cofchristcousin
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cofchristcousin
-
-
I don't get where gays are being denied something that I am not. They have the exact same rights as me if they want to marry. I can't marry a woman either since I am a woman. A "black" man can't marry another man. There is no dicrimination because they have the same rights any other American has. You cannot even compare denying blacks the same rights as whites because no one is denying gays anything. A gay man can go to Las Vegas and marry a woman tomorrow just like any other guy could.
this line of thinking trivializes and even mocks the situation. It might be all the reason you require to oppose gay marriage, but the argument is not seriously considered in the constitution and legal discussion.
-
It just feels like things are uphill both ways for us. And that can't be true. Not one of the research studies you supplied addressed early sexual abuse and later homosexuality, let alone confirmed it as fact. When I hit these walls, I'm just at a loss. Stacie
-
IMHO, the real hypocrisy was how the noprop8 folks went after your church, rather than the African-American ones (70% voted YES), or the Catholic church (far more members). Could it be that the sexual-tolerance people were hoping to inflame religious intolerance???
Protests are alot about using symbols. The lds church offered a very powerful symbol in several ways.
Most of the press coverage before election day was focused on the lds. They were the most visible and vocal prop 8 supporters.The lds are 2% of the citizens of California and gave 50% of the dollars to pass prop 8. That seemed like overkill to gay equality supporters.Prop 8 most likely would not have passed if not for the lds effortCatholics and African Americans are know to oppose gay marriage, so that's not news. The LDS support IS news.
I don't support the violence and harrassment, but i absolutely understand the anger and why the lds are the focus of the protests.
just over 6,000,000 people voted no. The number of people who choose to protest at all are a fraction of a percentage of the people who voted no. Of those, the ones who used violence and harrassment instead of peaceful protest are miniscule, and do not define the nature and mindset of gays and their allies.
-
sorry, maybe i didn't make it clear before. i already said that it was possible, and i agree that it does show up in the statistics. i think the methodology gives the appearance that the number is higher than it actually is. They may also not indicate whether the person was experimenting in the confusion stemming from the abuse, and then went on to be heterosexual. I'm saying the methodology is important and needs to be considered when used as arguments in discussions that affect gay people's freedoms and future.
You go to great length to rationalize the indefensible. Again, it is a solidly established and empirically demonstrated with a significant degree of statistical significance that male children victims of sexual abuse by another male engage in and have much greater propensity to homosexual behavior later in their lives than if molested by a female perpetrator. You are trying to imply that they were "already gay" and just experimenting.
If you need more references just let me know, although I suppose no amount of evidence will suffice since the facts are not enough for you seem to have made your mind on this issue.
Bolton, F. G. J., Morris, L. A., & MacEachron, A. E. (1989).
Males at Risk: The Other Side of Child Sexual Abuse
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Briere, J., Evans, D., Runtz, M., & Wall, T. (1988, July).
Symptomatology in Men Who Were Molested as Children: A Comparison Study
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58(3), 457-461.
Brown, G. R., & Anderson, B., MD. (1991).
Psychiatric Morbidity in Adult Inpatients with Childhood Histories of Sexual and Physical Abuse
American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 55-61.
Chandy, J. M., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. D. (1996).
Gender-Specific Outcomes for Sexually Abused Adolescents
Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(12), 1219-1231.
Ellerstein, N. S., & Canavan, J. W., MD. (1980, March).
Sexual Abuse of Boys
American Journal of Disorders of Children, 134, 255-257.
Fritz, G. S., Stoll, K., & Wagner, N. N. (1981, Spring).
A Comparison of Males and Females Who Were Sexually Molested as Children
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 7(1), 54-59.
Gill, M., & Tutty, L. M. (1997).
Sexual Identity Issues for Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Qualitative Study
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(3), 31-47.
-
That particular study could be shaky. But it is a well documented fact that boys/children which have been molested by a male offender have a significantly greater propensity to engage in homosexual behavior later on in life, compared with sexual abuse victims by female offenders, for example.
Yes. That was the problem with the study we've been discussing. The questions presented to the study population asked whether they had ever had sexual contact with someone older than them of the same gender, while they were still a minor. When they presented the results the researchers characterized it as molestation. The criticism is that they did not differentiate between gay teens having their first gay relationships with someone older, and boys that were victims of true molestation. That messes with the results and makes them unreliable and complicates the discussion of whether being gay is more nature or nuture.
