. And on this issue, there are many of them that are quite accepting of gay couples. I am not religious, but it is encouraging when I see that some churches are completely accepting of gay couples. For someone looking for a Christian church that has an inclusive policy, check this out:
http://www.awab.org/
mama k, a little reading of the Scriptures reveals the catliks were phonies from the get-go. That makes Jesus a Fraud?
@lol?
"multiply"? Most of the time they seem to want to divide.
Is this lol?? person drunk? What are you blabbering about. Where did I say anything about fraud? I know you need attention, lol??, but I don't have a big enough pacifier to calm you down, dear.
I like you Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. No truer words.
I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
@lol?
"multiply"? Most of the time they seem to want to divide." Being born in a WAR ZONE ain't easy. You actually have my empathy.
I'm not offended by xtians. I pity them for their closed mindedness and delusional behavior.
Why does mankind (any gender) have a problem with GOD's will and GOD's way?
Don't get hung up what a man says, read GOD's word (BIBLE) says.
Your free will is a gift. You choose to follow GOD. You accept the consequence either way. Good or bad.
GOD says, choose life or death, HE prefers you choose LIFE.
God's way, as spelled out in the bible, is nothing more than how to act like a miserable Iron age barbarian. I will follow my own way thank you.
Ummmmm.... because the whole god myth is complete bullshit, unless you have some actual proof for the existence of your imaginary friends.
Unfortunately for this argument there's no scientific evidence for the Christian idea of free will. Some forms of Christianity, such as Calvinist based religions, survive without it, but it's a hard haul. I've actually been surprised to find most Presbyterians don't even realize their religion doesn't support his concept.
@ help(less). So your goD says free will is either my way or go to hell/ Some choice, eh? Free will from you deity is not free will at all, it's a choice. You hve none if you choose to say "fukk you goD." You neeed to think for yorself and stop beliving what your preachers tell you. Keep you nose out of the babble as well, unless you like selling your daughter, or killing in general. BTW, have tou sold your posessions yet, in order to follow jeebus?
For those who hate GOD, read John 3:16 – 21
You will see how much GOD loves you!
Creating an avatar of your self and then sending that avatar to be killed in order to allow a few people into the special club house you kicked them out of is not love. I'm seriously beginning to suspect that fundamentalist Christians do not know what love is.
The only proof you have is that the Bible exists. I agree with you on that point. The Bible does exist. I also believe in the Land of Make Believe. It's an amusement park in New Jersey.
Everyone is assuming too much about what they know of GOD.
You read without understanding.
Your hearts are like rocks, not broken or soft enough to hear GOD's heart and desire for you.
Where did I say anything about Christianity or hell? You assume too much. Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have roots in GOD's word.
You just are absent of any faith. You have chosen to be your own 'god' . Little g,
Sad.
John 3:16
You mean this...
For God was such a psy.chotic dou.cheb.ag, that he sent his only bego.tten son (who was also him) to die as a human sacrifice to himself, because despite being all powerful and all knowing, he apparently is so fu.c.king stu.pid and full of pride he couldn't forgive two people who had the minds of children for eating a god.da.mn apple!
"Why does mankind (any gender) have a problem with GOD's will and GOD's way?"
Answer: I am assuming you are talking about the christian god....christianity is an immoral premis and should be rejected on that basis.
"Don't get hung up what a man says, read GOD's word (BIBLE) says."
Answer: There is absolutely no reason to think the bible is the word of any supernatural being. There is mounds of evidence to think it is man made. As such follow you own advice and "don't get hung up on what man says".
Your free will is a gift. You choose to follow GOD. You accept the consequence either way. Good or bad.
Answer: The "free will" you are refering to is an illusion. People generally accept the belief systems of their ancestors, your god would know this and therefore punishing people based on belief would be immoral.
"GOD says, choose life or death, HE prefers you choose LIFE."
Answer: The god you believe in created the conditions we are in, blaming us for it is both illogical and immoral. Again, belief is not a choice, your religion has to sell us that it is a choice because if they don't the whole christian belief system falls apart.
Don't get hung up what a man says, read GOD's word (BIBLE) says.
Don't get hung up what a man says, read GOD's word (BIBLE) says.
.
Um the bible is man's word..idiot.
"Don't get hung up what a man says, read GOD's word (BIBLE) says."
