Just last week the citizens of California voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Democracy at work, don't you think? Obviously not if you wanted to change marriage to be between a person and anyone or anything he wants to have sex with, starting with a person of the same sex - a redefinition of marriage that has never been attempted in history until recently.
As a consequence, gay marriage proponents have vented their rage against the populace. Three high court challenges to the law have been made, threats against Catholics and Mormons have been talked about openly online and now a masked group of 30 (in Michigan) has forced their way into a church, disrupting the service and even vandalising the building - hoping to provoke a violent reaction from the church-goers that they could video and release as Christian hatred against gays to the world. The hoped for violent reaction didn't occur.
Related Link: Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service ~ LifeSiteNews
Activists rethink their gay marriage tactics ~ Time
Mail checked.
ReplyDeleteNothing received.
Does this mean you don't love me anymore/
Ooops, stupid password rememberererererer...
ReplyDeleteLucyna, the vote was, of course, democracy at work. But so is a High Court challenge. Do you think democracy begins and ends with the ballot?
The protest in the church was wrong, however, I see nothing in your linked article that referred to "...hoping to provoke a violent reaction from the church-goers that they could video and release as Christian hatred against gays to the world." Don't do your cause a disservice by over exageration.
Oh, and get a map California is a state, Michigan is a state, but they are not the same state.
Fugley, you might need to read past the first paragraph:
ReplyDeleteThe church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. According to Right Michigan the protestors in their demonstration also used condoms, glitter, confetti, and pink fabric. A video camera wielded by the homosexualists attempted to capture violent reactions from members of the congregation, of which there were none.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Do I think democracy begins and ends with the ballot ... hmmmm, tough one Fugley. However, in this case, it seems pretty clear what the populace wants. And this isn't just about California, it's about the world. California is a major defeat for the proponents of "same-sex marriage", hence the Michigan reaction.
ReplyDeleteSo you approve of violence to get what you want Fugley? Hmmm....I never picked you as sympathiser of Facism.
ReplyDeleteOk, lets for the moment ignore the bizarre idea that gay marriage is the thin edge of a wedge being pushed by people aiming to be allowed to be married to "anything they can have sex with' (and that homosexual marriage is a new thing) and lets take for granted that people who react to electoral defeat with violence are beneath contempt.
ReplyDeleteIs it really the homosexualist's lack of respect for the decision of the fine people of California that worries you here? If the vote had gone the other way would you suggest the groups that put up prop8 should just say that's "democracy at work, don't you think" and give up on constitutional challenges to the law?
David,
ReplyDeleteInteresting way of phrasing the question.
Of course gay marriage itself worries me. But, in and of itself it merely represents a wholesale slide into immorality of the general population.
So, if the population supported gay marriage, then we'd have a larger problem than the one at hand, which is "merely" a small group seeking to impose their will to change society to their image by whatever means necessary.
That 'small group' did manage to net over 5 000 000 votes last week. I think it's fair to say your problem is not small and is unlikely to go away.
ReplyDeleteGiven your above sentiments I hope you'll be happy for those of us that would like to see a more inclusive society to continue to work towards that goal (without trying to bait Christians into bashing gays obviously.)
Longtime gay rights advocate Dean Trantalis of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and others on the conference call expressed concern that the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage, and is now paying the price in other more critical areas. "Marriage was never our issue," Trantalis said. "It was thrust upon us by the other side, and they've done a very good job of beating us up over it."
ReplyDeleteWithin the gay rights movement is a little bit of concern that effort is being expended in the wrong area. I think many gay activists would disagree with this opinion, and I'll blog my opinion in a separate post shortly.
(Definition of shortly is, rather ironically, given what I am about to say, malleable)
BTW, I think we need to spend some time distinguishing between a gay marriage and a civil union, both which (based on my understanding*) would confer equivalent legal rights.
ReplyDelete*I haven't paid much attention to this issue. Happy for others to add information around the distinction.
Hey, stop beating about the bush here – you guy’s don’t like gays, so why not just come out and say it?
ReplyDeleteHey, at one stage in my life, I agreed with those very same beliefs, something I’m not proud of I must add.
You are certainly happy to advocate discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Nowadays I personally think, two people who love each other should have the right to marry - this creed looks more ‘Christian’ than your own, doesn’t it?
Regards.
Paul.
Ah yes, the good old xtians, always ready to point out specks in other's eyes while blissfully ignoring logs in their own.
ReplyDeleteA few loonytunepoofs make an outrageous statement in a church and all hell breaks loose.
On the other hand, loonytune xtians make similar threats and are ignored.
"Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "This decision urges Christians to create public disorder if we want a similar case to proceed in future."
"Ms Mapfuwa's supporters warned it could lead some people to destroy similar art works."
Yes, isn't this disgusting? Idiots wanting to impose their will on the rest of us?