If we don't know how the study was conducted then the results don't tell us what we need to know. This quote and others like it are found on hundreds of Christian anti--gay marriage websites with commentary that this proves that being gay is a choice. It is misleading at best for these quotes to be used in that way.
-
Hmmm....reported by whom? The Archives of Sexual Behavior Journal published the study. Are you saying they are not reliable?
And for what ever it's worth. I am not saying that all gays were victims of molestation. But, there is no doubt that molestation has caused sexual confusion in a lot of self professed homosexuals. Did it make them "gay"? Did it lead them toward experimentation of gay sex later? Yes. Of course. People are products of there environment.
The Journal appears reliable. Without the article all we know is that the study was discussed. We don't know if the results of the study were disputed or not in the article. It may be reliable, but I have found places where the methodology was challenged. We should know this about the study, if it is to be offered as evidence that being gay is the result of abuse. The study does not come to that conclusion.
-
There is a reference to it in this article:
Sexual abuse being a contributing factor for homosexuality - Conservapedia
Thank you for this link. This gave me the name of the study, and again, the methodology is reported to be shaky and not reliable.
-
Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman, is a frequent lecturer and author of over 90 scientific articles and five books, including The Gay Nineties and Exposing the AIDS Scandal. Dr. Cameron earned his doctorate in Psychology from the University of Colorado and was a university professor at the University of Louisville, the University of Nebraska, and Fuller Theological Seminary before becoming Chairman of FRI.
Paul Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He has been expelled by the American Psychologicl association, the American Sociological association, the University of Nebraska, and has lost his license in a couple of states. His research is considered seriously flawed.
-
The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."
What is the study quoted? i googled to find the source material without subscribing to the journal. This quote is found all over christian websites against gay marriage, but without stating information about the study itself and whether the study was found to be reliable. Can you provide more information. I'm not able to access the journal for more clarification. thanks, Stacie
-
What are examples of other immutable characteristics? Alcoholism? Drug addiction? Promiscuity? Criminal behavior? People may be predisposed to addictions and criminal behavior.......is it unfair to ask them to change these immutable characteristics that they may feel is to difficult to change or that they view as an important aspect of their identity?
Is heterosexuality immutable? Can someone be changed from straight to gay? I think that normal behavior can and is changed all to often. How many young boys are molested by lecherous perverts and later become "gay"? How many little girls have been molested and later cannot have relationships with men and become lesbian? How many girls experiment because of peer pressure and pop culture? Exposure to pornography at a young age can also affect sexuality.
My understanding is that the scientific research does not support the idea that childhood sexual abuse affects a person's orientation. It is a commonly held belief, but does not bear out statistically.
-
I would agree that some people are predisposed to homosexuality, but I also went to university, Cousin. You do have to admit that there are a lot more people in university who said they were bi or gay in University than stayed gay or bi afterwards.
you are right. College kids explore and experiment with lots of things. Gay people experiment and try to force themselves into heterosexuality in that general timeframe too. That's a common testimony, including mine.
-
I don't believe that same gender attraction is immutable. Is there scientific evidence to support this? Ann Heche.....the actress. I remember when she "came out" and was dating Ellen. Isn't she now married to a man? Didn't she change that supposed immutable characteristic?
yes, while we do not understand all the biological factors, the APA affirms that sexual orientation is not a choice. The psychiatrists agree too, but i don't have that information before me.
APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"
-
Actually, Peter - I am of the firm belief that both sides have no idea what the other side is really arguing about, which is why we get these angry asides from each person.
Let's be fair here: On the anti-Prop 8 side, you have a lot of unreasonable people with a core of reasonable people saying "Look - All we want are the same financial benefits and rights that come with marriage. If my partner is in a car accident, I want the right to visit him in hospital. If I pass away, I want my insurance to pay my partner the same as you. If I can't, I am being discriminated against because of the way I feel I am."
On the pro Prop 8 side, you have a lot of unreasonable people with a core of reasonable people saying, "We're afraid. Catholic high schools, like St. Patrick's in Sarnia, have been sued because they prevented a gay couple from coming to the prom. Couples have been sued because they didn't feel it would be ethical to provide service to a gay wedding. Every time any sort of concession is made, our own right to conscience is being tread upon. If this proposition doesn't pass, how long until the government seeks to force all churches to abandon their beliefs in the name of political correctness? This has happened and we know it will happen."
