Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[GaryTaylor]

Actually Gary Taylor did before me in regard to identities and brought the thread a bit off topic. But I see from a link another posted posted that the Pope acknowledged many Catholics do not adhere to all teachings but he did not say they were not Catholics. And it looks like the thread is back on track.

Post 170 I followed you. Yes we are back on topic. Do you have the link? Far by me to speak for the Pope.

 

[epan]

The children are not fine. The children in these homes are not fine. The children in school being indoctrinated are not fine. None of it is fine except to those who refuse to see.

Just for fun, here is a alternate view from Lee Badgett, a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, and Research Director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

He would say that based on actual experience, that your statement is incorrect. Do you have any evidence to back your claim?

abc.net.au/unleashed/3870750.html

Basically, you can find support for any position that you would care to support.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Does that go for shellfish and tatoos too?

Again, this was addressed.

The Good News was news, not repetition…The Gospels proclaimed what was truly different about Jesus when it came to the divine message. Had there been even a hint of departure on His part regarding the Jewish sexual moral code, there would have been arguments about that recorded in the Gospels, just as there were arguments recorded about dietary and Sabbath laws, about which Jesus’ departure from those were published.

Discussion about homosexality was absent. It was a non-issue. The Gospels, based on the oral tradition essentially memorized over a period of time, recorded News.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just for fun, here is a alternate view from Lee Badgett, a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, and Research Director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

He would say that based on actual experience, that your statement is incorrect. Do you have any evidence to back your claim?

abc.net.au/unleashed/3870750.html

Basically, you can find support for any position that you would care to support.

As for the claim that redefining marriage is good for the economy, I debate that. Civil unions and redefining marriage has led to negative impact for non profits and businesses who have had lawsuits against them for refusing to do have involement as part of a civil union or homosexual marriage ceremony which has consequences such as lost business and loss of spending power

If Catholic Charities is forced to move or close because they will not allow homosexual couples to adopt, which only seemed to be a big problem after civil unions were legalised, that means many children will have to go through the state adoption system and the financial cost will be felt to the state. That would not happen if non profits like Catholic Chairities could continue their work

Only 0.5% of children being raised in same sex households, nothing can be concluded by 1 study

How many children raised in same sex households v children raised by a mother and father were studied?

Research done that proclaims to show children do just as well or even better when brought up by homosexual couples as heterosexual couples has usually been done with small samples. That is what Louisiana State University scholar Loren Marks found when he reviewed 59 studies cited by the American Psychological Association in 2005 that concluded there was ‘no differences.’ Marks said

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006

not one of the 59 studies referenced …. compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way

Some experts also say there is a volunteer bias, the volunteers of studies that find children do as well in when brought up by a same sex couples may be supportive of redefining marriage and gay adoption, thus more likely to report positive results. There can also be bias among a researcher who may be less likely to report evidence that does not comply with an agenda

What is the evidence from countries in which marriage has been redefined a longer time, such as Norway and the Netherlands?

 

[CMatt25]

The Jewish condemnation of homosexual behavior was absolute. There is no credible Scripture scholar who disputes that.

Except maybe the ones who have a different interpretation of homosexuality and the Bible and who don’t fit your definition of “credible” and that of others who believe as you do.

But as has already been established, there are for instance more liberal Christians than the majority found on this forum, in denominations who do believe a Biblical interpretation of homosexuality which differs from yours and may even believe it’s credible.

And the bottom line is I think that’s the whole point of what Seeker and I have explained.

There are different faiths and non beliefs in a country such as the United States. And then there is civil law. What many of you argue might work fine if the US was the Vatican or a state with a state religion. But not only is the US not heaven on earth, the US is not a nation of one brand of Christian belief either. There are many Christians of various perspectives. There are many other people of faith. There are people with no religious faith. And whether you or we like it or not, sometimes civil law may have to reflect this fact in a society where many different people of different perspectives and POV and beliefs strive to live together.

