Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

Check your "facts!"

"Seem to?"
You mean that fatherhood and motherhood are entirely arbitrary social categories, having nothing to do with sex or sexual identity? You mean that men make equally good mothers as women? Abd vice versa?

Are you sure about your suppositions? Or are you simply too politely tolerant to ask critical and relevant questions?

The notion that sexual identity - one of the essential results of parenting a child - is an arbitrary consequence of socialization was especially the creature of one man, albeit aided by the utopian ethos of his time: John Money at Johns Hopkins University, who husbanded the myth for thirty years until Milton Diamond at Hawaii quietly unmasked him in 1997. Money has never recanted his fraudulent "results."
(See "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl" by John Colapinto, 2000.)

Money was a rank behaviorist in academe ambition and devoted to the ideals of sexual liberation and feminist dogma. He believed that biological sexual identity didn't fundamentally matter to human development, happiness, or health - only socialization. The book "As Nature Made Him" is the story of Money's madness visited upon an unsuspecting and needful Canadian twin boy. Money relentlessly attempted to make him into a girl, and then reaped the fame this "proof" involved.

"John Money had reported that baby Bruce's gender reassignment was a complete success and that Brenda had grown up as a happy,_ well-adjusted girl._ The case was seized on, by people with their various political axes to grind, as proof that the psychological; traits and characteristics that we associate with gender are almost entirely social constructs, that they are not derived from biology._ Money held up Brenda as the example, which many doctors unfortunately followed, of how easy and reasonable gender reassignment was and how beneficial it could be to babies born with genital abnormalities."
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/336/As%20Nature%20Ma.htm

This denial of biology's own destiny has only been unfrocked in recent years. Once again, 60s idealism has been found wanting, wrong and harmful.

Now, how do we know we're not commiting the same fundamental mistake again - only on a grander scale than ever before?

--Orson

 

Re: Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage"

Sure - but an easy web search shows you can get data from either pro-family or pro gay sources, but it has been widely reported in the news as well. census or marketing data (which relies on the US census) is typically the ultimate source. Here's one from a por-gay web site:

"The median combined income of self-identified gay couples reported was $65,000, nearly 60 percent higher than the national average of $42,148, according to 2000 census data."
http://www.opuscommgroup.com/NewsRoom.html#Diversityinc

--Orson

 

>>(Oh geez... Forget it. I don't want to hear your justification about how the parts of the Bible you like are ultimate truth and the parts you don't like only "apply to Hebrews.")<<

There are MANY parts of the Bible I don't "like" and wish were not true. Oh well, God wasn't trying to please me and I am subject to the things that are both pleasing and displeasing. Any Bible scholar or educated layman knows that MAJOR aspects of the Old Testament were only intended for the Hebrew nation and only intended for a limited time. It's clearly stated. It's obvious you have not read the Bible.

 

===

I agree with this. Portions the Christian Bible (inclusive of both Testaments) are specifically addressed to various groups and individuals. To suppose that every piece is intended by God, the Author, (Christians think) for universal application is applying to Scripture an unfair interpretation not used for any similar body of literature.

 

Re: Re: Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage&qu

Since when did the STATE get into the business of procreation?

What's next, telling couples how many children they can and can't have? Oh, wait, that's China.

Civil rights versus STATISM: I prefer civil rights!

 

Miracles do happen! I am in agreement with you on this!

 

I don't accept Biblical morality as having any authority over me.

What relationship do the rest of you think that the Bible should have to American government and law?

Should the Bible be some kind of super-Constitution above the Constitution, from which the latter document may not deviate? Is the United States government an inherently Christian institution?

Or should the Bible serve as a guide to those who freely choose to follow it, while others choose to seek guidance elsewhere? Is the United States government a neutral forum to which all citizens may bring their ideas, whether or not those ideas derive from a particular religion?

Put another way, does political authority ideally flow upwards from the will of the governed, or downwards from God?

 

The very first of the ten commandments is

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Apparently worshipping the wrong god is a sin in a category all its own. One can be forgiven for murder by embracing Christ, but one can't avoid damnation for 'heathenism' if one lives a life of love and service.

So... Should non-Christians have civil rights in the United States? Would permitting Hindus to legally practice their faith be acceptance of those who have absolutely no repentance for their mortal sin? Would it be tacit recognition for those who consider idolatry "right"? Should non-Christians be excluded from holding public office?

 

Isn't this true of the "ten commandments"? They seem addressed directly to the ancient Hebrews:

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exodus 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ...

So why are some people so adamant that the commandments apply to all of us today, even arguing that they are the fundamental basis of the American legal system?

 

Gay Marriages may Help California Financial Crisis

While I don't care whether or not gays marry, as a resident of California I can see the economic benefit that gay marriages can bring to the cash strapped state.

I have proposed that during months when tourism is traditionally low, California designate "Gay Marriage" months. The local governments can benefit from the increased revenue brought in by marriage license fees and businesses also share in the increased traffic. Hotels command a hefty occupancy tax that would benefit local communities and the state overall would enjoy increased sales tax revenues.