Despite these two reasonable stances, what the pro-prop 8 hears is, "We hate you and everything you stand for. If you don't bow to us and do our bidding, we will drag your name through the mud and use intimidation tactics to MAKE you give up what you believe."
And what the anti-Prop 8 side hears is, "We hate you and everything you stand for. You don't deserve rights or priviledges. We have divine COMMANDMENT on our side to break you."
Does anybody honestly believe that Bob the Construction Worker will divorce his wife and become gay if marriage to another man were legal? Of course not.
The problem is that neither side is willing to listen to the other side.
i agree with alot of this. We do talk past each other. i hear people say what gay people think proclaimed and it's not even close most of the time. The word hate is thrown around a little too casually, but both sides.
here are california's voting results
yes - 6,838,107
no - 6, 246,463
how many on either side are really haters?
how many truly want what is best for our country, for each person, gay or straight?
We tend to define the other side by the most extreme example we can find, especially for the sake of argument. i know you folks are not fred-phelps kind of people. i think you would all be able to have lunch with me, and i with you. We do not have to be enemies, we can be brothers and sisters together bearing this burden of conflict and question, and seek answers for the well-being of each. it is difficult to do though. it requires careful listening, careful speaking, resisting the temptation to demonize the other or assign the worst possible intentions to the other side, and instead, trying to understand the true heart of the other. And trusting that what they say is how they feel. This is getting kind of sappy,
, sorry. But i think we all lose when we allow our fellowships and communities to be polarized with flaming rhetoric, more than authentic dialog. That is my prayer, that we get through this together, as a nation. -
I think this is where it comes down to whether marriage is determined to be a fundamental civil right, and as I have said, I don't believe it is. Where do you draw the line? Is owning a home a fundamental civil right? Or a car? or even having a driver's license? The courts may well find that it is. And while that will necessarily shape policy it will not be what I consider a step in a direction that is morally healthy for the institution of marriage or our society as a whole.
Did you read the earlier post/blog link about the civil rights comparison? The blacks were seeking their right to be served lunch, literally (read equal partnership rights, which they have achieved). Not to determine what was on the menu or that it should be prepared or served in a different way (read, change the definition of marriage for all of society, with all the future legal and moral implications that carries with it).
Under the constitution marriage is a fundamental legal right. Here is a description of how that works in the United States constitution.
American Constitutional Law
In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, the Supreme Court has held that some rights are so fundamental, that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose, and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
While the recognition of such rights have changed over time, they are generally coterminous with the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others statements were included to restrict the government's permission with respect to the privileges granted by Citizens, or more clearly explain one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments; states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including:
the right to privacy
the right to marriage
the right to procreation
the right to interstate travel
Any restrictions on these rights on the basis of race or religion are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If they are denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If they are denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection.
During the Lochner era, the right to freedom of contract was considered to be fundamental and thus restrictions on that right were subject to strict scrutiny. Following the 1937 Supreme Court decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, though, the right to contract became considerably less important in the context of substantive due process and restrictions on it were evaluated under the rational basis standard.
-
I hope you will believe me. it is about marriage. it is about equal treatment under the law. i have no expectation of acceptance on a theological or moral basis from anyone. When i feel urgent about speaking out, it's not about wanting power over other people or getting my way. it's because i want the gays of today and tomorrow to have equality and not so much heartache. The laws will likely never touch my life in a personal way. I'm not married, in a union or even a relationship. i do not gain from this advocacy one bit. By being open, I lost the safety i had before. i risked every friendship in being open. On a personal level, i'm not winning anything, i just want things to be better for everyone.
most of my friends are Christian, so am i. i don't reject them, or push them to accept gayness on a theological level. I don't want them to be in a closet about their views, even when we disagree about this. i value authentic dialogue, where each one gets to speak their hearts with love, and recieve love.
