Parents Protest Gay Fairytale for 2nd Graders...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 10:39 PM) [snapback]242984[/snapback]</div>

Probably. To the extent homosexuality was discussed in a second grade fairy tale book. Visit a room around Christmas and see if there are menorahs. They probably have Kwanzaa stuff around too. Depending on the calendar, there may be Ramadan stuff too.

Do they have Talmudic discussions? Probably not.

And it is part of the sixth grade state standards in California, along with Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and paganism. Islam is seventh grade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SirGreen @ Apr 20 2006, 03:54 PM) [snapback]242852[/snapback]</div>

Hey.. if it feels good, it must be ok right?

 

As we are still learning about genes everyday it is impossible to rule out the role of genetics in homosexuality. My nephew was gay from the time he was a child. He was never the same as my sister's other 3 boys.

My daughter did not date through HS because she did not find the right guy. Did I "worry" that she might be gay? I thought about it but I love her and would have been happy for her no matter which path she chose.

American's are so up tight about sex and never about greed or violence. I wish we could re-set our priorities.

And about Aids....Africa has always been considered the source related to a horrible cultural mutalation of females for male's pleasure. Heterosexuals are doing such a great job with the world..rape, divorce, child abuse (this includes neglect of children born to unfit heterosexual people)

I am not gay, I do not have the time or inclination for a serious relationship with a man at this time of my life. The lesbians I have known seem to have a better handle on relationships. If it was all about indoctrination I would have run for the other side along time ago but I am not "wired" that way.

Galaxee, you would be a great mom!

 

A dutch politician visited a university hospital and made a remark about homosexuality as being accepted as 'natural' to a professor. His answer: 'Madam I studied the physiology of the rectum and haven't found anything related to that'.

 

This explains alot:

Conservative Christian theologians tend to accept English translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV) as authoritative. They generally accept the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret passages literally, unless there is a good reason not to. They consider all Bible passages as instructive in today's society. When they see any same-sex activity condemned, they believe that this applies to all homosexual activities. All homosexual behavior is sinful, regardless of the nature of the relationship. Homosexuality is a chosen, unnatural, abnormal, changeable, and perverted lifestyle, which is hated by God.

Liberal Christian theologians tend to follow a wider variety of translations, and to be more concerned with instances of copying errors in the original Hebrew or Greek, of forgery, and of biases among the translators. They consider some passages (e.g. those referring to slavery, burning some hookers alive, raping female prisoners of war, etc.) as not being valid today, as immoral, and against the will of God. They differentiate among various homosexual and heterosexual sex practices, treating some (rape, prostitution, temple sex rituals) as immoral and some (within committed relationships) as positive. Homosexual orientation and behavior is seen as a normal human sexual expression among a minority of adults. It is not changeable or chosen. Like all sexual behavior, it can be a sin if it is exploitive or manipulative or not carried out safely within a committed relationship.

Common conclusions by Fundamentalist Christians:
Fundamentalist Christians represent the conservative wing of Evangelical Christianity, which in turn represents the conservative Wing of Christianity. They typically believe in the strict inerrancy of the Bible and in historical Protestant beliefs. They interpret most biblical passages literally. They view the Bible as the Word of God fully applicable to present day situations. Many believe:

Ruth and Naomi
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.



David and Jonathan
Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.






Daniel and Ashpenaz
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

Various English translations differ greatly: "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)

Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible

Whether a sexual act is a sin or not is largely defined by the act itself. e.g. all homosexual activity is inherently sinful, irrespective of the relationship between the two persons. Most heterosexual activity is not sinful if it is done within a marriage.
Many biblical passages condemn all forms of homosexual behaviors, using inclusive terms such as "sodomite" or "homosexual."
God destroyed Sodom and its inhabitants because of their homosexual activity. All the men in the town wanted to have homosexual sex with the visiting angels.
There are no committed, consensual homosexual relationships described in the Bible.
The Bible refers to homosexual acts; it does not talk about sexual orientation. If such a thing as an unchangeable sexual orientation exists, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
Same-sex practices are uniquely offensive to God. After all, the only time that God destroyed a city was Sodom because of male citizens' homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior is one of a small group of behaviors that will prevent a person from attaining salvation and going to heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says that "...neither...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...shall inherit the kingdom of God." Other English translators substitute the term "homosexuals" here.
Some Fundamentalists interpret 1 Corinthians 6:11, as stating that if gays and lesbians are truly saved, God will remove their homosexual feelings and convert them to a heterosexual orientation. Thus, no individuals who continue to engage in homosexual activities have actually been saved; all are destined for Hell after death. Others believe that gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation through reparative counseling and prayer.
Some Fundamentalist Christian organizations have invested heavily in media advertisements which emphasize that gays and lesbians can become ex-gays and leave the "homosexual lifestyle."



