California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

No doubt that is true. But that is not a problem of the Bible being wrong, or changing. That's a willful choice to disregard the plane and simple meaning stated.

Twelve versions of the modern translation which is wrong won't help. One must go back to the orginal texts which is why I suggested the book by John Boswell.

 

[Andy]

Twelve versions of the modern translation which is wrong won't help. One must go back to the orginal texts which is why I suggested the book by John Boswell.

The original text say the same. The oldest manuscripts are consistant.

 

[Sihouette]

Well, I was with you right up to the point where you started telling us what homosexuality is not, "...not a drive of the very basic foundation of nature today...", when in fact you do not know this, it's just an assumption. The very fact that homosexuality is found so widely in nature and all through history and in every human culture tells us that we don't know enough about it to say that it is "unnatural" (which is what you are saying in essence).

To say that a sexual orientation you do not feel is a "bastardation of real love," is another unwarranted value judgment you are not in a position to make. If you majored in biology then you will know that you cannot prove either one of your assertions with scientific certainty and that many biologists disagree with you.~ mare

If you look back in my posts, you'll see where I discuss thoroughly how I believe sexual preference is manifested in youth. You will read and see that I talked about how homosexuality is part of natural drive that has been skewed by environmental conditions that taught the individual to vent their sexual urges toward the same gender. With herd animals it often results from frustration of the sexual urges and inability/fear/whatever to reach the opposite gender to find relief. And once the preference has been shunted, change is nigh impossible.

THIS is PRECISELY why I think gay marriage shouldn't be. Get it yet? It is BECAUSE gayness arose from probably the most powerfully formative natural urge there is (sex) in its purest form, to copulate with a member of the opposite sex. Yes, we DO know that sex is for creating offspring. That is a fact. You never would've developed the nerve endings in your genitalia that give you such pleasureable sensations if not for evolution's little hook of getting you to reproduce yourself by seeking pleasure "down there". When you start humping doorknobs, animals, vegetables, kids, or members of the same gender to experience those sensations, then you can be categorized as "deviant" from the original intent of sex. That is a fact and I will boldly speak for it.

I'm talking purely about science here and not introducing religion like some people...(rhymes with "Dandy" ).

And another thing I will speak boldy of as fact is that we know, for a fact, that human's learn socially by example's set. You may succeed in befuddling, baffling and backing-off some timid adults by insisting "normalizing" homosexual behavior via the blessing of marriage isn't going to result in other deviances...but kids are smart. If there's one thing they can sniff out a mile away it's adult hypocrisy. They are all taught in school about biology, the evolution of sex and that it is for procreation. If you go and try to set another example that sex is for physical pleasure...where do you set the limit for how that person acheives that pleasure? Hmmm?? Once you legitimize sex outside the bounds of beyond procreation (implied: as between a man an a woman) and throw it into the very large arena of "for physical pleasure", you kick the barn door open for all other types of justification of sex "for physical pleasure"....and my oh my what a pandora's box that is...pun intended...

That's why "Don't ask, Don't tell" is so appealing....because I DO recognize that homosexuality has arisen from a natural urge gone awry. And once it's there, it's there. Like they say, "we're here and we're queer". And people should not descriminate against the handicapped, disabled, or anyone else who has a condition that was not of their choosing.

 

[Chip]

Again, what we think or don't think about the genesis or nature of homosexuality is irrelevant.

The California Supreme Court has two choices before it: 1) to appeal to definition, or 2) to revise definition.

If they choose to appeal to the time-honored definition that marriage is a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife, then they will support Prop 8.

If they choose to revise definition (and good luck to them in the rewording of that revision!), then they will repeal Prop 8.

Two men or two women can create a non-marital domestic partnership, and such should have all of the government tax breaks and corporate privileges as any other domestic partnership, marital or non-marital.

But, by time-honored definition, you don't call two men or two women intimately together a marriage -- you call two men or two women intimately together a non-marital gay/lesbian domestic partnership.

By definition, we don't call a cat a dog just because some fringe group of cat-owners want to force dog-show promoters to let them present their cats in a dog show.

Likewise, by definition, it is wrong to let a fringe group of people call their gay/lesbian domestic partnership a marriage.

Indeed, all the resolution of this matter requires is a simple appeal to definition.

 

[Sihouette]

And, before you go saying "aha!" Handicapped and disabled can get married...don't neglect to include in your thoughts that we are talking about modeling for adolescents who aren't stupid and can tell when we open the barn door for them to improvise (on the purpose of orgasm) like we did. Who are we to tell them what the limit is?

