The whole Mormon thing - prop 8 in CA

[GaHillBilly 10]

Dan Kroh wrote;

 

"To make one of those unable to offend observations, every heterosexual I know had multiple sexual partners before marriage, and the vast majority of those were less than 2 years."

 

Assuming you you mean sexual partners to the point of intercourse, I would certainly recognize that the majority of hetero's today are not virgins upon first marriage. However, your "every" says more about the company you keep, than what's true in general. Certainly, I can't claim the converse, that every hetero I know was a virgin upon marriage, but I could certainly introduce you to dozens who were, including kids married in the last year. Granted, they could be lying, but it's also true that more guys have lied about their sexual adventures, than have experienced them, so it cuts both ways.

 

AND, he wrote;

"Neither is monogamy [natural]. Best put a stop to that, too. "

 

Actually, Dan you're rather behind the times on your evolutionary socio-biology. Granted, the accepted 'truths' in this realm of 'science' change almost daily but I believe the current 'truth' is still that, while monogamy is not believed to be natural for some MEN, it's thought to be entirely natural for women and so-called beta men!

 

The point I made earlier, that scientific naturalism can offer NO reason whatsoever for compassion toward, or rights for, homosexuals remains true. From an purely non-religious evolutionary point of view, exterminating homosexuals makes perfect biological sense!

 

AND HE WROTE LATER:

 

"Tell me, Ed, why did God want my son to die in infancy? Does that mean that the doctors defied God's will in fixing his heart so he could live?"

 

As Ed probably knows, and as you are educated enough to know, there is no Christian answer to such questions. Rather, there are many answers offered by Christians in many groups and these answers are often mutually incompatible. Thus, the evidence is, Christianity does not know, in any authoritative sense, the answer to your question.

 

Nevertheless, all Christians agree that this world, and everything in it, is broken. Virtually all Christians further agree that not only is it broken, but that it will not be fixed, but will rather be destroyed and replaced. Christians, both individually and in groups, get seduced by this or that movement or man or idea, and begin to think things here can be fixed. Notwithstanding that oft-repeated error, orthodox Christian theology has always rejected that as a false hope, while simultaneously affirming our duty to do what we can, while we may.

 

Ed's "if God had wanted . . ." argument is unfortunately one oft thoughtlessly resorted to by Christians. However, it is intrinsically invalid, and suffers just the sort of weakness you attack. Your argument correctly recognizes that for Ed to know what God wants, he would either have to produce revelation from God supporting that claim, either from the Scriptures or else from a claimed personal revelation. Since Ed has not, so far, made such a claim, his argument is rightly to be rejected by both Christians and reasoning non-Christians.

 

The Bible, as far as I know it, does not say why homosexuality is to be rejected, only that it is. For that matter, it does not say why, except in circular terms, why hetero marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual relations, but it requires that as well.

 

Many conservative Christians are much more intolerant of homo-sex than they are of adulterous sex, but this discrepancy says more about their unwillingness to be governed by what is taught in the Scriptures, than about Christianity itself.

 

But, if you choose to be honest, two facts remain:

 

1. Orthodox Christianity can never accept homo-sex as a non-sinful activity.

2. Scientific naturalism (ie, modern evolutionary non-religious humanism) can not offer a single compelling, much less scientific, reason for tolerating homosexuals, nor can it offer a single argument against exterminating them all.

 

(CAREFUL: I am not advocating this position: I am a Christian; not a non-religious humanist. But when the tide turns, when Christians are gone, and when the propensity to feel guilty (guilt is, after all, a religious concept) left over from America's past dissipates . . . homosexuals better watch out! It would behoove them to remember that, unlike other 'minorities', their minority status is biologically enforced! They should also remember that ALL 20th Century societies based on atheistic scientific naturalism punished, marginalized, or attempted to exterminate homosexuals! They have NO reason to suppose it will be different in the future. )

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[DanKroh 11]

"Actually, Dan you're rather behind the times on your evolutionary socio-biology."