Common conclusions by mainline Christians:
When North America is faced with a major ethical conflict, it tends to be resolved first among religious liberals, and last among religious conservatives. This has been the pattern in such conflicts as equal rights for women, including the right to vote; an end to racial segregation; and legalization of interracial marriage. Currently active topics like abortion access, physician assisted suicide, and equal rights for gays and lesbians appear to be in the process of being resolved in the same way.

The "gay agenda" which includes:

protection from hate crimes based on sexual orientation;
an end to discrimination in employment and accommodation;
the right to marry or enter into civil unions;
the right to be accepted as church members;
the right to be considered for ordination, etc.

is no exception. Most conservative Christians are firmly in favor of maintaining the status quo; many liberal Christians feel that ethical considerations require equal rights for homosexuals both within and outside of the church.

A serious problem facing most mainline denominations is that the conservative/liberal split is reflected in the membership of their own congregations. Within each mainline faith group, there is a wide range of belief on all social and theological topics, from abortion access to the virgin birth. The larger mainline denominations have spawned internal, conservative, reform movements which are attempting to restore church teaching, belief and practices to those of earlier times. They seek to prevent sexually active gays and lesbians from being considered for ordination, and to prevent the church from holding homosexual union or commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. Meanwhile, liberals within these same denominations -- often including central leadership in the denomination -- are fighting for change. Bitterly fought battles have occurred in such denominations as the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), and United Methodist Church. The possibility of denominational schism has been raised, as they were over previous ethical clashes such as the legality of slavery and women's ordination.

The Episcopal Church might be evolving in the direction of a schism. There are, in effect, two Episcopal Churches within the United States. Two bishops head a conservative, reform Episcopal movement which is attempting to end female ordination and roll back gains made by gays and lesbians within the church.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) may be moving towards a liberal point of view. At a 2000-Fall meeting of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, (a conservative reform group), speakers stated that "Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality merely reflect biblical authors' cultural biases and are not among the "essential" messages of the gospel." Several conference speakers said the Bible's condemnations of same-gender sexuality call to mind other scriptural passages used in past centuries to justify slavery and to keep women from participating fully in the life of the church -- on the basis of long-held interpretations that are largely abandoned today." 12 Speaker William Placher from Wabash College, said interpreters of the Bible must "draw a line between cultural conventions and the truths that Bible stories convey," and always "keep in mind the assumptions the author brought to his time and place." He said the apostle Paul, for example, lived in a patriarchal culture where it was "socially acceptable to treat homosexuals with contempt." 12
United Methodist Church: The conservative wing of this denomination appears to be currently gaining ground. At their 2000-MAY convention, a resolution was proposed about homosexuality. It read "Many consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. Others believe it acceptable when practiced in a context of human covenantal faithfulness. " This motion was simply a statement of fact. It accurately reflected the reality of the division within the denomination. However, it was voted down by a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

For the foreseeable future, mainline denominations will undoubtedly remain split over the homosexual issue, with one part of their membership following conservative Christian beliefs (described above) and the rest following liberal beliefs (described below). Only time will tell whether the conflict will be resolved through:

a compromise (as in a local option plan which would let individual congregations or regions decide what path to take), or
a gradual fading of the conflict as one division within the church loses support, or
church schism.

One or more denominational schisms may well materialize as they did over slavery. However, history has shown that they need not be permanent.

Common conclusions by liberal Christians:
Religious liberals generally do not view the Bible as inerrant. They see is as a collection of writings by various authors, each of whom was promoting their own religious beliefs. Thus, biblical passages describe how Jewish and early Christian societies viewed various matters. They may or may not reflect the will of God. Passages relating to the genocide of whole peoples, the oppression of women and slavery are certainly not in accordance with the wishes of God.