 

[Sihouette]

the time-honored definition

Sorry Chip. That argument doesn't hold water. You're citing the US law when you talk of majority rule, and then you go and inject tradition into it. You know full well that the US was formed around a pearl called The Bill Of Rights and we can amend "tradition" as we go...sheesh...

We need the behavioral psychologists to weigh in...and the anthropologists...we need science to work this one out. We need studies on homosexuality and the "recruitment" factor I've heard many gays brag about. If they're out to increase their likelihood of partners (from a minority populace pool to a much larger one) in their slant to choose from by "legitimizing" their slant via marriage, or in pursuing impressionable youth ("Twinkies" I think the gay men call them..there is a lesbian equivalent but again, I forget the name) to recruit, then gay marriage takes on a sinister edge.

It's clear that the "Twinkie/?" phenomenon illustrates that gays themselves are fully aware of not only the power of the sexual drive, but also in its ability to sway or tweak adolescents at a vulnerable age as to the fixation of their permanent preference. They will boldly tell you this is what they hope for. And it is, in fact, a practice that many many gays engage in, whether they will admit it publicly or not. Like I said, I know of three lesbian women who openly talked (amongst nodding gay peers no less) of hitting on (at least psychologically) 'the young ones'. A lesbian woman who TA'ed my daughter's 8th grade class was constantly lecturing the girls (when other staff couldn't hear) about how they should avoid men, "what do you want with them?" "don't bother with them." And hers is not an isolated case.

I'd like to really really delve into the motivations of gays wanting legitmacy in marriage. I really really would..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you look back in my posts, you'll see where I discuss thoroughly how I believe sexual preference is manifested in youth. You will read and see that I talked about how homosexuality is part of natural drive that has been skewed by environmental conditions that taught the individual to vent their sexual urges toward the same gender. With herd animals it often results from frustration of the sexual urges and inability/fear/whatever to reach the opposite gender to find relief. And once the preference has been shunted, change is nigh impossible.

THIS is PRECISELY why I think gay marriage shouldn't be. Get it yet? It is BECAUSE gayness arose from probably the most powerfully formative natural urge there is (sex) in its purest form, to copulate with a member of the opposite sex. Yes, we DO know that sex is for creating offspring. That is a fact. You never would've developed the nerve endings in your genitalia that give you such pleasureable sensations if not for evolution's little hook of getting you to reproduce yourself by seeking pleasure "down there". When you start humping doorknobs, animals, vegetables, kids, or members of the same gender to experience those sensations, then you can be categorized as "deviant" from the original intent of sex. That is a fact and I will boldly speak for it.

I'm talking purely about science here and not introducing religion like some people...(rhymes with "Dandy" ).

And another thing I will speak boldy of as fact is that we know, for a fact, that human's learn socially by example's set. You may succeed in befuddling, baffling and backing-off some timid adults by insisting "normalizing" homosexual behavior via the blessing of marriage isn't going to result in other deviances...but kids are smart. If there's one thing they can sniff out a mile away it's adult hypocrisy. They are all taught in school about biology, the evolution of sex and that it is for procreation. If you go and try to set another example that sex is for physical pleasure...where do you set the limit for how that person acheives that pleasure? Hmmm?? Once you legitimize sex outside the bounds of beyond procreation (implied: as between a man an a woman) and throw it into the very large arena of "for physical pleasure", you kick the barn door open for all other types of justification of sex "for physical pleasure"....and my oh my what a pandora's box that is...pun intended...

That's why "Don't ask, Don't tell" is so appealing....because I DO recognize that homosexuality has arisen from a natural urge gone awry. And once it's there, it's there. Like they say, "we're here and we're queer". And people should not descriminate against the handicapped, disabled, or anyone else who has a condition that was not of their choosing.

I don't find anything in modern research to support your position of nurture being the primary cause of human homosexual behavior. Nor do I find anything to support your herd examples as being applicable to wild animals and especially one's that do not live in herds. I think too that your focus is too narrow if you only consider sexual activities and ignore all the other pair bond behavior exhibited by wild animals.

Similarly, I find your definition of "deviant" to be extraodinarilly narrow. Any sexual pleasure and many kinds of non-sexual pleasure (massage or snuggling) become "deviant" since they are done with the express purpose of procreation. (Just as an aside, and only my opinion, but anyone who says, "Sex is like mud. It's dirty, smelly and fun to roll around in. But it belongs outside the house of love," has issues with sex that skew their perception.)

