Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

Oh, I believe in the Bible. I think it's one of the greatest works man ever created.More cut & paste. As usual, totally wrong.Let's look at what your preacher said. How does a same-sex mariage alter a different-sex marriage? It doesn't much matter if it's been around before the laws (if that's even fact and no one has ever provided any evidence of that), what we're dealing with is the laws today. A nonsense statement. Of course social institutions have been redesigned. Not all that long ago different-racial marriages were illegal and the same arguments were used then. Well, that's called change. It happens. That might be true or even pertinent if marriage was a religious institution, but it's not. Can you get married without first getting a license? Nope. It's a social contract.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here is the full passage: Now this does appear to suggest that the nakedness of one's father is something that should not be seen by one's sons. Ham saw his father's nakedness and did not turn away, rather telling others. The other sons went to rather great lengths to not view their dad, as they covered him up.Now it is true that the problem could have been Ham's telling others what he saw which embarasses the father and sons (so snitching being the moral rule here), but it could also be having seen his father's nakedness rather than avoiding seeing him (such that he could tell others).Ideas?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's cut and paste because I can't say it any better. But they were still between a man and a woman. The results of hundreds of scientific studies and years of sociological research is undisputable. There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating the rewards to society as well as to individual families of marriage. Marriage uniquely provides to men and women a level of health, happiness and financial security that cannot be replicated by any other human relationship, including same-sex unions or live-in boyfriends. It is the building block of society that the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat. Good come back.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

I answered that in message 97. That suggests that Noah's sone did something to him, otherwise it would say, "knew that his younger son saw him naked."

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

You know, there was a cardinal back in the days of Galileo who said just that: "Stupidest thing I've ever heard."The issue was something Galileo had said, namely that, contrary to what everybody knew, the sun wasn't revolving around the earth, but it was in fact the other way around. In those days, many people, if not most, thought it the stupidest thing they'd ever heard. Everybody could clearly observe the sun going around the earth, every day, like clockwork. Yet, as we now know, Galileo had it right. But we can hardly blame those people for not accepting it right away. After all, science was still in its infancy, and people were generally more concerned with the astrological consequences of the motions of the heavenly bodies, than with astronomy.Not so today. Science has become an institution, and modern technology allows even the common man to be informed about its progress. And if you put a real effort into it, you can even take part in it.One of the tenets of modern science is the repeatability of research. No self-respecting scientist is going to publish anything if they're not fairly sure other scientists can repeat their experiments and results. So you can bet on it that when someone publishes a research paper that reports the finding of a genetic factor in homosexual behaviour in animals, there is probably not only smoke, but fire too.Simply dismissing it with "Stupidest thing I've ever heard" is, to put it mildly, a bit of a medieval attitude. The least you could do is put some effort into finding out about it.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Aug-2005 10:58 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Assume for a second that any of the above is true (I am not saying it is true but for the sake of this discussion we can work from that assumption).How does a same-sex marriage have any effect on a hetero-sexual marriage?AbE:It should also be noted that your quote is yet another simply cut & pasted from another place, likely Southeast Christian Church.This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2005 03:00 PMThis message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2005 03:03 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here you go.It's even a religious source.

quote:

---

Roughly half of the public expresses an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50% unfavorable) and lesbians (48% unfavorable). Nearly one-in-three (29%) have a very unfavorable opinion of gay men, and 26% have a very unfavorable opinion of lesbians.

​

In general, young people have more favorable views of homosexuals than do older people. Half of those under age 25 have a favorable view of gay men (50% favorable to 44% unfavorable) and a majority have a favorable view of lesbians (57% favorable, 37% unfavorable). Women tend to express more favorable opinions of both gay men and lesbians, and this is especially true among very young people. Among men age 18-24, opinions about gay men are far more negative (52% unfavorable) than about lesbians (35% unfavorable).

---

This part, I think, is particularly interesting:

quote:

---

Majorities of college graduates hold favorable views of both gay men and lesbians (54% each), while opinions of those with less education are considerably more negative.

---

Now to the part pertaining to religion:

quote:

---

Among white mainline Protestants and Catholics, opinion is divided: 43% of mainline Protestants and 46% of Catholics have a favorable opinion of gay men; their views of lesbians are comparable.

​

White evangelicals are much more negative, with 69% unfavorable (including 47% very unfavorable) and only 22% favorable. Black Protestants also hold generally unfavorable views (62% unfavorable, 27% favorable).