Some religious liberals argue one or more of the following points:

English versions of the Bible are translations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The wording has been filtered through the mind-set and prejudices of various sets of translators. They feel that one must carefully examine the original texts from the point of view of ancient Israeli and early Christian societies in order to determine their precise meaning.
Most religious liberals believe that some sexual acts are sinful; others are not. It depends mainly on the participants' relationship, not by the specific act itself. They view manipulative, dominating, coercive, under age and/or unsafe sex is sinful. Safe heterosexual or homosexual sex within a truly consenting and committed relationship is not sinful. Author Chris Levan sees this reflected in the Bible. He writes: "The best response that scripture can give with regard to homosexuality is the declaration that our Creator is very often not concerned about the 'who' of relationship so much as the 'how.' It simply asks if the relationship is functioning according to principles of justice and dignity? Does the partnership demonstrate mutual trust and compassion? If so, it is blessed by God." 10
The original passages in the Hebrew Scriptures usually do not refer to homosexual acts in general, but to specific immoral behaviors, such as rape, ritual sex in Pagan temples, and prostitution: Genesis 19: Other biblical passages about Sodom identify the sin of the city as being unresponsive to the poor and needy, and being uncharitable towards strangers. The only obvious sexual sin of Sodom was a desire to rape strangers.
Leviticus 18 & 20: Male ritual sexual activity in Pagan temples is clearly prohibited. Such behavior was a common practice within the Canaanite fertility religion. The practice was also taken up by some ancient Israelites.
Deuteronomy 23: Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is always condemned.
Judges 19: A duplicate of the Genesis story.

Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska has concluded that: "...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative." 3
The Bible says little about homosexual feelings.
The Bible says nothing about the concept of sexual orientation for the same reason as it does not mention television sets and airplanes. All were unknown in biblical times. The concept of orientation dates only from the late 19th century and only began to be seriously investigated in the middle of the 20th century.

There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned. But there is no absolute proof that they were sexually active.
Paul's Epistles in the Christian Scriptures considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to: temple prostitution,
ritual sex activities in Pagan temples,
heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts against their basic nature,
child sexual abuse,
group sexual orgies, or
all people who commit any homosexual acts.

Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy (often a slave) for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same-gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consensual, committed homosexual relationships. He may well have not known of any; he may not have known that any could exist.

Paul is not necessarily a useful guide for ethics and morals. Elsewhere in his writing, he was sexist: For example, he condemned women preaching (1 Corinthians 14:34). A passage in 1 Timothy 2:11 condemned the wearing gold or pearls. This book says that it was written by Paul, but most mainline and liberal theologians believe that it was written up to 80 years after Paul's death. Paul accepted and did not criticize the institution of slavery (Philemon 1:15 to 16). Many Christians feel that some of his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly helpful guide today.
Of the many hundreds of Jesus' instructions and prohibitions recorded in the gospels, few if any have a sexual component and none deal with homosexuality.
It is debatable whether St. Paul's prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was: for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
for all people, forever.

One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul's criticism of homosexuality (if that was his intent) is no longer valid today.

Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown.
Most religious liberals agree with the main mental health associations. Sexual orientation is determined before school age, and is perhaps determined genetically at conception. It cannot be changed through prayer, religious conversion, reparative therapy, aversion therapy or counseling, any more than a person can change their race or gender.*

[Note: Transgendered individuals can and do have their appearance changed to that of the opposite gender through surgery, medication, makeup, etc. We are defining "gender" here in a narrow sense to refer to the X and Y chromosome content of each cell of a person' body. They are unchangeable.]



Evangelical Christians (other than Fundamentalists):
Evangelical Christianity is a broad tent and contains a range of diverse beliefs. Most regard Fundamentalism as representing the conservative wing of Evangelical Christianity, which in turn represents the conservative wing of Christianity. Unfortunately, there are no generally accepted, precise definitions for the terms "Fundamentalist," and "Evangelical," or "conservative Christian." Thus, this section will necessarily remain vague.

Evangelicals, exclusive of the Fundamentalist wing, typically believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but with a number of qualifications. They believe in historical Protestant beliefs, but have modified some of them. For example,

Many reject the historical view of Hell as a place of never-ending physical torture; they now view Hell as a place of separation from God.
Some have abandoned the historical view that all individuals who are unsaved during their lifetime will go to Hell. They feel that sending persons to Hell who have not had a chance to hear and accept the Gospel is profoundly immoral. It is an act that God is incapable of doing. They feel that God has provided some mechanism by which people who have not heard the Gospel can still be saved after their death, and attain Heaven.