If you've a degree in biology you should be able to support your position with journal articles or current texts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The original text say the same. The oldest manuscripts are consistant.

Again, Chip, that's why I suggested the book by John Boswell, the manuscripts are not consistent.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, what we think or don't think about the genesis or nature of homosexuality is irrelevant.

The California Supreme Court has two choices before it: 1) to appeal to definition, or 2) to revise definition.

If they choose to appeal to the time-honored definition that marriage is a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife, then they will support Prop 8.

If they choose to revise definition (and good luck to them in the rewording of that revision!), then they will repeal Prop 8.

Two men or two women can create a non-marital domestic partnership, and such should have all of the government tax breaks and corporate privileges as any other domestic partnership, marital or non-marital.

But, by time-honored definition, you don't call two men or two women intimately together a marriage -- you call two men or two women intimately together a non-marital gay/lesbian domestic partnership.

By definition, we don't call a cat a dog just because some fringe group of cat-owners want to force dog-show promoters to let them present their cats in a dog show.

Likewise, by definition, it is wrong to let a fringe group of people call their gay/lesbian domestic partnership a marriage.

Indeed, all the resolution of this matter requires is a simple appeal to definition.

Anyone who has looked at what marriage has been down through history will know that the variety is extremely wide--including homosexual and group marriages. It's good to note that nothing in the marriage ceremony or in law states that procreation is a requirement. Marriage in our culture is about love and committment. People used the same arguments against women having equal rights since women were (obviously) not men, the same was used against interracial marriage, inter-faith marriage, and plural marriage. All of those arguments did not prevail then and they won't prevail now because they are irrelevant. Gay marriages in other countries and in one American state have done no damage to the institution of marriage just as the marriage of gay people during the first 14 centuries of Christianity did no damage.

 

[Sihouette]

Similarly, I find your definition of "deviant" to be extraodinarilly narrow. Any sexual pleasure and many kinds of non-sexual pleasure (massage or snuggling) become "deviant" since they are done with the express purpose of procreation. (Just as an aside, and only my opinion, but anyone who says, "Sex is like mud. It's dirty, smelly and fun to roll around in. But it belongs outside the house of love," has issues with sex that skew their perception.)

I should have elaborated. Alas I have not a lot of time these days to post. Love should come before sex, always. But is not always devoid of sex. I think far too many people fall "in sex" and not "in love" first. Hence the reasons for most of the problems we have in relationships today.

I have one example, of which only one is needed that rules out homosexuality being genetic soley. I knew of two identical twins raised by two lesbians, you might have read about them on the previous page? Anyway, I'll tell you again that two people sharing the exact same DNA, one is a lesbian and the other straight.

So that one case proves that homosexuality is at least in part a product of environment. If sexual preference was inherited, both girls should've turned out either straight or gay...not both.

 

[BigRob]

I have one example, of which only one is needed that rules out homosexuality being genetic soley. I knew of two identical twins raised by two lesbians, you might have read about them on the previous page? Anyway, I'll tell you again that two people sharing the exact same DNA, one is a lesbian and the other straight.

So that one case proves that homosexuality is at least in part a product of environment. If sexual preference was inherited, both girls should've turned out either straight or gay...not both.

That does not prove anything...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have one example, of which only one is needed that rules out homosexuality being genetic soley. I knew of two identical twins raised by two lesbians, you might have read about them on the previous page? Anyway, I'll tell you again that two people sharing the exact same DNA, one is a lesbian and the other straight.

So that one case proves that homosexuality is at least in part a product of environment. If sexual preference was inherited, both girls should've turned out either straight or gay...not both.

I thought you said you majored in Biology. Genetics isn't anything like that deterministic. Twin studies have shown a 67-68% correlation for sexual orientation, that's a valid level of genetic influence. If you go to this website you can view a presentation by Dr. Cynthia Chappell about a biological explanation for sexual orientation. She's a medical doctor and reseacher who has two sons, one of whom is gay. This is a science-based presentation rather than just a few personal anecdotes.
http://www.pflaghouston.org/news/headline.htm

 

[Andy]

Again, Chip, that's why I suggested the book by John Boswell, the manuscripts are not consistent.

Andy, not Chip. Um... name the manuscripts? Every single investigation I've done, has yet to turn up a credible manuscript that is even remotely different.