but, as far as the government is concerned, it is illegal to deny a citizen a fundamental right without compelling reasons. Because legally valid reasons have not be presented, the challenges are beginning to strike down the unconstitutional limits on marriage at the State level. It will continue to happen. Amendments to the state constitutions will not work much longer because of growing acceptance, as reflected in the vote tallies recently. I have hopes that we americans can go through this process without the polarizing of our friendships, churches and lives. A person can be and has the right to be theologically and morally opposed to gay marriage, but still accept the reality that it is a legal, civil right. Whether the fracturing of our love for one another happens is up to us, and our responses and reactions to the inevitable changes in the laws. I think we can do this with. Stacie
-
i'm not lds, i'm from Community of Christ. We have faced this, i think it was in the 1970's. We had polygamists from the Sora people of india asking for baptism. We baptized them, allowed them to stay in the marriages because it would have been devastating in that culture for the women who no longer had a husband. The women would not have been able to sustain themselves as divorced women. They were not permitted to take additional wives, beyond the ones they already had. Our church was challenged in inspired counsel to carry the burden of their sin. On your list, we were somewhere between 2 and 3.
Stacie
-
I also don't get how people keep ignoring Mailis. Everyone keeps saying, if you could give us some credible evidence how SSM would be deleterious, bla bla bla - Mailis is living it and telling you what's going on there with churches and religious freedom and the state of society where they have given in to SSM, and noone seems to listen or to care, and yet they still keep crying for "evidence"...
Hi, Mailis is talking about freedom of speech and hate speech legal problems. If those laws are a problem then the remedy is to address those laws. They are not tied to whether gays have the right to marry or unions or nothing. They are speech laws, not marriage laws. Speech laws are important, but they are separate in our legal system. MOst likely separate in Mailis's country too.
-
While God is a tolerant Heavenly personage, and I do believe when He stated love the sinner but hate the sin. There are plenty of refrences in the scriptures of God being vengeful, wrathful, and intolerant particularly with wicked people or nations. God is not always going to be tolerant to a group of people who are willingly rebelling against His commandments. He sends prophets and teachers to warn us against evil and to repent against sins that bring about the fall of nations.
Could you tell me where that scripture is found?
-
here is a Newsweek article that speaks to the thoughts expressed in this thread. i thought it might be useful. Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy | Newsweek Culture | Newsweek.com
-
Hi, I'm not sure you are reading my posts.
I'm not really arguing with you. You are pushing a point where I agree there is room for improvement and I have stated that, repeatedly. I don't know the wording of the New Mexico law but I'm sure it says Religion, not beliefs. The skin heads may fall under the category of "religion" or perhaps not. The fact that they were rude is a factor in your scenario. Your scenario is debatable, and not a clear parallel of the New Mexico case. Obviously neither of us are lawyers, but the New Mexico case has been settled. It was not an illegal filing, and imo, not an immoral thing for the lesbians to file suit. It is being appealed but it is not likely it will be overturned. It was a more clear-cut case.
And regardless, this has nothing to do with whether gays should be married or not. It has to do with whether gays should be included as a protected category. I don't know the criteria for deciding that, but I believe it was a decision by the people of New Mexico, or their elected representatives.
-
You have illustrated my point perfectly, thank you.
All white Christians, the above post should scare you to death. Because if your are not a darker shade or a supporter of ungodly lifestyles you have no protection under the law. And our lady friend see's nothing amiss in what she is saying.
I don't think so. If a photographer refused to take photos of a person because the are white, then that would be discrimination based on race. That's not the scenario you have set up.
regardless, I have already stated a couple of times that I believe there are situtations that are unjust under the law and that the anti-discrimination laws need some work. You may have missed that. I also have stated a couple of times that I would not have filed suit on eharmony. I would not have filed against the photographer either but I do not criticize this couple that did. I was participating in these threads mainly to address mis-information and exagerations regarding the law, and how the constitution works. Thanks, Stacie
-
It could affect her future business... picture this....
As known Christians in their area they decide, "Let's do the Lesbian wedding." Christian friends and neighbors recommend them, word spreads their Christian, then the fact that they sanctioned a homosexual marriage by taking pictures there comes to light. All of a sudden prospects start to dry up because they are seen as hypocrites.
I think the problem in this scenario is the unfair judging by the people who would not use her services, not that the person takes a lesbian wedding photograph. I don't think you can legislate that people not be judgmental in their shopping. It is no different than the people who are not supporting LDS owned businesses.
Scenario...
What if a young skinhead couple, goes into a photography shop and says "Hey n--, we want you to take pictures at our wedding, you're the only photographer in town." What would the photographer be within his rights to do? Could he turn down the job?
Edit: No takers eh?
Edit 2: Huh? Still no one to tackle the scenario?