And President Obama as he evolved on the issue I think seems to get it. Thus why he is urging the court to do what he is urging it to do.

 

[CMatt25]

Post 170 I followed you. Yes we are back on topic. Do you have the link? Far by me to speak for the Pope.

Yes you followed post 170 but 170 didn’t bring his religious identity into play. Nevertheless Scipio posted the link.

 

[Dawnia]

There are different faiths and non beliefs in a country such as the United States. And then there is civil law. What many of you argue might work fine if the US was the Vatican or a state with a state religion. But not only is the US not heaven on earth, the US is not a nation of one brand of Christian belief either. There are many Christians of various perspectives. There are many other people of faith. There are people with no religious faith. And whether you or we like it or not, sometimes civil law may have to reflect this fact in a society where many different people of different perspectives and POV and beliefs strive to live together.

And President Obama as he evolved on the issue I think seems to get it. Thus why he is urging the court to do what he is urging it to do.

That is true, there are various opinions on the matter. But, we have a particular process for making changes to our laws.

Does “elections have consequences” sound familiar to anyone?

 

[scipio337]

Except maybe the ones who have a different interpretation of homosexuality and the Bible and who don’t fit your definition of “credible” and that of others who believe as you do.

And since we were discussing Catholicism, how many of those are Catholic?

And as a previous link quoted, there is no distinction between Sacramental and “Civil” marriage when it comes to the same sex.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Except maybe the ones who have a different interpretation of homosexuality and the Bible and who don’t fit your definition of “credible” and that of others who believe as you do.

But as has already been established, there are for instance more liberal Christians than the majority found on this forum, in denominations who do believe a Biblical interpretation of homosexuality which differs from yours and may even believe it’s credible.

And the bottom line is I think that’s the whole point of what Seeker and I have explained.

There are different faiths and non beliefs in a country such as the United States. And then there is civil law. What many of you argue might work fine if the US was the Vatican or a state with a state religion. But not only is the US not heaven on earth, the US is not a nation of one brand of Christian belief either. There are many Christians of various perspectives. There are many other people of faith. There are people with no religious faith. And whether you or we like it or not, sometimes civil law may have to reflect this fact in a society where many different people of different perspectives and POV and beliefs strive to live together.

And President Obama as he evolved on the issue I think seems to get it. Thus why he is urging the court to do what he is urging it to do.

How do you interpret the Bible’s statements on homosexuality?

I do not understand how any Christian, regardless of denomination, can not take what the Bible says on this and turn it upside down or reinterpret it to something other than what it says

 

[CMatt25]

That is true, there are various opinions on the matter. But, we have a particular process for making changes to our laws.

Does “elections have consequences” sound familiar to anyone?

Yes very familiar. There are midterm elections such as in 2010 when not as many people vote. Then there are elections such as in 2012 when people stood in lines for hours upon hours in places and they backed President Barack Obama and his policies by reelecting him in an Electoral College landslide.

 

[Monkey1976]

How do you interpret the Bible’s statements on homosexuality?

I do not understand how any Christian, regardless of denomination, can not take what the Bible says on this and turn it upside down or reinterpret it to something other than what it says

The same way that certain protestant communities can take “This is My Body” and make it purely figurative: Change the Gospel to fit their lives instead of changing their lives to fit the Gospel.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Except maybe the ones who have a different interpretation of homosexuality and the Bible and who don’t fit your definition of “credible” and that of others who believe as you do.

I “believe” as the body of authoritative scripture scholars “believe” on this issue, which is not a matter of “belief” but of textual analysis. That body of scripture scholars comes from diverse traditions: Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, They have histories of scholarship and credibility behind them in the way they approach scripture. Where are your scriptural credentials? (Whoops, that’s right: you have none.)

No one who tries to twist scripture to fit some kind of modern, PC “analysis” has succeeded in deceiving the academic community, let alone the religious traditions represented by those with training in approaching scripture. It requires education and expertise to understand ancient texts, centuries old, translated several times, and with multiple allusions.