Conservatives who embrace capitalism certainly can see the logic in this.

Allow gay marriages during certain months in California. I'm sure these "marriages" will last much longer than Brittney Spear's Vegas fiasco.

 

I'm afraid that the whole History/Political Science spectrum of study is underrepresented in my academic background and so I ask that I be corrected if I'm off base. That being said, it has always been my impression that this idea, "authority flowing upwards from the will of the governed," is the founding principle of the country. It is a fear that a state-sponsored religion, or a religion-based state, might develop that led to the whole "separation of church and state," in the first palce (another founding principle, no?)
Jack

 

===

IMO many of the regulations of the "Old" Testament were intended only for Israel and some of these only meant for a particular historical context. But some of these laws in principle may for Christians be reinforced as is the first commandment. Christians too, as well as the ancient Hebrews, are told to worship only God.

But again IMO, much in the NT is directed toward the Church , not toward those outside. Christians are told that God will judge , not they. Christians are told to obey the rules of the existing government. Of course, there are limitations to that should it ever seem impossible to obey both government and God .

As for making the ten commandments secular law, I 'm not sure that should be done. I think government exists to protect the rights of all citizens , not to require of them any religion. Again, my position is much expressed by St Paul,

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." First Corinthians 5:12

 

==

Then let me re-evaluate my position

 

Re: Re: Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage&qu

I personally don't really think this study is very accurate. I am really busy right now so I don't really have time to do my own research on how accurate and reliable this study was.

However lets pretend that this study is true. No one ever came up to a gay worker and handed them a VP or a CEO position on a silver plater just because they are gay. They had to work harder then most straight workers to get there, and when climbing the corporate ladder they had a lot more obstacles to jump over then most straight workers. So if homosexuals are really earning a lot more then heterosexuals then good for them and more power to them.

 

Thanks Bill. Some scholars (C. Marucci) think porneia shouldn't even be in the Matthew texts.

 

===

Jimmy:

The meaning of words , eg, "porneia" is the lexical step in investing the intent of a verse. You now raise another step, textual.

Part of a thorough study of any New Testament verse is to examine and weigh the evidence for seriously disputed readings. That is, as we lack the originals, there is a science that attempts to determine how closely our copies represent these originals. That science is textual or lower criticism. I know you know this Jimmy ; I flesh it out for someone who does not.

This textual examination , intended to verify a reading, includes the thousands Greek witnesses, that is copies, the ancient translations, and citations of the text in the patristics-primarily ante and post Nicene Fathers. Textual studies are a part of many a seminarian's education when they do exegetics in the original language. The results of such examinations are, happily, made easier by the apparatuces of critical Greek texts.

Since you raised the issue of the originality of porneia in Mt 5:32, I looked at several editions of the Greek text. Here textual experts outline the evidence for variant reading of significance.

After looking at the 3rd edition of Aland's Greek New Testament, Metzger's Commentary on the Greek Text, the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, and the older Westcott and Hort's edition of the NT in Greek, I do not see the originality of porneia in question at all in Matthew 5:32.

None of these challenges the evidence for the reading, "except for porneia. " There is some question about the immediately following clause, "and whosover marries a dismissed woman commits adultery." IMO, a serious preacher using 5:32 should investigate the originality of that clause before using it as his/her text. So, IMO the noun porneia likely is a part of the correct reading.

I do realize that scholars may freely opine on whatever they wish and gather about themselves disciples eager for novelty.

 

Yes, I do know about lower (and higher) criticism and viewing Scriptures source critically.

The thinking behind Marucci's belief is that the use of porneia was his own redactional addition (sounds like my kind of man, ha!.)

 

Just curious, Bill, why you never reference Weust. Or why you never reference The Emphatic Diaglott (just kidding on this one!).

 

===

Jimmy,

I think I do have the Emphatic Diaglott some where.


I have some of Wuest. Sometimes I use him, but he is written for those without Greek and is not very thorough. Also, IMO, he at times misrepresents Greek grammaticisms.**

Consider, if you have it, Wuest on Ephesians 4:11. He says there pastors and teachers are one because of the Granville Sharp rule. The rule is when two substantives are joined by "and" (ie, kai) and only the first noun is articulated (ie has the Greek article) , then the two refer to the same individual.

But that rule is only much of use when the nouns are singular not when they are plural as they are here. The most it can mean is that the two offices, pastors and teachers, are related in purpose. You can somewhat check this rule in English. EG, the phrase "The Pharisees and Sadducees," who joined against Jesus at times, not all did, does not mean the two groups are identical ; it only means they share a common goal--get Jesus.



**BTW, I am NOT a Greek expert ; I have to work hard to elicit insights. Wuest knows much more than I. But I know him wrong in this particular grammaticism because I personally took the time once to read through many, many occasions of this identical construction in the NT Greek text. I would not hesitate to argue with Wuest or anyone on this! He is wrong on his application of that rule to Eph 4:11!

What experts can do in minutes, takes me hours!