Mass. SJC ruling will open pandora's box

Texas Lynn · May 25, 2004

myutmost4him said:
True Christianity is not based upon popular opinion... it's not a democracy. It's also not based upon wrongs or rights of Christians thru history. It should be based upon the Word of God.

No one said it was based on popular opinion, or not based on the word of God.

"Interpreting" the bible to show support for homosexuality is like "interpreting" the Constitution to show support for dictatorial rule. If you have to ignore and spin the contents of the Bible in this way, how and why put any faith in it at all?

Others disagree. Loving same gender relationships are not addressed in scripture at all.

myutmost4him · May 26, 2004

MyUtmost4Him said:

"Interpreting" the bible to show support for homosexuality is like "interpreting" the Constitution to show support for dictatorial rule. If you have to ignore and spin the contents of the Bible in this way, how and why put any faith in it at all?

Click to expand...

Response

Texas Lynn said:
Others disagree. Loving same gender relationships are not addressed in scripture at all.

Here's an easy one:

Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

I'm sure this has been posted a few million times... if this poses an interpretation problem, then how can we be remotely sure of any thing. Please use a little common sense... this passage "doesn't" say anything about loving inter-species relationships or loving relationships with children either, is that also open to interpretaion? How about incest? We are all in disgust with these things (aren't we?), but give it 10 - 15 years of protest marches, sympathetic movies and television, and court decisions regarding rights and freedoms, and society will be mad at Christian's for being pedophileophobic, or whatever it's called.

Blindfaith · May 26, 2004

I thought I walked into the Twilight Zone for a second.

Are we getting into scripture and the definition of the original text?

/me rubs her hands together

Where shall we start? Genesis?

Does anyone here who is a proponent of homosexual marriage know what the original text meant regarding man and woman? Please post it here......

Volos · May 26, 2004

JHara said:
I said you should understand why christians are upset about it.

But I do not see. All I see are attempts to promote discrimination based on personal prejudice.

The government cannot stay nuetral in this, if legalized they say homosexuality is fine which goes against what the christian bible says, if not legalized they say homosexuality is wrong, which goes against what other numerous religions believe. ( I include athiesm in that category )

As noted several times the government is not in the business of pleasing religious groups or supporting your personal view of the bible. If the government denies legal recognition f same sex marriage it denies the validity of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution by saying that not everyone has equal protection under the law.

This is an extremely vague accusation. Would help to have some sort of detail as to what church and where and so on for this caliber of an accusation. Although it would not surprise me, when I say it has been against the christian religion for thousands of years I am going by what God says in the bible, not what a random church allowed in the middle ages.

Try reading Dr. Boswell for yourself. His work in this area was collected under the title Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe Though I would recommend a strong cup of coffee as he writes for academia not for the public.

Dr. Boswell Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches not some random churches as you suggest.

This comes back to my example with adulterers. You have to see how christians view homosexuality, it's not a group of people it's an act that was forbidden by God. Pretending it is discrimination also does nothing.

I am not an act and it is insulting to pretend that I am.

Pretending that ad vocation of denial of civil rights and legal protections to a specific group of law abiding citizens based solely on personal prejudice is somehow not discrimination is both a blatant lie and an insult to every person who believes in justice and freedom.

Once again, I'm not about to debate someone else's misinterpretations of the bible with you, you are not a christian so this is not of your concern.

Once again you have placed yourself above anyone who dares to interpret, think or believe differently than you do as it is other people who are misinterpreting and you have of course removed that possibility from yourself..

More to the point when you claim infallibility in the interpretation of the bible and as such make it the justification for discrimination you make it not only my business but everyones business.

You said that I am discriminatory, prejudiced, and I've seen you throw around a number of slandering words on this forum. I'm not extremely clear what you're accusing me of, I just think you should tone down the name calling a bit.

I said you use your personal prejudice to justify discrimination.