So come on lucyna and zen, condemn.
http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/latest-north-east-news/Christians-warn-of-backlash-over.4680606.jp
Fugley,
ReplyDeleteYou are given a lot of lee-way on this blog. Taking advantage of that by posting a garbled, insulting comment puts you right on the edge. Not to mention that the article you link to has nothing to do with gay marriage and instead deals with revolting "art", where people use the cover of art to indulge in pornographic images which are then displayed in public and feted as "original" and "daring".
Consider this. Say someone took a picture of you, made of a model of it and endowed it with what was done to Our Lord in this supposed artwork and then displayed it to your family and friends. The question is, should you grin and bear it, or would everyone understand if you destroyed the object, as it's purpose was to humiliate and mock you? Hmmm?
In the article you link to, that is the purpose of the artwork in question - to humiliate and mock Our Lord. But it's already been done, and it culminated in our God allowing humanity to grind Him into the dust. Basically, we could do anything to Him and He would take it for love of us. Even love of you, Fugley.
We do not hate gays. Just like we don't hate masturbators or adulterers or pornographers. We, however, consider all those practices (gay sex, masturbation, adultery, pornography) incredibly harmful to the person.
ReplyDeleteNow you are starting to sound like some sort of nanny state loving labour-green voter - 'we know what's best for so we are going to make that illegal (or keep that illegal or whatever) and THAT is how we'll change society...'
- 'we know what's best for so we are going to make that illegal (or keep that illegal or whatever) and THAT is how we'll change society...'
ReplyDeleteDavid, I think it unfair that you attack gay people that way.
Sure, they want to change the law, but perhaps some of them have good reason? Hear them out.
One would think that even though they want to take the approach you outline above, we could, as a democratic society have a free and frank discussion about it, without screaming "nanny state" simply because they wish to force a law change on the rest of the population.
So then Lucyna Maria, when did you come to the conclusion you were ‘straight’ and not ‘gay’?
ReplyDeleteMost people don’t think about it, it’s innate, right?
You need to wake-up to the fact gays are largely not heterosexuals who suddenly decide they want to engage in homosexuality.
The overwhelming evidence from science shows that gender preference is primarily determined by our genetics and prenatal biochemistry, especially embryological hormone balance. Almost everyone is born attracted to members of the opposite sex. A small percentage - are attracted to members of the same sex.
It has always been this way, it will always be this way, because man is a slave to his/her genetics.
So ‘in your world’ Lucyna, what is a person who is born preferring sexual relationships with those of the same sex, suppose to do? Celibacy? Castration?
Cheers.
Paul.
Paul
ReplyDeleteBollox.
Show me the science please...
be careful now. I want the articles themselves, not the spin.
You're right lucyna, my article isn't about gays, its about using violence and intimidation to achieve one's goals.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to condone the use of violence and intimidation to achieve one's goals if thsoe goals are religious, but you eschew violence and intimidation for secular reasons. Wouldn't it be better to be like me? I refuse to wear white ribbon because I am oposed to all violence against all people.
Of, and since god is all powerfula nd all knowing, surely humanity did nothing to him that he hadn't already planned to have done to himself, thus making him the perpetrator and Man the innocent puppet, just like Judas.
I am SO glad I grew up and grew out of believing such tosh!
http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/04/gay-marriage/
ReplyDeleteOk Fugley, let's compare.
ReplyDeleteYour article talks about people who may take it into their heads to destroy a piece of "artwork", the sole purpose of which is to mock and defile the God of the Universe.
I guess you are trying to compare this potential, with the actions of the activists in this post.
Strangely enough, the gay activists went into the church hoping to get an angry reaction which they could then film.
Your article points to the same type of attempt to get an angry reaction, for without that reaction, without the depiction supposedly being of God, the "artwork" in question would nothing more than a piece of trash.
So, rather than succeeding in your attempt, you have shown how there are forces at work in the world trying to goad Christians into a reaction.
Very good, Fugley.
Of, and since god is all powerfula nd all knowing, surely humanity did nothing to him that he hadn't already planned to have done to himself, thus making him the perpetrator and Man the innocent puppet, just like Judas.
Fugley, humanity had free will. God knew what was going to happen and allowed it. It doesn't therefore mean that He did it to Himself. We are not puppets, we have free-will. Judas also had free-will, and if he had waited for the Resurrection, he would have seen where his place in the scheme of things was. Judas's real sin was giving into despair and not trusting in the forgiveness of sin - any sin. Even the betray of God.
Paul, your skeptics post that you link to is behind the times. Pope John Paul II has expanded our understanding of sexuality and the Bible through his Theology of the Body. I recommend you do some reading.