On homosexuality, many non-Fundamentalist Evangelicals have beliefs that are slightly more liberal than those of Fundamentalists. They believe that:

All homosexual activity is inherently sinful, whether it is done by singles or by gays or lesbians involved in committed relationships.
Homosexual behavior is unacceptable. A Barna Research poll conducted in 2001-AUG showed that only 2% of Evangelical Christians (including Fundamentalists) regarded homosexuality as "an acceptable lifestyle." (In contrast, the general American population is evenly split on this matter.) The poll question is deeply flawed, because it can be interpreted in many ways. But it does indicate the degree of opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as normal and natural for a minority of adults.
Many biblical passages condemn all forms of homosexual behaviors, using inclusive terms such as "sodomite" or "homosexual."
Some refer to the many references to Sodom in the Bible as implying that the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed by God for their many sinful behaviors, only one of which was their homosexual activity.
There are no committed, consensual homosexual relationships described in the Bible.
Many recognize that sexual orientations do exist and are either fixed or nearly unchangeable for adults. Some even believe that people can be "born gay." Some agree with human sexuality researchers that three sexual orientations exist -- heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.
Same-sex practices are offensive to God, but not uniquely so. Homosexual behavior is one of many sinful behaviors, like assault, theft, murder, etc.
Some Fundamentalists interpret 1 Corinthians 6:11, as implying that if gays and lesbians are truly saved, God will help them change their behavior and remain celibate.

21st century family types:
There are a relatively few types of families in Christian countries today:

Living together arrangements of heterosexual and homosexual couples: These are common-law, informal co-habiting arrangements, which can sometimes be registered with the government. Most heterosexual couples who eventually marry, have spent an interval of time living together before marriage. Some choose to never marry.
Heterosexual marriages of one man and one woman. These are formal marriages registered with the government. Many are performed in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc. Others are civil ceremonies.
Polygynous marriages, which involve one man and a number of women. In North America this was practiced extensively among Mormons, but was largely phased out during the 19th century. Today, it appears to be confined to small Fundamentalist Mormon groups which have been excommunicated by the main Mormon church: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Attorney General of British Columbia, Canada, has decided to not prosecute Mormon splinter groups in that province for polygyny. He predicted that he would lose any case that he initiated. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantees of religious freedom would probably nullify the Province's marriage act in these cases. This gives such marriages a degree of legality, at least in one province of Canada.
Homosexual unions of two men or two women. These can be registered as civil unions in the state of Vermont. The couple obtains all of the privileges and responsibilities that the State of Vermont gives to heterosexual married couples. The couple can register as a domestic partnership in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. The couple receives all of the privileges and responsibility of married couples, except for the right to adopt.
Homosexual marriages of two men and two women: These are currently available only to residents in the Netherlands. In that state, no differentiation is made between opposite-sex and same-sex couples who wish to marry.


Family types mentioned in the Bible:
God is recorded as promoting the concept of marriage in Genesis 2:18: Referring to Adam, "...the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (King James Version - KJV) "Help meet" also appears in the Jerusalem Bible. It is translated "helper" in many other translations (e.g. Amplified Bible, An American Translation, James Moffatt Translation, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New International Version, New World Translation, Revised Standard Bible, Young's Literal Translation. The Living Bible, New Living Translation, and Today's English Version use a phrase like "a suitable companion to help him." The original Hebrew word, when used to refer to humans, implies a partnership of two equals, rather than a relationship between persons of unequal status. "Co-worker" or "partner" might be a better translation. The Contemporary English Version, New American Bible, and Revised English Bible use the term "partner" indicating an equal status between Adam and Eve.

This information was aquired via Liberal/conservative religiuos web site

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 20 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]242685[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Apr 20 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]242710[/snapback]</div>

My prediction of where the world would be:
- A place where falling-down neighborhoods were fixed up,
- Where kids didn't get beaten up on the school bus,
- There probably wouldn't be a "glass ceiling" for women's careers,
- Much fewer battered women
- Certain colors would never get painted on innocent automobiles, and
- A place where people could be honest about their lives, and integrity would likely be a fabric of daily life.