---

According to a Sports Illustrated poll:

quote:

---

It is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior 44% {agree} 46% {disagree}

---

It would appear that both of our views could be considered mainstream - there is a near 50/50 split on the issue. I think it's interesting that better educated individuals have a more favorable opinion. Everyone I know thinks it's not a sin. Yeah, that's pretty stupid. You're right. Good thing that's not what I said. I said that the study observably PROVES that homosexuality is at least partially caused by genetics. I didn't say that genes are the only factor, and that you can flip a switch in a human being. But the fact that you can flip a switch in a fly shows that genes are a factor, if not the only one. When did I ever try to use the Bible to prove my position? I don't take the Bible literally - I only hold to what I consider the root message - love thy neighbor.As far as Dobson goes - he steps further than most. He believes homosexuality is a choice, and is preventable. Popular opinion aside, this is blatantly false and contrary to modern psychiatry.If sexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be heterosexual? I know I remember the day I came home from elementary school and told my parents "Gee whiz Mom and Dad, I've decided I like girls."...oh, wait, that's not the way it works.Perhaps he's not as "radical" in his views as I previously believed - he simply seems to represent roughly half of the population (of the US anyway. Worldwide may be very different). It's difficult to make a call on how divergent a person's view is from the norm when there is such an even split in popular opinion. I will retract my accusations of radicalism unless and until I find additional statements made by Dobson that step further outside the norm.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

Making it legally possible for same-sex couples to get "married" in America will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everybody. It is a much more profound change than modifying the wording in a few laws. Marriage is more fundamental to the human experience than the laws regulating it because it was around long before there were laws; marriage statutes merely recognize and regulate an institution that has always existed.

​

Redesigning those laws to reinvent that institution - the foundational unit of society - is a genuinely groundbreaking concept. No civilization in the history of mankind has ever done it. Never in human history has there been a society, advanced or primitive, in which same-sex marriage was embraced as an ordinary family form and a normal part of everyday life. Certainly, a few societies have experimented with such unions, but they were anomalies even at the time.

​

Every major world religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism - have for millennia defined marriage as the union of man and woman. Why is it reasonable to believe that a small, vocal minority pushing a totally self-serving agenda, have suddenly discovered some profound truth that the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind somehow missed?

​

There is one plain truth that has gotten mangled almost beyond recognition in the cat fight over same-sex marriage. It is simple and clear. Man cannot redefine marriage because he didn't define it in the first place; man can't change the nature of the marriage unit because he didn't invent it. God did.
  —Tal's preacher who doesn't know anything about marriage

---

Do you really want to get into what marriage has been, traditionally?Marriage for love is a recent development. For millenia, marriage was simply a legal contract to legitimize children and make clear lines for succession and inheritance. The wife was considered property, and had no rights. Commoners would frequently not marry until their prospective mate became pregnant - to ensure that they could have children. After all, children were a viable workforce back then."Traditional marriage" as we know it today has only been around for a few decades, not millenia. If you oppose change only becuase "that's the way it's always been," then you'd better suggest that women be stripped of their rights and made the property of their husbands. Marriage shoukld then be a legal convenience, and have nothing to do with the deeply significant bond that it is today. Otherwise you are being inconsistant.It's a simple appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something has been done a certain way for a while, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Blacks were considered subhuman, and interracial marriage was against tradition - but those traditions were wrong, too.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

No, you mean Muslim clerics. I never claimed that Dobson was a muslim.Look, he's a religious leader and figure, but he's not, to my knowledge, an ordained priest. Nonetheless he possesses a degree of authority among Christians. Thus, he is a cleric.I'm sorry that you find the connotations of my precise and accurate word choices so troublesome. Maybe you should inspect what you know of Dobson instead of going off on these irrelevant diatribes.

But he doesn't hold conservative, traditionalist views. He holds radical views.Thus, he's a radical. Try again, Tal. Where did I say that it did? I merely, and accurately, described Dobson as both a "cleric" (which he is) and a "radical" (which he is.) You've yet to dispute either of those claims successfully. And your constant attempts to point out that he's not as bad as certain Muslims is irrelevant, because I didn't say that he was.

No, they're not. Dobson's vision of the American government is not one that has a basis in American tradition.His views are radically different from our established government; thus, he is a radical. The Supreme Court is not a legislature, so this is obviously not the case. Who said that he didn't? Honestly, Tal, you're getting all worked up about things we're not even saying. Let Dobson say what he likes. Who said he couldn't? No. But because he advocates radical views, and because he's a religious figure, does make him so. You've yet to successfully challenge these key points.