 

No doubt I am. Haven't really explored the area in depth since doing a paper on it in graduate school.

 

However, what I was referring to is the usual argument that homosexuality is not "natural" because it is rare among all animal species (but not as rare as used to be thought). To which I was pointing out that monogamy is actually more rare among all animal species.

 

"The point I made earlier, that scientific naturalism can offer NO reason whatsoever for compassion toward, or rights for, homosexuals remains true. From an purely non-religious evolutionary point of view, exterminating homosexuals makes perfect biological sense!"

 

I seem to remember reading something a while back (and if anyone has more details, my memory is rather sketchy here), that the evolutionary basis of homosexuality is that they contribute to the care and feeding of the tribe without producing more mouths to feed themselves. However, the familial tendency to homosexuality is continued by the siblings, whom the homosexual man helps to insure the survival of.

 

In any case, the percentage of the total population seems to be in a steady-state, which you wouldn't see if they were being evolutionarily selected against.

[evmori 11]

If God had wanted my son to live, his heart would have worked properly.

 

Tell me, Ed, why did God want my son to die in infancy? Does that mean that the doctors defied God's will in fixing his heart so he could live?

 

I can't answer that Dan. Ask God. I know He will tell you.

 

For the record, I don't think God gives a hoot about the pieces of paper (i.e. marriage licenses) that people pass out to each other. And if this is about marriage being a "Sacrament", then lets ban all marriages that aren't performed in Churches. After all, it's what God wants, right?

 

I agree. I don't think God gives a hoot about a piece of paper. But He does expect to honor the commitment made with that piece of paper.

 

Not sure if God wants all marriages performed by the church. Not sure I've ever seen anything about that in the Bible.

[GaHillBilly 10]

"However, what I was referring to is the usual argument that homosexuality is not "natural" because it is rare among all animal species (but not as rare as used to be thought). To which I was pointing out that monogamy is actually more rare among all animal species."

 

I doubt that your statement is correct.

 

I know that there's been a lot of evidence of BISEXUAL behavior among mammals; I'm not aware of much, if any, evidence of primary HOMOSEXUALITY.

 

Also, as you well know, behavior varies widely by species, but tends to be consistent within species. Serial male dominant polygamy -- not promiscuity -- is quite common among herd mammals. However, as you note, care-giving structures are thought to be controlling. As you know, human young are unique in requiring stable & exceptionally long term care in order to achieve full function, including breeding function. Multiple bird species, in which success is defendant upon TWO care-giving mates ARE monogamous. So, within the control concepts thought to order socio-biological behavior, it would be EXPECTED that humans would, as a species, exhibit distinct mating and rearing behaviors in order to maximize the chance of successful reproduction. And, within THAT context, I'm not aware of ANY hypothetical OR reported reproductive or survival benefits of bisexuals, much less homosexuals, within human or higher ape social communities.

 

I realize much has been made of bonobo promiscuity, but it's my understanding that some of that research has been tainted (as was much of Margaret Mead's work) by a clear sense of what conclusion was correct that predated the research itself. And even then, I'm not sure that there's any clear conclusions regarding BENEFITS of the bisexual behavior apparently common among bonobos.

 

I strongly suspect that a very, very strong argument could be made, on evolutionary terms, that exclusively homosexual behavior in humans is vestigial and a superfluous burden on species success.

 

I continue to find it enormously ironic that if you abandon Judeo-Christian ethics, which value homosexuals as men capable of repentance, you are left only with philosophical and scientific ethics which do not value them at all! It seems to me that, in seeking to 'liberate themselves from fundamentalist repression' homosexuals are inevitably exposing themselves to scientifically based extermination, within a generation or two.

 

And, if they are right about the genetic basis of homosexuality, can they doubt for a moment that, once full manipulation of fetal DNA is possible, that proto-homosexuals will be utterly eliminated right along with embryonic Down's and spinal bifida babies?

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

There are observations of homosexual behavior among many species (and not just mammals) other than bonobos.