You may turn up some modified ones in isolated areas, but the Torah found in the dead sea scrolls was completely consistent. As was Isaiah, and I have yet to find anything credible about any gospels being different.

And about this book of yours...

Professor Thomas Noble who is a Professor of History and Papal Scholar at the University of Notre Dame, plus Doctoral Adviser and Teacher at University of Virginia had the following to say regarding this book.

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:12:40 -0400
From: Tom Noble (email address removed by Andy)
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship

A solid review is one that takes a book seriously on its won terms and deals with it positively or negatively as the case seems to demand. A critical review is one that examines a work closely, not one that is negative. There have been good reviews, by these standards, of Boswell's book. One is by Brent Shaw in the July 18/25 New Republic. Another very interesting one was in last Sunday's Washington Post Book World by--fasten your seat belts--Camille Paglia. A few weeks ago in the NYT book review Meyendorff had his go at it. Each of these reviews has been devastating. I read the book last April--a prepublication copy--and I concur with the negative assessments. The evidence will not bear the interpretations Boswell asks it to. I know and admire JEB Boswell.. I count him a friend. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with his book. Is he advocating something? Certainly, but where's the harm in that? The case rises or falls on whether or not the rites of adelphopoiesis that B. finds in several (around 16, if I remember) Orthodox liturgies constitute a rite for "gay marriage." I do not think so and so far no specialists in Orthodox liturgy thinks so either. Is there a pervasive disinclination on the part of conservative or touchy Orthodox scholars to give B. a hearing. In some cases, undoubtedly. But not in all cases. The case is weak. And the western evidence B adduces--three early medieval charters and a chance reference in Giraldus Cambrensis--are deeply ambiguous, widely separated in time and place, and almost certainly irrelevant. So at best, B. has a curious Orthodox phenomenon. And virtually his only corroborative anecdotal evidence is from late medieval Albania. I leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to decide what that means.

Each reader must decide for him or herself. But it will be entirely possible to disagree with this book, and even to have grave doubts about its scholarship, without being homophobic, conservative, or indeed and apologist for any cause. One can approach this book the way one would a book on, say, the Norman conquest or the Fourth Crusade or the Reconquista.

Tom Noble

It's funny but the greek orthodox church oddly states that, like the word adelphopoiesis means, "brother making", actually means to make someone a brother. In other words, to adopt them into your family. And has nothing to do with homosexuality.

But let's even go into the twilight zone, and assume someone "brother making" meant homosexual marriage. That still doesn't show up anywhere in any version of the conical bible, or the greek version.

If you are so inclined, here is the Greek version of Genesis 2:24 for your study.
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=Genesis+2:24
It is unsurprisingly equal in meaning to what my own Bible says.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry about the name mix-up, Andy.

The man wrote a whole book detailing his research, it has many footnotes and sources, there is no way I can pull enough information out of the book to do justice to his thesis. Don't want to know? Don't read it. I found the book fascinating and a good addition to my library of religious research books. Part of the problem of pulling out mis-translated words is that my computer has no Greek or Hebraic letters and thus I cannot even print the words.

 

[Andy]

Sorry about the name mix-up, Andy.

The man wrote a whole book detailing his research, it has many footnotes and sources, there is no way I can pull enough information out of the book to do justice to his thesis. Don't want to know? Don't read it. I found the book fascinating and a good addition to my library of religious research books. Part of the problem of pulling out mis-translated words is that my computer has no Greek or Hebraic letters and thus I cannot even print the words.

I really don't have to read the whole thing to realize it's questionable nature.

Like I said before, if you take what the word adelphopoiesis means, it refers to adoption, not a physical union. Without that referring to homosexual unions, his whole theory falls apart.

Further, again, if we go into the twilight zone, and pretend it is about homosexuality, he has a grand total of 16 specific examples.... 16 in the entire Greek orthodox church. 16? That's it? That's the wide spread validation of homosexual unions in the entire greek christian church on the entire planet? That's your strong support?

I can cite 16 examples of glaciers advancing. That alone should prove global warming false. Or 16 examples of temperatures dropping. That's all that is needed to prove it false. Or 16 examples of bad Chinese food. That should be enough to ban all of it.

Yes I'm being absurd to prove how absurd this book is.

I can hear the twilight zone theme in the back ground now. No, that is weak and lame. Feel free to do some research on your own. For me the case is closed, and he's been overruled.