Only people like you fail to realize that what was written in the bible was written by men, not god. The book was written by many men over the course of many years, then edited by more men. Words of mere mortals, yet you claim they are the words of god. SMH
I have already cast too many pearls among you swine. Get ya a bunch of marshmallows, you're gonna need em! See ya! NOT!
Pearls of idiocy.
Ah, the old "write a bunch of crap than run and hide" gag! Are you sure your name isn't Herbie?
0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls..........No, I just don't see how ya'll losers do this all day everyday. It bores me out of my mind! But then God gives my life meaning, so I actually have a life! Have fun with it! Maybe you'll find your soul someday here on the religion blog. Fun Fun!
AH, you don't have a mind to be bored out of, let alone think with.
AH by your unfounded prejudice rants, lies and hatred you are not a christian but a troll.
There you go again – making unfounded sweeping statements. . . You have little to no knowledge of how I or anyone else spends our time. You don't seem to understand how little time it takes to answer your crap. You are delusional in your religious beliefs and in thinking that you have responded with anything of value. You are nothing but a shallow thinking (The Babble is all one needs) hateful idiot. Now fuck off!
Fake AH,
You sound like the fake Heavensent! Get a new style of writing at least!
Silly Poe. You and Evangelical should get a room and have hot sweaty gay sex.
He that says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even until now.
As long as you continue to insult and hate your fellow humans, and seek to place yourself on a pedastal above them, wishing to laugh at their pain and reign self-righteousness down on them, you shroud yourself in darkness.
H0m0 sap kweer behavior is much more antichrist than what happens with da lower species. Da lowers do it for bullyin' and at least for multiplyin' and beATING OUT THEIR NEIGHBORS, and obeying God. Saps don't care and are very useful to the pols. They have much more disposable income for da BEAST, cuz they have no children. They kill civilizations.
"1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."............Da kweers have more money to corrupt the PUblic Servants. No children to worry about and love.
Gay marriages should be legal everywhere because I would watch the shit out of gay divorce court.
And here are a few more:
1. It's simply the right thing to do.
2. Gay parents have been proven to be just as good parents as straight parents. Also, there are countless children waiting to be adopted and Gay persons in wedlock are more likely to have children.
3. Children that are raised by Gay parents have no more chance of being Gay children than any other child. This is a notorious lie that has been perpetuated by hate and the extreme conservative right-wing of American politics. Being Gay results from nature, not nurture.
4. To support the troops. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has been repealed but this doesn't alleviate stress caused by not allowing Gay partners to marry. It's not good policy to let Gay combatants fight for their country with the uncertainty they have for what might happen to their partner if they die while fighting.
5. To give survivors rights to Gay couples. Currently Gay partners are not able to fully exercise their right to handle the legal matters of their dying partner and cannot fully be there for them in their final years. This is an insult to humanity to deny Gay persons of the dignity of having their most loved and trusted person in the world be there during their last days.
6. For economy stability. Not just for the tax credits that straight married people enjoy, but also for the stability of the American economy. Allowing Gay people to get married would give a growing population increased spending power. The tax benefits and extension of credit with two incomes in a married relationship could increase spending in industries such as durable goods, home improvement, automobiles, childcare, services, event planning, the economic benefits are endless!
7. Gay people deserve happiness just as much as straight people. Happiness derives from the love and devotion that comes from marriage. While it's true that many Gay people are happy with the arrangement they currently have. They have two incomes, successful careers, and if they don't have children they more have more disposable income, but they commonly still feel like something is missing.
8. To reduce depression in adolescents. Giving Gay children the hope that they can get married some day and have children in a socially acceptable country will reduce depression among Gay young people. Straight children are allowed this freedom and should be no surprise that many Gay teenagers experience extreme depression.
9. To reduce Gay bullying in schools. If we legalize Gay marriage, there will be one less reason for Gay children to get teased. They will be less reluctant to be ashamed of their personal preference and will have hope that they can be just as happy as their straight counterparts.
10. To help end the hate and intolerance of h.o.m.o.s.e.xuality in America. Just because America has a long history of prejudice that's no reason to keep perpetuating it. The unwelcoming fringes of our society seems to become accustomed to moving from alienating one demographic to another and the resistance to Gay marriage is just another example of prejudice in America.