 

"I continue to find it enormously ironic that if you abandon Judeo-Christian ethics, which value homosexuals as men capable of repentance, you are left only with philosophical and scientific ethics which do not value them at all!"

 

Excuse me? My religious ethics value homosexuals as human beings. Just as they are. Unless you are going to tell me that the ethics of my religion are really Judeo-Christian.

 

"And, if they are right about the genetic basis of homosexuality, can they doubt for a moment that, once full manipulation of fetal DNA is possible, that proto-homosexuals will be utterly eliminated right along with embryonic Down's and spinal bifida babies"

 

Yes, like many other cultures that are based around physical/cognitive traits, there is concern for the future of homosexuality, just as their is fear among the deaf community for their culture, among the Asperger's community for their culture, etc. However, personally, I don't see the elimination of homosexuality by science in our near future, certainly not in "a generation or two".

 

So, I'm starting to wonder a bit what any of this has to do with gay marriage? Urloony seems to want to deny them marriage equality because homosexuals experience (gasp!) human failings and foibles in their relationships and in their parenting (because no married heterosexual couple would ever screw up their marriage or their kids). Are you suggesting, GAHillBilly, that we should deny gay marriage because they are all just going go away eventually (perhaps soon) anyway?

[packsaddle 753]

One thing to clear up. Homo sapiens is in no way endangered or under threat to survival. As Paul Ehrlich noted, people are being produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work. So questions regarding reproductive success or survival are not relevant (besides, you do know we all got left behind in the rapture of 1996, right? So who cares?). The idea that science would be the base for extermination of a minority is idiotic. People who want to commit such crimes might exploit science as a rationalization but their intent exists on the basis of prejudice.

 

About monogamy. It depends on perspective. If, for example, the case where a single invertebrate male has one chance to fertilize the female just before she eats him, I suppose this qualifies as monogamy. Similarly, any copulation in which the male dies after the single copulation would automatically qualify as monogamy (the female would have to forego further copulations for the remainder of her life). Most invertebrates don't do this, however, and evolutionary forces would tend to side with the ability to sustain multiple copulations with many mates. But while single copulations may be common among some groups of animals (like some insects and spiders), unless in jest, I doubt the analogy would apply to many humans.

 

However, if one considers all the animals which are capable of multiple copulations throughout the life cycle, as in humans, I would argue that the majority are not monogamous. They might be monogamous for one reproductive cycle or one season, and in rare cases, they might be monogamous for life (some birds). But more often, they copulate as often and with as many mates as possible. I'd guess this also applies to a large fraction of the world human population as well, although probably not among Protestants.

 

Heh, heh, in my last year just before retirement, I might just ask my classes for a show of hands as to how many of them are virgins. I'll consider adding that to my list of outrageous things to do on the way out.

[evmori 11]

So maybe other mammals, not humans, are homosexual. Big whoop! We have the ability to choose & think & other cool stuff other mammals don't! Choose to be homosexual if you want. Just don't put forth the notion it could be normal because other mammals are!

[eisely 13]

The link below is to an article in the Sacramento Bee about retribution within the theater community against one of their own who made the mistake of contributing $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. So much for tolerance of different ideas.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1390055.html

[GaHillBilly 10]

"The idea that science would be the base for extermination of a minority is idiotic."

 

Has been before, in Germany & Russia. Will be again, since it's a logical consequence of 'scientism'.

 

 

BTW, Baden-Powell -- along with many enlightened Western Europeans of his day -- at least to some degree bought into the idea that, in order to maintain the forward progress of evolution, we need to manage who bred, and who did not.

 

 

 

"Are you suggesting, GAHillBilly, that we should deny gay marriage because they are all just going go away eventually (perhaps soon) anyway?"

 

No, I personally think gay marriage should be denied because it's wrong, just like false testimony in a court case is wrong and theft is wrong and murder is wrong.

 

My point was, that based on the philosophical and conceptual principles at the root of most Western non-Christian thought . . . that there is no basis for a positive view of homosexuality. Actually, there's no basis for ethics at all. Socio-biology can explain how, within a social group, certain ethical values can come to be accepted. But it cannot offer any reason why you or I should accept those values, unless we happen to do so.