Did not answer my question. No matter what anyone does, they are always welcome by the divine?

yes that is what uncondiitonal means

Is there absolutely no right or wrong? What religion is this if you don't mind me asking.

look at my icon

I just would like to know if this religion has any set boundaries, or does it just let anyone do whatever they feel. Because this is not Love that I know.

No Pagan or group of Pagans sat around writing a book and then pretended that it was divinely inspired if that is what you mean.

People do stupid things to each other, but that's ok because God still loves you no matter what you do, all you need to do is repent of your ways and His grace will be there for you.

So your Gods love is not universal but conditional.

Volos · May 26, 2004

jameseb said:
Yes, apparently I missed the scientific evidence about 'scare response' and 'index finger ridges' making know who is homosexual and who is not. Very scientific indeed. However, I'd still link a link to such news.

Its called a search enginetry using one.

Not that I think you will actually read this post either

As pointed out in post #154 (apparently you didnt bother to actually read this post)

J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kimura identified a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of homosexual and heterosexual men and found that the number and structure of ridges on the fingertips of homosexual men were markedly different than the ridges found on the fingertips of heterosexual men. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter. This would show that sexual orientation is pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception or at the very least by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy.

J.A.Y. Hall & D. Kimura, "Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry and Sexual Orientation in Men", Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 108 #6, 1994-DEC, P.1203-1206.

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_37/ai_72272304

The point of the study was that heterosexuals and homosexuals have marked differences in a physical characteristic that is set before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter. Implying that since this physical differnece exists and is set before birth than the coresponding sexual orientaiton associated with this physical differnce would logical also exists before birth.

Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each older brother that he has. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy.

R. Blanchard, "Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality," Hormones & Behavior, 2001, 40, Pages 105 to 114.

Bloanchard further refined his findings to note that the more male children a woamn has the chance of each new male child being homoseuxal increses by about 33%

Blanchard R, Klassen P. H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men.

Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1997 Apr 7;185(3):373-8.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9156085&dopt=Abstract

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied the sexual orientation of male siblings raised together since birth. They found that in identical twins if one was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was 52%. This correlation is much higher than the coloration of twins in relationship to type I diabetes. This result was identical for twins raised together and for twins separated and raised by different families.

Non-identical twins are no more likely to be homosexual than any other same gendered sibling. Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1845227

Qazi Rahman studied groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and found significant differences in an involuntary response to being startled with bursts of loud noises. This is formally called "prepulse inhibition" or (PPI). Subjects were exposed to a low level noise, followed by a strong noise. Researchers measured the strength of the involuntary eye-blink responses. These data were then compared to similar strength measurements taken after exposure to a loud noise without the preceding low level noise. The lower the response, the stronger the level of inhibition. "The reaction of the lesbian test subjects was closer to that which would be expected among straight men. And, gay men reacted closer that of women, although to a lesser extent."

They found that the average PPI was:

40% for heterosexual men
32% for gay men
13% for heterosexual women
33% for lesbains

Startle responses is known to be an involuntary response rather than learned reaction. It controlled by the limbic system, a region of the brain that also controls sexuality. Qazi Rahman, said: "The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned...This is very strong evidence that sexual orientation may be 'hard-wired' in this region" of the brain. The researchers claimed that "this study offers the first independent evidence of a non-learned neurological basis for sexual orientation." Dr. Rahman said: "These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation."

Sexual Orientation Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response" Qazi Rahman Behavioral Neuroscience magazine, 2003-OCT, published by the American Psychological Association.

http://www.apa.org/journals/bne/bne11751096.pdf.

You mihgt also read:

Bogaert, A. Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in a National Probability Sample Journal fo Sex Research, Nov.2000

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_37/ai_72272310

Bynne et al The Interstitial Nuclei of the Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation of Variation with Sex, Sexual Orientation, and HIV Status Hormones and Behavior Sept 2001. VOl 40, 2.

http://else.hebis.de/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=0018506x&issue=v40i0002&article=86_tinothssoahs

Blancahrd R. Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior Sept 2001. VOl 40, 2.

http://else.hebis.de/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=0018506x&issue=v40i0002&article=105_fboatmihomh

Volos · May 26, 2004

We are all still waiting for valid evidence that sexual ordination is a choice BTW

Volos · May 26, 2004

Blindfaith said:
Where shall we start? Genesis?