Might I comment that I was this close to marrying someone I had never met before because of arrange marriage... or more like a promise between two families.

Didn't you read? A shower specifically for the purpose of the display of genitals.But, oh, right. It's not child molestation if it's not the only thing you're doing. It's not kiddie rape when you (insert disgusting sex act here) the kid so long as you wash him behind the ears afterwards. For many acts, yes, this is true.For some, it is not. Is the purposeful act of displaying an adult's genitals to a child such an act? I don't know. As a child I saw both my parents' genitals and I don't feel that constituted molestation. Dobson's suggestion doesn't even mention sexual gratification. He doesn't, apparently, even consider that it would be possible for a dad to want to display his penis for sexual gratification, despite the fact that he's normally so hyper-sensitive to sexual "deviancy".That's the surprising thing of Dobson's newsletter. Apparently we agree that there's a context where the display of a penis to a child is a sexual act of molestation. Dobson doesn't seem to think so, or else he would have mentioned it. Or actually not mentioned it - he wouldn't have said anything about the showers at all. Maybe you should consider the fact that your posts are long and difficult to understand before you start accusing me of strawmen. Here's a hint - if your post is longer than one entire computer screen top-to-bottom then we're not going to read all of it. And I do mean none of us.Oh, and point me to the "no harm in child sex" thread you were talking about. I hadn't planned to take part, and I know it's somewhat dead right now, but I'm gathering resources to take you on in it. I'll get caught up and try to post my input this weekend.

Tal:

quote:

---

The results of hundreds of scientific studies and years of sociological research is undisputable. There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating the rewards to society as well as to individual families of marriage. Marriage uniquely provides to men and women a level of health, happiness and financial security that cannot be replicated by any other human relationship, including same-sex unions or live-in boyfriends. It is the building block of society that the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat.

---

Hi, Tal.Meaning is not a zero sum game. The meaning of your life and relationships does not change the meaning of mine, or vice versa. The notion that it is otherwise leads to pogroms and crusades.And I am skeptical of the mountain of evidence you conjure. If a correlation is, in fact, demonstrated between marriage and good health and happiness, it may as likely be that the healthy and happy are more likely to attract a mate, while the sickly and miserable go begging.Neither you nor your preacher has presented any convincing argument that gay marriage has any deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. True, you both find it offense: so what? "the minority is attempting to force down the majority's throat"--Sigmund, Tal; Tal, Sigmund My wife and I are full partners. Some marriages are dominated by a male husband, some by a female wife; some marriages are a sham, characterized by pretense and adultery: has the meaning of your marriage taken a hit from that? Do wife beaters cheapen and demean the meaning of traditional marriages everywhere? I can hardly wait for the campaign against domestic violence to emerge with the same fury as the religious right's indignation at the notion of gay marriage.Marriage has taken many forms around the world and through time: which one is the sacred building block? The arranged marriages of our Indo-European ancestors? Women as chattel? Polygyny? Polyandry? Is it better with or without dowry? Is it only a building block of society if it happens in a church? Are we secularists truly married?If there is a true relationship building block to society, it is friendship, not marriage. Even among contemporary, so-called traditional marriages, as many fail in acrimony and divorce as succeed in the long term.If marriage is a building block in our own society, and if conservatives believe it is, why do we pay a tax penalty for it? Why haven't the Republicans, champions of traditional marriage, removed that tax penalty? Why haven't they done away with the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed to insure the wealthy pay at least some taxes, but now hitting the middle class almost exclusively, particularly dual-income married folk? Bush has charged a commission to consider that and other issues--with the caveat that any lost revenue has to made up elsewhere in the commission's recommendations--do you recall that requirement applying to tax cuts for the wealthy? It seems that the benison of matrimony is more celebrated in the breech than the observance.Finally, if their is a salutary effect to health and happiness from being married, why should that benison be denied to same sex couples?I don't like marriages where the husband fancies himself lord of both the manor and his timid little wifey: it is a waste of humanity, a distortion of healthy relations. But I don't try to stop them from occurring--I just don't hang with them.If you don't like gay marriage, Tal, don't marry a gay.

see? it happens. ok, maybe not: paul also appears to be using a word that pretty strictly defines older men having relations with younger boys, as was customary in some parts of the greek-speaking world at the time. although, undoubtably paul would have ALSO have been against a consentual relationship between men of the same age.i just suspect pretty strongly that such relationships were not exactly common in the 1st centuray ad in middle east and greek world. except maybe in sparta.

---

אָרַח