 

Most non-Christian ethics today are merely random detritus from Judeo-Christian principles, picked and chosen and modified according to personal preference and current social fashion, and destined to be abandoned whenever it becomes convenient or fashionable to do so. My point is, that when the dominant 'ethics' are so absolutely without an anchor or basis, other forces will eventually overwhelm any values that the majority find inconvenient. I'm not ADVOCATING this; I actually wish very strongly things were otherwise. I'm just stating that I believe these things are the case.

 

Unrooted ethics -- which is what most non-Christian ethics* in the US today are -- are based on whims, feelings, and fashions and inevitably will bow to stronger forces.

 

In such a case, where those stronger forces offer no basis whatsoever for homosexual rights, and when homosexual rights will always inconvenience the majority, such rights are inevitably going to vanish.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

* There are exceptions, of course. Mormons, fundamentalist Muslims, orthodox Jews all hold ethical values rooted in something other than their own personal whim or accident of birth. But they represent a small majority of Americans. Most Americans, whether liberal Protestants, or atheists or agnostics or Gaea worshiping environmentalists or Wiccans, or what? . . . do not really believe that their beliefs are THE truth about what is. They just like believing what they believe. As one liberal Episcopalian told me, "I'm not sure if any of that stuff is true, but I feel better after services, so sometimes I act like it's true."

 

Such ethics will vanish soon after they cease to "feel better".

 

Actually, I should note that there is one 'rooted' ethical value most Americans seem to hold to quite strongly, if not so strongly as the French; that is that their own personal survival and benefit is the supreme value in the world.

[Horizon 97]

Re: The Cameron's "research" - wikipedia has a nice entry with plenty of footnotes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron

 

Suffice to say, their work has come under fire from all of the top professional research groups in psychology and sociology. While a percent of that can be attributed to political correctness, the accuasations of methodological fallacy appear to stand up. Put simply, his work is not peer reviewed - so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Re: The Biblical support for bigotry against Gays. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support slavery. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support "separate but equal." Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to keep women from being equal citizens. Y'all are wrong now.

 

I am one who would prefer to have civil unions granted and recognized by the government, and to have marriage be granted by the church of your choice. Less government is better, and a chill runs down my spine when my preacher acts as an agent of the State.

[TheScout 10]

"a chill runs down my spine when my preacher acts as an agent of the State"

 

Yeah thats right in line with the traditions of the United States and Western Civilization.

[captainron14 11]

Horizon,

I think that would be a good comprimise for most.

The next problem would be in the schools. What do you teach?

How would you propose that be handled?

There are other problems like the Church sponsored adoption agencies. Forcing them to accept Gay Parents.

Most people do not care what others do in their bedroom, it's when you try to force others to not only accept and approve of it, but to promote it.

And back to that problem of the Black and Hispanic voters. The age bias does not apply there. Even our new President Obama has come out against Gay Marriage. And with minority populations growing the theory that it will age out doesn't fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

"Suffice to say, their work has come under fire from all of the top professional research groups in psychology and sociology"

 

Being under fire from "top psychologists and sociologists" gives him credence in my book because those two groups that among the leaders of the PC movement.

 

 

[GaHillBilly 10]

"Re: The Biblical support for bigotry against Gays. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support slavery. Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to support "separate but equal." Y'all were wrong when you used the Bible to keep women from being equal citizens. Y'all are wrong now."

 

The problem with your argument is that it simply and utterly ignores the facts.

 

At various points in the Bible, slavery is tolerated, but it is never promoted as a good thing. And, the sort of kidnapping that was practiced to collect the slaves brought here was a capital crime. So, Christians who tolerated slavery were always on thin ice, and many of them knew it, as their letters and writings made clear.

 

It's worth noting that much, if not quite all, the impetus to eliminate slavery in the English speaking world came from Christians. So while Christians did hold slaves, it was (mostly) Christians who fought to eliminate it.