And one more. George Buch and his cronies would be planting flowers in a park somewhere and sweeping sidewalks. Man, that is a world I want to live in!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]242759[/snapback]</div>

I will share my own experience for what it is worth.

In first grade kids started calling me "faggot" and shunning me -- probably more because I was hard-of hearing (undiagnosed at that time) than anything else. Imagine going to school and being taunted on the playground at "recess" and then on the school bus home, a whole school bus taunting "faggot" as sort of a chant. FACT: I wasn't homosexual in first grade! (I wasn't having sex... and I had no idea what it meant.)

I spent the rest of my grade school years like that -- kids don't suddenly "un-label" a target they've identified, nor did the Nazis suddenly come around to realize Jews were human. I spent the rest of my school years wishing I could find a way to kill myself without hurting my family. (And I still had no idea what same-sex stuff meant. I just knew my experience: "faggot" = hate.)

I think the sort of prejudice and hate kids learn from each other (and their parents) on any issue... THAT is a "straight line" as an earlier poster said, but to something else. A straight line to societal breakdown such as ordinarily people supporting Hitler, thus becoming Nazis themselves. (Or supporting an incredibly currupt President today, who lies to the country and declares war for his own purposes... but that 's another topic.)

As for the Bible... it was "written down", several hundred years after the events took place. If there was nothing written about the American Revolutionary War until right now, how accurate could any author be about precisely what George Washington said about any particular subject? So can the Bible be an accurate guide/code for how God wants us to live our lives? Jesus was all about "love thy neighbor as yourself", wasn't he? I don't see the Bible-thumpers doing much of that. Much the opposite.

By the way, I now work for a VP who was probably the sort of kid who shouted "faggot" on the playground. I bring in the largest amount of business of anyone on his team. And I know that he doesn't care for me because I don't play golf! (How silly is that?) But if I was an outstanding golfer / scotch drinker, hey, I'd be a hero. But I'm not, I'm still a "faggot".

Funny, kids on the playground don't seem all that different from adults in the real world. As far as I can tell, the only difference is adults don't YELL "faggot" in a corporate setting. But they sure still act like the bullies they learned to be while they were kids.

I'm glad to get in my Prius at the end of the day, a place where everything works perfectly, where everything is thought out and meticulously executed, every time the engines switch from electric to ICE, and my daily driving contributes hardly anything to air pollution, etc. (Note: my VP climbs into his huge SUV, and adds to air pollution, less fuel availability, etc.)

Too bad more of the world wasn't more like a Prius!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]242984[/snapback]</div>

I actually chose blood type because I'm pretty sure it's one of the few examples where there isn't a spectrum. Blood type is quantized into those four bins. I agree with you that there are a spectrum of genetic traits, but I'll also point out that things like missing an arm or a leg are extraordinarily rare; much less than 0.1% of the population, I would guess.

Again, I agree with your hunch that there's a spectrum; I just don't know if there's genetic evidence to support it yet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]242984[/snapback]</div>

I do think it's irrational (i.e. not goverened by reason). It's not a well-thought out position; it's just an, "Ew! Gay people!" reaction. I don't think that it makes you a bad person (not that you care; you've proudly stated that you don't care what people think of you many, many times), but I do think it's something that should be addressed. I think one way to confront these biases head-on is to talk about it early in an appropriate way. Does this mean talking about the details of gay sex early on to a group of second graders? No. But neither does the talk of opposite sex marriages at that age involve the talk of opposite sex sex.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]242984[/snapback]</div>

Godiva said the way I was thinking: "Probably. To the extent homosexuality was discussed in a second grade fairy tale book. Visit a room around Christmas and see if there are menorahs. They probably have Kwanzaa stuff around too. Depending on the calendar, there may be Ramadan stuff too.

Do they have Talmudic discussions? Probably not."

So, you make kids aware of the fact that there are different cultures. You don't say, "we have a menorah in the classroom because Judaism is better." But you help them to learn that there are people in the world that are different from them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]242984[/snapback]</div>

I think 1 in 10 is a huge number. This means that, in a class of 30, 3 will be gay (statisically). Not that I'm claiming this is some overwhelming number, but it's very significant and not just some fluke, one-in-a-million thing.

 

First, I'm a straight father of 2.

Squid- I love your avator, with the whole "kitty" as a censorship bar. genius.

Why does every discussion of homo's turn into a religious fight?