The person could legally turn down the job on several levels. Primarily, the skinhead couple are not part of the protected group under NM law.
If these laws are unfair then the remedy is to address those laws. I think sometimes they are unfair and can be abused. They really don't have anything to do with gays, except that gays are one of the named groups, as are Mormons and people of any religion. If the photographer had refused to photograph a Mormon wedding, the same scenario exists.
-
Things that the earthly law can not change:
Only the marriage between a man and a woman is approved by God.
I do not understand:
WHY samesex couples want to marry? And if they want to marry why dont they make their own church to do it in? Bible is VERY clear in what God thinks of samesex marriaages. Why this hate speach aso from samesex defenders? They have to see that those that follow God can not change His words His rules!
<snip>
It is sad that gays can not see, that we love them and care for them, but marriage IS for a man and a woman. If they could see the pain we have for this great burden they are carrying! I am sorry but there are some things that just can not happen... we can not spread our hands and fly... it is against the laws of nature, no matter how much we would like to.
However if someone can not live alone... he/she should be able to feel our love thowards hinm/her. That is their decition how they want to live, but they should not by force take to themselves something we can not give to them. OR they ahve to find better referances from the Bible to show they are right!
Hi, Gays want to marry for exactly the same reasons straight people do. They love the person and want to spend the rest of their lives together as a family. The law has nothing to do with forcing a church to perform a marriage. It's making the laws equal at the government level, NOT the church level. I have no wish to force a church to accept gay marriage.
The reason some gays and most young people and many others do not see the love for gays is because of the unkind way people speak to them and about them, , and the untruths that are believed about them, and the unequal legal treatment that is supported by most people.
In the United States constitution we do not decide things on a scriptural basis, although there may common ground. We decide things on equality, unless there is a good reason for the government to limit that equality. That is the question today. Is there are good reason based on reason showing that gay marriage is harmful to society, children, or gays themselves. Credible evidence has not shown itself so the states are beginning to decide on the basis of "equal treatment under the law".
-
I have understood that (I may be wrong) : If the samesex marriage would ahve gone through this would have happened (anyway arounbd here it did... some of these things):
1. ANY priest or a person with the papers to be able to officially marry people would HAVE TO marry anyone who come to ask him/her to do it or that person would meet with a fine or even worse... No matter what the persons values are! I think here it would be ok that the person CAN say NO!
2. There is NO PLACE where the marriage could not be made, which would force LDS church to open the doors to the Temple for these marriages, which this religion sees more like blasphemy. Here too I think the owner of the place should be able to say NO!
3. ANY adoption office would be FORCED to give children to samesex couples. Sorry as an adoptive child myself I can not stand behind this, even though I know there are many gays that are very good to kids. Here I think each adoption office has to be able to do after their leaderships wishes!
4. Kids in school have to learn about familyconsept, that is not approved by many. I think parrents should be able to teach their kids what they want. Either the parents should be able to choose what the kids would be taught or this also like teaching of religion should be taken away from schools.
Hi, Part of the frustration of gay people is that NONE of those things are true in the United States, and we are judged on these thoughts anyway. LIke the LDS, we are defending against fears that are unfounded and even lies. The cost to gays was high in this situation, which is why some are heartbroken and very angry.
That being said, I do not believe in nor support retaliation. That is not Christ's Way. I try to follow the Sermon on the mount. Turn the other cheek, respectfully let the other party know that i see an injustice and how I understand the nature of the conflict, and together work towards authentic reconciliation. We fail at this many times, but it's worth keeping at it. imo.
, sorry. But i think we all lose when we allow our fellowships and communities to be polarized with flaming rhetoric, more than authentic dialog. That is my prayer, that we get through this together, as a nation.
I'm not really arguing with you. You are pushing a point where I agree there is room for improvement and I have stated that, repeatedly. 
It's not really even about marriage
in Preserving Marriage between a man and a woman
Posted
Hi bytor, I do realize that some people do feel that gays wanting to be married mocks the sanctity of marriage. I try to keep that reality in my mind, but sometimes forget. I think of myself as "just a person" and forget that the baseline cultural understanding is much like you say. I don't expect acceptance on a moral or personal or religious level, but I do hope and work for a growing acceptance of our legal equality. The constitution gives citizen rights, so the sexual orientation of the citizen is not a factor.