ReplyDeleteTheology of the Body - Talks by JPII
Oh, and you might want to read this: Foremost UK Gay Activist Admits there is No Gay Gene
Contrary to the findings of some researchers who have tried to posit a purely genetic origin for same-sex attractions, Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that's all. Predisposition and determination are two different things."
Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin colour. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.
Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."
"Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."
Not bad Zen, I just wanted to make the point that in many ways Lucyna isn't so different than those that support the ideas she is opposed to.
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing the way people will always turn to high-minded ideals to support their argument. Smacking legislation is statist government encroaching on parental freedoms while prostitution reform was a laissez-faire government failing to uphold basic standards in it's citizenry. The failure of gays to give up after a referendum shows the contempt this lobby has for democracy while the the complete lack of plitical will to change abortion laws in this country is a spur to action for conservative folks.
(I don't mean to saddle any particular author here with those descriptions, I don't read NZC quite that compulsively and I certainly don't want to mount an argument that liberal folk are any less prone to this sort of thing)
Oh no, the nature nurture thing has reared it's head. Since this is one of the few topics that arise around here that I am actually qualified to talk about a few questions:
ReplyDeleteIs it the presence of baking powder of the temperature of the oven that makes cakes rise?
Does it matter?
Can anyone explain to me why the lack of a 'gay gene' would make homosexuality less real or more malleable?
Silly me Lucyna, the article I quoted you from Michael Shermer, was dated 04th November 2008, and is relevant to the subject matter in question being California’s Proposition 8, homosexuality & religion, all rolled into one.
ReplyDeleteMy god,that’s over 7 days old (using normal 24 hour periods, rather than biblical ones)
And here’s Dr Michael Shermer’s CV (in brief) starting with his education…
•Ph.D. Claremont Graduate School: 1991 History of Science
•M.A. California State University, Fullerton: 1978 Experimental Psychology
•B.A. Pepperdine University: 1976 Psychology/Biology
Here’s his professional background……..
•2007–present: Adjunct Professor of Economics, Claremont Graduate University.
•2001–present: Contributing Editor and Monthly Columnist, Scientific American
•1998–present: Science Correspondent, KPCC, 89.3 FM, NPR affiliate for L.A.
•1991–present: Founding Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, Skeptic magazine
•1991–present: Executive Director, Skeptics Society
•1991–present: Host, Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at the California Institute of Technology
•1999–2000 Consulting Producer/Host, “Exploring the Unknown” 13-hour TV series, Fox Family
•1989–1999 Adjunct Professor, History of Science, Cultural Studies Program, Occidental College
•1991–1993 Adjunct Professor, History of Science, California State University, Los Angeles
•1986–1991 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Glendale College
•1980–1986 Instructor of Psychology, Glendale College
I'll avoid publishing the long list of Dr Shermers awards and books, due to space issues.
Now here’s John Paul’s qualifications in this subject………
-He taught ethics a Polish Universtity (1948)
-Wrote for a Catholic Newspaper in 40's & 50's
-Earnt a doctorate based on an evaluation of the possibility of founding a Catholic ethic
-Wrote a book on ‘Catholic’ marriage
Now you may get to see why I place more relevance on what Dr Shermer had to say, a week or so back, rather than a dead Pope.
Gotta go.
Paul
Paul
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for the articles themselves, not the CV of Dr Shermer.
Let me help you:
Hamer et al. 1993 Science 261: 321. Puported to find a chromosomal linkage for homosexuality but this was not replicated by Hu et al. 1995 Nature Gentics 11:28.
Le Vay 1991 Science 253:1034 puported to find a difference in the hypothalamus of homosexual vs heterosexual men, but later this was not replicated and he does not hold to this view himself now.
The American Psychological association even has this to say:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
Answers to Your Questions for a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality
You are confused on the matter Paul. Having little or no sense of choice is not the same as a cause.
The jury is out on the method of homosexuality and it is simply wrong to say its "in their genes". Pope John Paul II had a much better appreciation of the literature on this issue than Dr Shermer it seems.
Fugley: you seem preoccupied with violence. Get some help.
Paul, Einstein is dead, but much of his thinking is still relevant. So it is with the Pope and his work on the Theology of the Body.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't read it, so your opinion of it counts for nothing.
And so it is also with your academic.
If he is going to make up arguments based on the assumption the world is flat, even if he did it 7 days ago, it isn't going to cut the mustard when the person in his sights isn't arguing the world is flat (for example).
And lucky we didn't judge Einstein by his lack of "professional qualifications" early in his career. On the other hand, that's exactly what many people did.
Their mistake. Welcome to the club.
Pope JPII taught at University, had 2 Phd's, an accomplished author of many books and articles, fluent in many languages and a noted thinker.
ReplyDeleteA reply in the same vein to your deliberately casual dismissal of a great thinker and person of enormous intellectual experience that we have in John Paul II would be:
And your guy is a pop psychologist who runs a society of skeptic nerds or something?