 

The separate but equal thing was never, in any way, part of Christianity. In any case, those ideas were really rather localized (my South, South Africa, & Rhodesia) and sectarian (Protestant, not Catholic or (O)rthodox) and were never broadly accepted among Christians. People have used the Bible to support all sorts of things that it doesn't support, just as people use 'science' to 'prove' all sorts of things it doesn't prove. People are opportunists -- and this includes Christian people -- and will use what ever is handy when the fight starts.

 

At various points in the Bible, it is assumed that men will dominate or even own women, but this is never promoted as a good thing. The idea that women and men have distinctly different roles is promoted, but not fully explained. And since the Bible has no clear teaching about citizens of earthly kingdoms, equal or not, it's rather hard to construct an argument that the Bible supports citizenship, equal or otherwise!

 

But, the issue with gay marriage is altogether different.

 

The reason is utterly simple: the Bible does promote -- repeatedly, constantly and pervasively -- the idea that heterosexual marriage is the ONLY legitimate context for sexual relations.

 

You could argue that there's ambiguity about polygamy . . . and there is. It's clearly tolerated, but usually treated as a bad idea, or least a practice with bad results.

 

You could argue that bisexuality within polygamy might not be wrong . . . and if you accept that what's not prohibited MIGHT be sometimes allowed, you might get some traction.

 

But, what's crystal clear, even without any mention of homosexuality or lesbianism (which is mentioned only once in any case) is that the ONLY place where sexual relations are EVER allowed is within a heterosexual marriage.

 

This is so pervasive, so repeated, and so fundamental that there's simply no way to find 'permission' for anything else without tossing the whole book.

 

And, the committment to marriage as the ONLY place for sex is embedded far more deeply than even most Christians realize, in part because it embarrasses the heck out of many of them. Classically, in the Song of Solomon, but repeatedly elsewhere, heterosexual marital relations are presented as the image in flesh and history of the relationship between Jehovah and Israel or between Christ and the Church. This is a foundational image, present throughout the entire Scriptures.

 

Adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are all presented as reflections, in flesh and history, of the nature and character of the deeper, more real, but less visible problems of apostasy and idolatry (ie, worship of anything other than, or along side of, God).

 

You simply can't, no matter how you work at it, get this view of marriage out of the Bible without utterly gutting.

 

And it's the positive view of marriage, not the negative commands against homosex, that are the real obstacle to any interpretation of Christianity that would accept homosex or homosexual marriage.

 

CS Lewis makes the point, which is quite obvious to anyone who's actually read the gospels, that the popular idea of Christ as simply a 'good man' is utter rubbish. The man claimed to be God, to be the actual Creator of the universe. As Lewis observes, you've got very limited choices: He's telling the truth and is God, or he's lying and he's a Charles Manson, or he's nutty as a fruitcake and needed to be locked up (the precise conclusion his mother Mary and his brothers reached, at one point).

 

But, that's nothing compared to what it would take to get the Bible to support homosexual marriage. To make Christ just "a good man", you only have to butcher the New Testament, especially the Gospels. To make marriage anything other than between a man and a woman, you've got to butcher the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

 

So, let's be clear.

 

If you want to be a Christian AND approve homosexual marriage, you can only do it by utterly abandoning orthodoxy and biblical revelation. People who claim to do so are sometimes either pathetically naive or tragically deluded. But often, they are simply cowards, unwilling or unable to believe in Christianity, but too cowardly to actually say so and face what it means to be a genuine agnostic.

 

GaHillBilly

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

GaHillBilly writes:

The man claimed to be God, to be the actual Creator of the universe. As Lewis observes, you've got very limited choices: He's telling the truth and is God, or he's lying and he's a Charles Manson, or he's nutty as a fruitcake and needed to be locked up (the precise conclusion his mother Mary and his brothers reached, at one point).

 

Those aren't all the choices. Lewis' lord/liar/lunatic is a well-known false trilemma. It makes no allowances for simple things like inaccurate retellings of stories over decades by bronze-age sheepherders.