Sorry, but the old "God hates fags" argument doesn't hold water.
YOUR God hates fags. That doesn't mean everyone's do. And it certainly doesn't mean that everyone else should have to follow the rules of YOUR religios text.
When it comes to religion, NO ONE is right or wrong.
This is why we have a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

"Normal family" is a meaningless term. Their is no such thing.

"Human's would go extinct!" is also a meaningless argument. We are overpopulated as it is, yet some still think that "Every sperm is sacred" and birth control is just as "evil" as homosexuality because of the same argument. Yeah right!

As to the genetic question: I have studied biology and neuropsychology extensively. The nature vs nuture question will never end. All development is dependant on both. Both can lead you to be gay. A friend of mine knew he was gay all his life. Other's develop that way due to external influences. Heck, your genes can make you a hermaphrodite! What do the homophobes do with a hermaphrodite? They can't be gay if they have both parts, can they?

As for the question of 2nd graders and books.....
This is probably too young for SOME of the children and not for others. Since "nuture" can have an effect, I think these lessons should be taught a little later.

As a parent, of course I don't want a gay child. I want my child to pass my genes on! But bashing gays will not ensure this won't happen, nor will tolerance encourage it.
This is all about FUD and blending religion with politics. The GOP has found that silly amendments on this issue is a great way to ensure that the turnout at the poll is heavily conservative. (Not to say the Demons don't use this tactic too, or will be shortly).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]243104[/snapback]</div>

I think that the "seafood =/ people" is an important point. HOWEVER, going with it for a minute, I would also say that hearing that some people like seafood isn't necessarily going to make you like seafood. And, moreover, as someone who doesn't like seafood, would you be bothered if your child's second grade teacher read a book about eating lobster? OK. Obviously, homosexuality is more complicated and more emotionally charged than flounder.

I would absolutely call sexual orientation irrational. You have no rational control over what gender you like. It's decided by genetics, and it's irrational. Totally.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]243104[/snapback]</div>

OK. I'm not saying that a religion has to be homosexually-based. I'm just using religion as another example of a culture different from "mainstream" that I think kids shouldn't be prevented from being taught. Part of education at all levels involves teaching kids about the world. I think that the job of teachers should involve expanding our childrens' view of the world instead of keeping it to the small, restricted view that exists in their families.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]243104[/snapback]</div>

OK. Perhaps "huge" was not the right word. I think "highly significant" is more correct.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]243104[/snapback]</div>

As someone who has worked with kids at several points (and who lives with a teacher), let me just say that "faggot" is a tremendously popular insult among kids at all levels, and rarely has anything to do with actual sexual orientation. Along the same lines, some call things/people "gay" as a way of saying that they are bad. I should say, this is something I hate, and I don't see how using "faggot" as a insult can't have a effect on those peoples' view of gay people down the road.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. But I knew what you meant.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

Just because something is irrational doesn't meant that it needs to be "fixed." For me, rational implies "choice." I can see you point about "nature being the ultimate 'reason,'" though. Not sure I believe you yet, but I see your point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

OK. I don't think that there's so much different about "2 moms," (as compared to different religions) but I can accept that some people think that. Perhaps the discussion we should be having is whether there's something in society that makes people think that there's something "different" and "wrong" about 2 moms; whether there's something that makes homosexuality a different subculture than, for example, various religions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

OK. I think we'll just disagree. I guess I approach this with the scientist mind; basically, anything above the "noise" of randomness, I call significant. 10% of 300M is a large number, and it's a significant group in the US. I'll remind you that the last two Presidential elections were decided by a much smaller percentage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

OK. I have witnessed several instances of kids calling someone a "faggot," with no apparent understanding of what it really meant. Actually, I would argue that if they know what the implication is, that actually makes the name-calling worse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]243145[/snapback]</div>

Here, here! All of us straight folks (or, to use a term that my gay friend uses, "breeders") can talk about this intellectually, but people who are gay acutally understand what all the implications are of these discussions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]242739[/snapback]</div>

We used to do it all the time. There weren't many little boys in the neighborhood.

 

Now it's Samuel.

That's Old Testament.

Shall we also stone anyone that wears a Cotton/Polyester shirt or eats a shrimp cocktail?

It's what I call selective Christianity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 21 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]243256[/snapback]</div>

So how are girl-girl mock weddings different from boy-boy mock weddings?