How did you go at the races?
We are talking about who is more qualified to discuss a complex subject like genetics and their relationship with human sexuality. Dr Michael Shermer is well placed to do so and is (as at yesterday) still on this mortal coil. It was Lucyna that proposed I read the works of dead Pope in preference to an world renown expert on the subject. Having a doctorate in Catholic theology is like arguing your dead Pope(DP) was a great batsman at cricket, when we are talking about golfers. Please give me one scientific statement from DP on genetics relationship to homosexuality, which is the topic in hand?
ReplyDeleteBy the way it’s the Bible that says the world is flat , not me, you should know this? It still amazes me some Christians use scriptures to carry on their hate campaign against homosexuals having never read the Old & New Testaments in their entirety.
The primitive grasp of science, physics, biology etc earth contained within, is scary.
To refresh your memories, about what the Bibles writers had to say about The Earth and it’s place ……
Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."
Matthew 4:8, "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence”
In Genesis 11:4, the people wanted to build a tower up to heaven
Genesis 1:6-7, "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places...
I could go on and on, but these aren’t the passages from The Bible you are not interested in reading and adopting are they?
It’s just this hate mongering we see in Leviticus 18:22 & 20;13 that are to be taken literally, not this silly talk about domes, giants, unicorns, bats are birds etc we get in other sections The Bible – is it?
Off for now.
See ya.
Paul
MR TIPS; Read above mate, the link is in you face. What do you thing these two are in palpitations’ about?
Paul, the post you gave a link to spends more time quoting the Holy Bible and stating what Christians think than it does saying anything remotely scientific. Beyond one sweeping statement that
ReplyDelete"The overwhelming evidence from science shows that gender preference is primarily determined by our genetics and prenatal biochemistry, especially embryological hormone balance.
No evidence is actually given.
Maybe you meant another post? For if you want Bible interpretations of human sexuality, JPII's Theology of the Body is right up that tree.
Paul, you are not doing very well here. Let me take you through it step by step, as your errors in logic are numerous and your assertions incorrect.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about who is more qualified to discuss a complex subject like genetics and their relationship with human sexuality.
Firstly, your academic is a psychologist, not a geneticist.
You might want to address that point.
Secondly, well known Gay activist Peter Tatchell spends a lot of time reading and thinking about this very point. His conclusions are different.
You might want to address that point.
Next, the article you used to prove your assertion that gayness is all based on genetics is nothing like that at all.
You might want to address that point.
And just to be clear: It is an article by your psychologist skeptic quoting the bible and building a straw man argument that says very little of substance, other than being, ironically, a vehicle to launch a hate-filled attack against Christians.
You might want to address that point.
His argument rests on his interpretation of what the bible means. He is not a trained theologian, and simply makes a fool of himself. You not knowing any better could be excused in your ignorance.
You might want to address that point.
Lucyna gently pointed you towards some-one of recent times who can take you through a vastly different view of how Catholics view human sexuality is the Pope.
You might want to address that point.
You then go on to say that because the Pope is dead, somehow his arguments (that you have never read) do not stack up.
You might want to address both of those points.
Please also re-read the point I made about Einstein, that might help you realise that being alive or dead does not necessarily decrease the validity of the argument, or the quality of the thinking. Whether it is Aristotle, Pope John Paul II, Einstein or Ernest Rutherford.
You might want to address that point.
Also, you are at a Catholic blog, and we are discussing a Catholic perspective, not the perspective of fringe Christian Cults. They are irrelevant in this conversation because they don't reflect our views. You try to ascribe other people's views to people here.
You might want to address that point.
For that matter, I doubt you actually know my views, because I haven't got around to stating them. I suspect I have a lot more gay friends and colleagues though than you know Catholic Priests.
You don't need to address that point, I know how bigoted you are when it comes to talking about Priests.
Lastly, I think you need to move out of the old testament and spend more time in the new testament, and in particular on what Jesus said. That's the main guy that counts for the Catholics, and his two extra commandments have a lot more gravitas than your selected quotes.
You might want to address that point.
And again, you keep trying to make out Catholics take the Bible literally in every single context, in every single way. They don't and I in particular certainly do not.
Most of your quotes often don't prove anything particularly remarkable anyway.
For example:
The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence”
So what? Maybe he had a really cool photo album there? Perhaps that was the very place the Devil had installed his new satellite imaging system, with Goggle Maps plug-in. What? You don't believe such technology is possible? Luddite :-)
Paul, this guy isn't a psychologist, but he does seem to have a basic grasp of genetics:
ReplyDelete"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032003.html
It seems that whilst most of us understand genetics has an effect on the person, I for one agree with Dr. Collins:
"Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us."
I also liked this point:
As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
It's a great point, because free will is a very important part of understanding faith, but we'll save that for a separate post.