Does anyone here who is a proponent of homosexual marriage know what the original text meant regarding man and woman? Please post it here......

Does anyone here who is a proponent of discrimination know what effect the wording of Genesis has on the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States?

jameseb · May 26, 2004

Volos said:
[/color]Does anyone here who is a proponent of discrimination know what effect the wording of Genesis has on the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States?

And pray do tell us what the supposedly scientific proof that some people have a gay gene has to honestly do with the Constitution as well?

jameseb · May 26, 2004

Volos said:
Its called a search enginetry using one

Ouch. You're correct... with that attitude, I have no interest in reading more of this post.

jameseb · May 26, 2004

Volos said:
We are all still waiting for valid evidence that sexual ordination is a choice BTW

Right. And do you know of any scientific evidence at all that proves the existance of 'choice?'

Regardless, the question of whether or not homosexuality is an inborn trait or a matter of choice is moot. Its a question of sin to most Christians and I believe that's what the OP was about. I'd love to discuss proof of gene vs. choice, but in the end it really has no reflection on Scripture. Of course that leads us right back to how we choose to interepret Scripture.....

Texas Lynn · May 26, 2004

myutmost4him said:
Here's an easy one:

Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

Nothing there referring to loving same gender relationships whatsoever.

I'm sure this has been posted a few million times...

Dysfunctional behavior is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Paul's admonitions to early Christians have no bearing on the issue at hand.

if this poses an interpretation problem, then how can we be remotely sure of any thing.

We can't.

Please use a little common sense... this passage "doesn't" say anything about loving inter-species relationships or loving relationships with children either, is that also open to interpretaion? How about incest? We are all in disgust with these things (aren't we?), but give it 10 - 15 years of protest marches, sympathetic movies and television, and court decisions regarding rights and freedoms, and society will be mad at Christian's for being pedophileophobic, or whatever it's called.

Another journey down irrelevant and invalid and invalid slippery slope.

Texas Lynn · May 26, 2004

Blindfaith said:
Does anyone here who is a proponent of homosexual marriage know what the original text meant regarding man and woman? Please post it here......

-5 points for poor sentence construction.

The patriarchs sought to enforce a conformity to arranged marriages and pronatalism for the purpose of increasing the population so that soldiers for wars against Caananites, Moabites, Hittites, etc. would be provided for future generations.

An irrelevancy to the issue at hand.

Blindfaith · May 26, 2004

-5 points for poor sentence construction.

Wowwww.....making it personal. That's not a wise choice, is it now.

The patriarchs sought to enforce a conformity to arranged marriages and pronatalism for the purpose of increasing the population so that soldiers for wars against Caananites, Moabites, Hittites, etc. would be provided for future generations.

This is the explanation? Maybe I need to clarify myself. What is the reason for God to create man and woman? What does the original text say - what is the definition of man and woman. It wasn't to populate the earth for war purposes. Please.......

An irrelevancy to the issue at hand.

According to........

jameseb · May 26, 2004

Texas Lynn said:
The patriarchs sought to enforce a conformity to arranged marriages and pronatalism for the purpose of increasing the population so that soldiers for wars against Caananites, Moabites, Hittites, etc. would be provided for future generations.

And you can back that up with Scripture? :scratch:

Texas Lynn · May 26, 2004

jameseb said:
And you can back that up with Scripture?

How about anthropology? That is based on scientific data.

Texas Lynn · May 26, 2004

Blindfaith said:
What is the reason for God to create man and woman?

Certainly not division of labor. Gender is a function of reproduction; social organization, however, is not.

jameseb · May 26, 2004

Texas Lynn said:
How about anthropology? That is based on scientific data.

Again, can you provide 'Scripture?'