Apple Bush..........alright I know I said I was leaving but your ignorance caught my eye on the way out the door so here's a pearl for you. You say gay persons in wedlock are more likely to have children. Why do they have children if they were born gay? Where did these children come from if they were gay from the get go? Work of your logic girlie.
2
You appear on blog to be wiser than GOD Almighty.
That would make you the tail waggling the dog.
The Creator is wiser than the creation. Be careful not to fool yourself in thinking you can be above GOD. Satan failed, so will you.
"You say gay persons in wedlock are more likely to have children. Why do they have children if they were born gay?"
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.
Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.
A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.
Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
Atheist Hunter:
Gay couples adopt, the same way straight couples do.
Win-win for the unwanted children of the world, I should think.
Apple
Easy with the dogma
You mix opinion and facts and blur the line.
You make several claims (I am sure you believe them) and probably have what you believe is proof.
Alas, most of the arguments, and studies (on both sides) are not even close to being scientific.
Suicide rates are a classic example. I hear all types of nonesense about them, with "stats" from BOTH sides that seems by definition to be impossible.
My position remains the same. Let us study it. Proper procedures and protocols.
Then we base our actions on these results.
I know the Christian community rejects this (because their ignorance nneds protection)
Again I ask, why does the Gay community reject the idea?
Could it be it's leaders are more concerned with political power, than they are with the truth..
WD, I agree with you that science is warranted but I disagree either that it is opposed by the gay community at large or that it isn't being conducted. There is a ton of well conducted peer reviewed research on this topic.
" You appear on blog to be wiser than GOD Almighty."
Well, in all honesty, it really isn't that fucking hard to do. Your god was a really ignorant pathetic sadistic psychotic schizophrenic putz. He was so stupid he couldn't get pi worked out past 3.0.
“All right,” the Lord said. “You may bake your bread with cow dung instead of human dung.”
–Ezekiel 4:12-15
I thought that you were joking, so I looked up the verse.....wow, I knew the bible was crazy but I didn't realize the full extent.
Now read the chapter, that has to do with The Siege of Jerusalem Symbolized - it's not a command to do this but a forth coming of what is about to happen and what the people will do to survive.
Your comparison is like taking the movie Alive, and then expecting everyone to eat human flesh everyday for lunch.
Sorry dude, reading the chapter doesn't make the line better.
Even the quote is wrong, it is not "with", but "on"
Then he said to me, “See, I assign to you cow's dung instead of human dung, on which you may prepare your bread.”
" The alarming speed of ho m o s exuality's spread and acceptance in America"
People are becoming educated on the real facts, not myth. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
There are explicit Bible verses about ho mo s exuality. And all Bible verses on ho mo s exuality – whether they be explicit Bible verses about ho mos exuality or implicit Bible verses on ho mo s exuality – condemn h om os exuality. Here are some of those Bible verses:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
Jude testifies about God's fiery destruction of Sodom for "s e xual immorality":
"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to s e x ual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
Exactly what type of "s e x ual immorality" and "strange flesh" had the S o d omites "gone after"? It was ho m os exuality:
"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of So dom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have s e x with them." (Genesis 19:4-5)
In 1987, 75% of Americans felt that ho m os exual relations are "always wrong". Just 23 years later in 2010, only 44% felt that way. The alarming speed of ho m o s exuality's spread and acceptance in America doesn't negate the Bible's clear prohibition of it.
Ho m os exuals claim that ho m os exuality is genetically determined. But the many cases of only one of two siblings in pairs of identical twins turning into a h o m os e xual refute this claim.
The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever." All of God's promises are intended for every human being. This includes gay men and lesbians. How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and persecuted people who are homosexual! We are all created with powerful needs for personal relationships. Our quality of life depends upon the love we share with others; whether family or friends, partners or peers. Yet, lesbians and gay men facing hostile attitudes in society often are denied access to healthy relationships. Jesus Christ calls us to find ultimate meaning in life through a personal relationship with our Creator. This important spiritual union can bring healing and strength to all of our human relationships
Biblical Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!
Genesis 19:1-25
Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality." Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance. Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape. Several observations are important.
First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?
Romans 1:24-27
Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.
This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.
The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.
What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.
I Corinthians 6:9
Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts. In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.
The first word – malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.