 

[CMatt25]

How do you interpret the Bible’s statements on homosexuality?

I do not understand how any Christian, regardless of denomination, can not take what the Bible says on this and turn it upside down or reinterpret it to something other than what it says

Abysinnia, as I’ve said 3X now, I’ve previously in the past got in trouble on another World News thread, accused of trying to lead Catholics astray when I posted a different interpretation of a Biblical verse. So I can’t help you here. I have posted what you request on the non Catholic subforum though and remember having comment that I explained it rather well. It’s been awhile though.

 

[CMatt25]

And since we were discussing Catholicism, how many of those are Catholic?

And as a previous link quoted, there is no distinction between Sacramental and “Civil” marriage when it comes to the same sex.

I thought we were discussing the world news of what Obama is urging the court to rule on gay marriage. Or at least that’s the subject of the thread title. Obama nor the entire US nor the entire world is Catholic.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The same way that certain protestant communities can take “This is My Body” and make it purely figurative: Change the Gospel to fit their lives instead of changing their lives to fit the Gospel.

Anything that does not conform to their own views on things, gets reinterpreted and changed. It is quote arrogant to do that considering God worked through the authors that wrote the Bible and to think you know more than God believes on this is ridiculous

The twisiting and turning of scripture to conform is destructive, because if you reinterpret and change one thing, as in this discussion, homosexual practice, then you are probably bound to end up reinterpreting other Biblical verses. Where do you draw the line? What about the resurrection? Virgin birth? It all ends up geting reinterpreted and changed and you end up with something that is not Christianity

Polygamy was popular in Old Testament era, but having multiple wives is condemned in Deuteronomy 17:16-17

So the Biblical authors would not be afraid of going against the tide of opinion at the time and saying there was nothing wrong with homosexual practice, but they did not

 

[Dawnia]

Yes very familiar. There are midterm elections such as in 2010 when not as many people vote. Then there are elections such as in 2012 when people stood in lines for hours upon hours in places and they backed President Barack Obama and his policies by reelecting him in an Electoral College landslide.

Which has nothing to do with what I was referring too since the Feds don’t do marriage or rule on court cases.

 

[CMatt25]

I “believe” as the body of authoritative scripture scholars “believe” on this issue, which is not a matter of “belief” but of textual analysis. That body of scripture scholars comes from diverse traditions: Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, They have histories of scholarship and credibility behind them in the way they approach scripture. Where are your scriptural credentials? (Whoops, that’s right: you have none.)

No one who tries to twist scripture to fit some kind of modern, PC “analysis” has succeeded in deceiving the academic community, let alone the religious traditions represented by those with training in approaching scripture. It requires education and expertise to understand ancient texts, centuries old, translated several times, and with multiple allusions.

:yawn: Back to putting me down I see. FYI it does nothing to or for me but to drive me further away from your faith. My credentials are no worse than yours. I wasn’t there 2000 yrs ago so I walk by faith. Not by sight. I’m somewhat versed though in non Catholic faiths of a more liberal nature whose trained academic scholars in their communities have arrived at a different Scripture understanding on homosexuality. We don’t have to agree with them or with their approach. But I don’t have much doubt such denominations and faiths have their academic scholars with their own credentials too.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m somewhat versed though in non Catholic faiths of a more liberal nature whose trained academic scholars in their communities have arrived at a different Scripture understanding on homosexuality. We don’t have to agree with them or with their approach. But I don’t have much doubt such denominations and faiths have their academic scholars with their own credentials too.

I’ve studied them all formally, on the graduate level. Not all scholars are equal. That is the entire point. **Nor are all the ones with a consistent reputation of the same religious background. ** Those who are universally respected in the academic community have developed that over time, and share that stature for a good reason: their methodology is solid and reliable; they apply the shared discipline that all scholars of biblical texts share. The only “scholars” who “disagree” with the irrefutable fact that Jesus shared the Jewish condemnation of homosexuality are those who have proven to be weak in scholarship, especially in the contextual understanding of key terms and figures.