Rae · May 27, 2004

Does anyone here who is a proponent of discrimination know what effect the wording of Genesis has on the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States?</FONT>

Hm. No one has answered this yet. I will tell you, then. Genesis has nothing to do with United States law. Our law is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible. Thank goodness. That means discrimination against loving same-sex couples who want secular, state-sponsored marriage under the law is wrong. You can believe it's a sin fifty times a day and 100 times on Sundays. It doesn't matter. U.S. law isn't based on outlawing anything some religious group thinks is a sin. Catholics can accept that heterosexual people can get secular state-sponsored marriages their church disapproves of. Why can't Christian conservatives accept that homosexual people can get secular, state-sponsored marriages even if they disapprove of them?

Polycarp1 · May 27, 2004

Rae said:
Hm. No one has answered this yet. I will tell you, then. Genesis has nothing to do with United States law. Our law is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible. Thank goodness. That means discrimination against loving same-sex couples who want secular, state-sponsored marriage under the law is wrong. You can believe it's a sin fifty times a day and 100 times on Sundays. It doesn't matter. U.S. law isn't based on outlawing anything some religious group thinks is a sin. Catholics can accept that heterosexual people can get secular state-sponsored marriages their church disapproves of. Why can't Christian conservatives accept that homosexual people can get secular, state-sponsored marriages even if they disapprove of them?

This is an excellent point.

To be completely fair to the opposite side, though, you do have to give some credence to their arguments. From time immemorial, "marriage" has meant the commitment -- lifelong in intention at time of commitment -- of a man and a woman to live together, ordinarily with carnal knowledge between them and limited to them, generally (though not always) with the intent to have children.... That polygamous marriages are noted in Scripture and a few places in history, that legal commitments other than marriage are possible and countenanced here and there, does not defeat the general and standard definition. And note that this is not necessarily a religiously-based distinction, but rather a sociological analysis of what the concept of "marriage" has meant across history. (Granted that most people who do hold this view are also firmly convinced that it was God's intent that it be this way -- that is not an essential to their legal argument.)

Accordingly, decent people like Ps139 that are not in the slightest interested in gay-bashing or some of the bizarrer claims of the "family-friendly" campaigners can hold that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman united in that sort of commitment to each other is the valid one, and that however much gay people may love each other and desire to commit to each other, the relationship they have is not a "marriage." In Abe Lincoln's memorable analogy, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Now, I personally have no problem with any two people who wish to join in a committed union to construct a family calling what they have between them a marriage. But I can grasp the point that they are making.

And I think that it needs to be addressed without flaming or without setting up strawmen or making assumptions of the underlying motives of others.

It's an objection to gay marriage that they don't meet the historical criteria for marriages. Why should we change the definition? I can think of valid arguments for doing so -- but let's explore it honestly.

Rae · May 27, 2004

That polygamous marriages are noted in Scripture and a few places in history, that legal commitments other than marriage are possible and countenanced here and there, does not defeat the general and standard definition.

I would disagree. Polygamous marriage has been standard practice in a lot of cultures for very long periods of time. I think you're dismissing it too quickly above.

It's an objection to gay marriage that they don't meet the historical criteria for marriages.

Yes, but I don't think it's a valid one. Interracial marriages didn't meet the "historical" criteria, either. Something not meeting a "historical" definition does not make it bad or wrong.

Also, most of the arguments here are along the lines of "it's a sin, so it shouldn't be legal" or "it will lead to the downfall of society, so it shouldn't be legal." I haven't seen any recent posts making the arguments you do, above. I haven't seen any evidence showing that legalizing secular gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society, nor any evidence that the Constitution says that anything Christian conservatives see as sin cannot be made legal.

I understand the arguments the opposition uses. I just think they aren't valid and don't address the real issue: whether the secular legal "marriages" under U.S. law should be opened to homosexual couples.

Mass. SJC ruling will open pandora's box

Well-Known Member

Just A Wee Servant

God's Tornado

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God's Tornado

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.

Similar threads