The second word, Arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy (1:10), but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain. Scripture Study Conclusion…No Law Against Love
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . against such there is no law. One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14: "...the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself".
Unless you can prove the god of The Babble exists, The Babble must be considered fiction at best, more likely complete bullshit.
""If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)."
LMAO – Keep showing your prejudice isn't based on any real facts. Christians don't follow Leviticus anymore, it's part of the Holiness Code, a ritual manual for Israel's priests.
"Ho m os exuals claim that ho m os exuality is genetically determined. But the many cases of only one of two siblings in pairs of identical twins turning into a h o m os e xual refute this claim."
Actually, if you read the science, you'll see that most theorize that it is the uterine conditions during pregnancy which have the greatest impact, mixed secondarily with genetics and then to a much smaller extent with culture and environment. It is quite possible for twins to have different environmental conditions in the uterus, completely aside from genetics. And if you bothered to take a genetics course (yes, I know, another topic you haven't studied) you'd know that even "identical" twins can have slightly different genetic composition due to changes and mutations that occur after conception. That is unlikely to be as significant a factor as the hormones and other chemicals floating in the fetus' environment, but you should be aware it exists.
Remind me again why I should give a f*** what this Bronze Age fairy tale says?
@Atheist Hunter
I don't think you understand what 'abomination" means in a biblical context.
Women wearing pants is an abomination, as is eating shellfish, pigs, swarming insects or leftovers that are more the 3 days old.
In the Old Testament, "abomination" means "ritualistically unclean".
Jesus absolved Christians of having to follow the Old Testament rituals – that's why you're allowed to shave the corners of your beard and plant more than one crop in the same field.
And if Sodom was destroyed for its se/xual immorality, why was the only person deemed rightous enough to avoid God's wrath a man who was willing to toss his vir/gin daughters over to a mob to be ra/ped? Daughters with whom he had a drunken, incestuous or/gy just after the destruction of the cities?
The sins of those town was not ho/mose.xuality per se – it was that the denizens had no hospitality.
"The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever.""
Don,
So your god of "unconditional love"..... has conditions...
Looks like AH found a cut and paste arguement to post. It could not be original since the grammar and spelling are correct.
Unless you can prove the god of The Babble exists, The Babble must be considered fiction at best, more likely complete bullshit.
So by that "logic" gravity was fiction until Newton?
Now you made the positive assertion that it is bullshit. Now back up your faith based claim
Wrong....
My comment about The Babble is in response to believers' unfounded assertions. Newton did not prove that gravity existed – he observed it and characterized it by formulas. No god has ever been definitively observed and no evidence for gods has ever been successfully presented. The onus remains on believers to put up or shutup.
You have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Testimony, that concept that is still used in courts today.
"You have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Testimony, that concept that is still used in courts today."
Even if that testimony has been shown to be written 30 to 50 years after the fact and that the gospel of John is a fake.
Please provide reference for "that the gospel of John is a fake."
Thank you.
ps. the first book was about 15 years after. 1 Corinthians
To bad they didn't have twitter, blogs or the printing press, but that doesn't make history invalid.
The accepted date range for 1 Corinthians is 53-57 CE.
Sorry.
In the original Greek, the terms used in Corinthian's list of vices that are sometimes translated as "hom-ose.xual" are 'malakoi' and 'ar.senkoitai'.
AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to hom.ose.xuality.
I did some thinking and realized something
I totally reject dogma when I recognize. It is my life’s work! That is why religion drives me mad. People swearing to things improvable, chanting beliefs they were told by the cult masters to chant
This creates a dilemma for me. I am a strong supporter of individual rights (and thus Gay rights) but I am concerned about something
The gay rights movement seems determined to create dogma of its own.
Multiple sides, each insisting they own the truth, and few if any willing to put these “truths” to dispassionate testing.
I have always sought self-awareness and self-understanding and I am confused by anyone who avoids it.
Science has a role to play in this debate (as it does in religion), and I do not trust those who run from it.
When is medicine and science going to lift the veil, and start giving us some real facts about peoples orientation?
What are people so damned afraid of?
You will find God!
William, in the absence of facts, I find I can usually rely on common sense. There are gay people, therefore gay people exist. If gay people exist, they have the same rights as straight people.