One Methodist scholar is someone I still keep in contact with, and I have referred Catholic priests to him.

Most prominent Protestant and Jewish scholars coincidentally come to the identical conclusion about the biblical basis of sexuality that Catholic scholars reach, as well.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

Have a nice sleep. That’s the solution for yawning.

 

[CMatt25]

I’ve studied them all formally, on the graduate level. Not all scholars are equal. That is the entire point. **Nor are all the ones with a consistent reputation of the same religious background. ** Those who are universally respected in the academic community have developed that over time, and share that stature for a good reason: their methodology is solid and reliable; they apply the shared discipline that all scholars of biblical texts share. The only “scholars” who “disagree” with the irrefutable fact that Jesus shared the Jewish condemnation of homosexuality are those who have proven to be weak in scholarship, especially in the contextual understanding of key terms and figures.

One Methodist scholar is someone I still keep in contact with, and I have referred Catholic priests to him.

Most prominent Protestant and Jewish scholars coincidentally come to the identical conclusion about the biblical basis of sexuality that Catholic scholars reach, as well.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

Have a nice sleep. That’s the solution for yawning.

Good for you. I guess you could give yourself a pat on the back for all your formal studies. I myself keep in contact with all sorts of clergy. United Church of Christ pastors and Episcopal priests most recently. A few of them were even raised Catholic. One of the Episcopal priests was a Roman priest before becoming an Episcopal priest. But I’ve been in contact with Disciples of Christ pastors, a PCUSA pastor, an ELCA pastor, Unitarian Universalists. A UMC pastor too. A number of them have no problem with homosexuality. Which is the entire point of what Obama is doing. He realizes this fact.

Anyway thanks I’ll try. You have a good night too.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the entire point of what Obama is doing

How in the world could you suggest and propose to know the intent of this man, which at best is very questionable, and at worst very dangerous.

And we see many, as those you mention who have no issue with many teachings which deviate from the Deposit of Faith.

A number have had no problem accepting heresy in the past. The period of Pope Julius and St Athanasius comes to mind off the top of my head.

How many sheep without, how many wolves within to paraphrase Augustine in relation to the universal Church you speak of. The Catholic Church has been reduced to but a handful of Bishops. Its defeated every evil and heresy sent its way. While it makes for a passing conversation to speak of temporal rule, that is exactly what it is and has always been…temporary. And it has never mattered how large or how small the Church is or was. That which has been temporarily popular is exemplified by Rome, by the gnostic, by the Arians, by the pagans, by the Dark Ages and its all proved to be just that, temporary. And so it is today with the misguided and with Obama.

Gay Marriage is complete heresy and a dangerous one since it opens the door to further deviate from the Gospel, such as with Islam and Mormons, and further civil transgression against what is in fact Union of marriage and at the taxpayers expense in favor of Business/enter Obama. That is why you see Huntsman promoting this and Islamic leaders also, to further perpetuate their own heresy and appalling agenda.

This vision of a perfect world you embrace which meets up to your expectations doesn’t exist but in your mind. No utopia coming, no garden of eden re-established on earth…all this is an illusion created in your own mind and further perpetrated by others which you have used to confirm your own incorrect thinking, especially in relation to Christs Church. Its nothing new and predictable.

Your dearly beloved President may be good at trampling the Constitution, which I admit others have set a precedence for him. But none have taken this atrocity to the level he has. And though this is true, it is even more true that he is a financial disaster as a President. And just so you know, I don’t blame Obama for everything financial, I blame him for being cute and clever instead of HONEST. Its a deceitful trademark of his. Just as with the situation we find ourselves in this month. His plan, and one he lied about.

The utter failure of an argument of the right to marry falls directly under the enacted defense of marriage laws. The original intent, and anything which deviates from the original intent opens the door for the misunderstood understanding of equal rights

"Focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases.

Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met" Cont.