Will
Your dogma detector is over sensitive. You perceive a large organization with fairly unified opinions such as the scientific community, and you react as though said opinions are dogma. Scientific consensus is not dogma, it is a simply a large number of independent investigations that arrived at the same conclusion. If enough people independently arrive at the same conclusion it is accepted, because to keep challenging it is kind of a waste of time. However, if one does manage to bring a new challenge to an old conclusion the old conclusion must be reevaluated. Doing so is very difficult, that is why Nobel Prizes are frequently awarded to scientist who are able to overturn old conclusions.
And the facts about se.xual orientation are out there. If you really want to learn more I suggest you start with the Journal of Human Se.xuality.
http://www.ejhs.org/
Apple
Good governance and jurisprudence REQUIRE facts.
Simply requesting rights does not mean those rights can be, or even should be granted.
Again, what is the fear? Truth and facts lead to better decisions.
Religious, or Cultural, all things before our government must be viewed with a dispassionate eye.
Minorities are often granted privileges, because by their definition they have a trait that cannot be changed.
If gay society wants to be protected from the majority (as I believe they should be) the state has an obligation to do an inquiry.
Is this an affliction? Is the condition acquired or inherent?
Why does it merit special status when others do not?
Huebert
Dude, if you had ANY idea, you would know why I am laughing right now!
I was raised on Masters and Johnson, I suspect several decaes before you were born.
Again, the basic question remains.
Is this a lifestyle or an affliction. Is it aquired or inherent? Is it nature or nurture?
These are BASIC scientific points of inquiry, and no amount of propoganda will change that fact.
Will
If you are using Masters and Johnson, you are certainly a hell of a lot older than me. It's nature & nurture, acquired & inherent. You have to stop using this false dichotomy, as all of my professors loved to say "it depends". There will never be a single answer.
William, I disagree. Freedom does not require facts. Two consenting adults can do what they wish, none of my business. And if they want to suffer through marriage, so be it. Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in the science, but that has nothing to do with tolerence.
In the mean time (whilst science gets to the bottom of things), Will, no ones civil rights should be compromised. For too long straight couples are afforded advantages that gay couples are denied. Plain and simple.
" there are pedophile, therefore pedophiles exit. If they exit, they have the same rights as straight people"
The only problem with your stupid argument is pedophiles hurt children and children can't consent. Keep showing the world you're clueless on this subject. Duh!
Apple Bush
So should a bi oriented individual be permitted one wife and one husband??
My point is, the devil is in the details. Can Gays now bankrupt Social Security, by claiming their lovers benifits?
Can gays adopt the child of a dead Christian evangelical?
While I like the generous spiritual approach, I got BIG issues with the generous with my tax dollars issues.
Frankly, I would rather see marriage ended, rather than expanded.
Lets face it, what we have is a fiasco as it is!!
Apple Bush
Here a real simple one.
A man and a woman marry and bear a child nine months later.
The woman files for divorce, and admits her sole motivation was to bear a child.
Should she and her lover be permitted to raise the child? Should the father be forced to support it?
If your husband left you for a man, should that man be presented to your child as a mommy? A second daddy?
These are REAL issue, that impact more than just the people who are "doing it", and these other impacted peoples rights need to be considered
"Frankly, I would rather see marriage ended, rather than expanded."
That's going to be hard to do since there are so many benefits that come with marriage. Gays and lesbians want the rights to protect their families, their children, allowed to be with their loved on in the hospital while their partner is dying.
Tax Benefits
-–Filing joint income tax returns with the I R S and state taxing authorities.
-–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
-–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
-–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
-–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
-–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
-–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
-–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
-–Receiving public assistance benefits.
-–Employment Benefits
-–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
-–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
-–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
-–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
-–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
-–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
-–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
-–Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
-–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
-–Applying for joint foster care rights.
-–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
-–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
-–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
-–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
-–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
-–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
-–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
-–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
-–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
-–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
-–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
-–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
-–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
-–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
@William Demuth,
we don't have a scientific smoking gun. There is no definitive evidence for genetic determinates of sëxual preference. Personally I suspect that if anything is identified, it won't have a binary outcome. The outcomes are likely to be graduated levels of bisëxuality. That's what I see empirically but of course that's merely an opinion.
I get the notion of people dogmatically repeating talking points.
Clearly the experience of those who are willing to identify as gay indicates that this is much more than a whim. They didn't wake up that morning as decide to go gay that day.
With the overwhelming societal pressure not to be gay why would anyone 'choose' this path? "Pray away the Gay" programs demonstrably don't work. I don't believe there's any doubt that this really is who these people truly are.
William, you have some hang ups man. Each situation is different. Kids adapt and don't judge unles they are taught to. Live and let live.
@William Demuth,
you presented this scenario:
– A man and a woman marry and bear a child nine months later.
– The woman files for divorce, and admits her sole motivation was to bear a child.
– Should she and her lover be permitted to raise the child? Should the father be forced to support it?
Depending on the custody arrangement, the answers are likely to be yes and yes.
How is this different from:
– A man and a woman marry and bear a child nine months later.
– The woman files for divorce, and trades in her husband for a newer hotter younger man.
– Should she and her lover be permitted to raise the child? Should the father be forced to support it?
Depending on the custody arrangement, the answers are still likely to be yes and yes. Both of these scenarios happen regularly. Given 'no-fault' divorce laws, marriage can be a really dangerous prospect, particularly for the higher income earner.
WD:
"So should a bi oriented individual be permitted one wife and one husband??"
That is a separate issue to consider, and I agree, like all lawmaking, it is complicated, but that doesn't mean we throw out the whole idea of law. I personally think we will not go that route, at least not in the long term, because while allowing just polygamy or just polyandry is simple enough, allowing both, and allowing them in a fair and equitable manner is a legal nightmare that same se x marriage is not.
"My point is, the devil is in the details. Can Gays now bankrupt Social Security, by claiming their lovers benifits?"
I agree the details are complex, as I stated above, but this one is relatively easy. Why should gay couples have any less right to bankrupt social security than het erose xu al couples? We're actually talking about a fairly small number here (as a proportion of total claims), and social security needs help with our without the gay marriage issue.
"Can gays adopt the child of a dead Christian evangelical?"
This is not a new issue. The same question exists regarding adoption by any people with a different belief system than the dead parents.
"While I like the generous spiritual approach, I got BIG issues with the generous with my tax dollars issues." Your tax dollars are already paying for he terose xual couples, and where insurance isn't provided they are likely paying for gay partners through welfare and emergency room subsidies. You don't get something for nothing.
"Frankly, I would rather see marriage ended, rather than expanded."
How then would you handle situations where one person wants to immigrate to be with the person they love? Taxes on inheritance when people have shared a home for years? Precedence of rights for medical care when someone is in a coma? Marriage is just a legal short hand.
"Lets face it, what we have is a fiasco as it is!!"
We don't have a fiasco; we have a complex system and always will. We live in a society where life expectancy is 60% higher than at the turn of the last century, more than twice as high as a few hundred years ago. People rarely lose their children and far few live lives of poverty. The world is actually pretty good if we just take the time to appreciate how far we've come.
That first paragraph should have read polygyny, not polygamy.
"That is a separate issue to consider, and I agree, like all lawmaking, it is complicated, but that doesn't mean we throw out the whole idea of law. I personally think we will not go that route, at least not in the long term, because while allowing just polygayny or just polyandry is simple enough, allowing both, and allowing them in a fair and equitable manner is a legal nightmare that same se x marriage is not."
No such thing as born ga y
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/gaygeneticsp395.php
"No such thing as born ga y"
You have a reading problem. Being gay is not a choice science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.
In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"
But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.
This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.
You think about gays and gay sex an awful lot more than gay people do. Does your family know about your obsession?
Yes, I figured it out when I caught him in bed with our gay neighbor.
An article from the fundie rag Global Exodus Alliance? Really, AH?? Lol. Surely you can do better than that. But wait – on this subject, I think that's the problem. You can't do better. It's like old fred trying to defend his Bible. I think he's resting now, but soon that little mouse will be up and "exercising" again in his little wheel of circular reference.
@mama,
is this the same Exodus (funded by Chik-fil-A) where the (male) founders eventually married each other?
Christian have rights! Quit trampling ours.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/77373/
yeah, but when you trample on the rights of gays by keeping them from the same rights as straights, you are discriminating against a group of people based on orientation and thus lose any rights you think you had.
I don't want to trample your rights
I DO want to trample on your face.
Atheist Hunter...........bring it on!
Hunter can't even keep his pasting straight
Replied to himself! Same way he gets booty, he goes solo!
Let's see, refusing the rights of gays to get married vs refusing the rights of fundamentalists not to have to look at married people. Wow...hard to see who's getting the short end of the deal.
AH,
Huge LOLZ on that article on WND. “Teaching kids to be gay”. HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!
You stupid fvck!
WND. That's just a little notch up from the old Weekly World News. Lol. By the way – did they ever find out what that face was that kept appearing on Mars that would disappear every so often?
Again, using World Nut Daily as a source just shows what a stupid putz you are.
As long as you are focused on your perceived pain, and not on seeking out those less fortunate who need genuine, loving, help, you shroud yourself in darkness.
Science vs. Religion. Should be science & religion. One does not negate the other.
Science vs. Religion only occurs when one believes that the bible is the literal unaltered word of god. Otherwise they can coexist quite nicely.
Science does negate religion. There is no way that someone can be science minded and believe in something for which there is NO evidence. The default position is to not believe until evidence is presented. To believe otherwise is delusion.
@HBDC
I guess it really matters what you perceive as evidence. There are many scientists where I work (and live practically) that are very religious people.
One does not necessarily negate the other, but some religions are more accommodating to new findings in science than others. Most religions will eventually run into conflicts as part of what a religion does is try to answer questions that science has not yet answered. If those answers are found by science, it is a test of that religions staying power as to whether it can adapt and change to accept the facts.
Kweer behavior in the chimp world is about dominance. BullY, bullY, BullY!
Cite your source.
"Natural", by AH's accounting, is then "what god gave us" perhaps. In that case I'm not sure why he's bothering talking to a bunch of non-believers for whom this would be meaningless. But it looks more like he changes the meaning of natural every time it suits him.
@AH, I find religion fascinating, and do not have any general objection to religion. I believe (in contrast to some here) that religion can do as much good as bad. I think, however, it is a belief system that should be open to scrutiny and criticism like any other system. If you visit other blogs on this site (check the recent Thanksgiving one) you'll see that I posted messages of support for the recommended actions by faith organizations. I spent my own Thanksgiving with a nun with whom I discussed all manner of faith issues. It is, in fact, just you and a small clique of like-minded, simplistic and hateful folk like you to whose ideas I object.
AH,
We have been invited on your "turf" continually through our lives, it is only when we have rejected your faulty belief system that you want us to go away.
A cretin discussing his cretinous beliefs with the most smug, egotistical cretin to ever be commissioned his own chat show (which puts him up against some really strong compet.ition).
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as “junk science” for the religious right.
Brenda you are correct in fact, every major American medical authority has concluded that there is no scientific support for NARTH’s view.
@Atheist Hunter
Mr. Troll – you haven't addressed my point from the prior page.
There are plenty of straight couples who enjoy sodomy. Is that unnatural?
What about lesbians? Can they sodomize each other?
What consenting adults do with their naughty bits in private is nobody's business but their own.
AH what are you doing in the closet? Get out. It's entirely too small to live in there. It's time to come out and see the world.
Doc Vestibule............who ever said heteros aren't sinful creatures? It's not about natural it's about sin and choosing it. Then keep your little naughty bits in private and out of our faces and out of our tax dollars an out of our children's schools and you won't here a word out of me. When you and your sick prez makes me fund it then get ready cause you'll hear from me! Let only que ers be taxed to pay for it and have private que er only schools.
" It's not about natural"
Being gay is not a choice science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.
In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"
But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.
This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.
LOL so AH wants to go back to the days of segregation...brilliant. r3tard.
AH
Keep your religion out of government. Stop using your book of tales to control the rights of others. Just because your wonderful book of myths claims that slavery is acceptable doesn't make it right. People are waking up and seeing your book for what it is.
Roger that
AH.......keep your sin our of my pocketbook and out of my home and out of my children's lives. People are more asleep today than they have ever been, but then my book said they would be. Inerrant.
AH,
Can you explain why your god is so interested in who and in what position we have s.e.x with? What is the big deal about sodomy and why does is anger him so much?
and come up with something better than it is "unnatural"....walking on water is unnatural....turning water to wine is unnatural....curing disease and raising the dead are really unnatural.
Barney and Elmo, what a sweet and touching Beastie luv song. Master funded weligion!