Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
If our modern view is getting rid of sex, gender identity and gender roles when it comes to love and marriage, why cling to such Victorian notions as number, or even species?

As Vice President Biden says, “Who do you love?”

It’s all about love! How does it hurt you or I if 4 women marry the same man?
Click to expand...
Course we would be projecting. Better to wait for the elephant to be in the living room stepping on us. 🙂
 
scipio337 said:
If our modern view is getting rid of sex, gender identity and gender roles when it comes to love and marriage, why cling to such Victorian notions as number, or even species?

As Vice President Biden says, “Who do you love?”

It’s all about love! How does it hurt you or I if 4 women marry the same man?
Click to expand...
All it takes is love to make a family. Uh huh right.
 
Monkey1976 said:
I asked for an example of same-sex “marriage” being seen as the same as heterosexual marriage.

I’m currently going through Dr. Lang’s writings, but I will confess to some wariness regarding research that presents a particular worldview as definitive when it comes to cultures that did not self-document.

A second item that is a BIG red flag to me is that she accepts the “Pope Joan” story as fact. To me, that reflects a researcher more focused on their “cause” than on their data.

Considering the political climate of academia, I’m not surprised that she is esteemed for her views and conclusions, but - just getting through the introduction of “Men as Women, Women as Men” - her data and methodology leave a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...
I know this isn’t exactly the same thing. SS marriage for the most part involves two people who identify as the same gender getting married and this does not.

However, I don’t see how you conclude that Lang accepts the “Pope Joan” story as a fact considering that she discusses the legend in the same paragraph as the Amazons and reports by Herodotus. Her point in that section is to illustrate how stories about people living their lives masquerading as the opposite sex are ubiquitous across time and culture.
 
bellasbane said:
I know this isn’t exactly the same thing. SS marriage for the most part involves two people who identify as the same gender getting married and this does not.

However, I don’t see how you conclude that Lang accepts the “Pope Joan” story as a fact considering that she discusses the legend in the same paragraph as the Amazons and reports by Herodotus. Her point in that section is to illustrate how stories about people living their lives masquerading as the opposite sex are ubiquitous across time and culture.
Click to expand...
“…the female pope Joan has gone down in the history of the European Middle Ages as a spectacular, if isolated, case.”
 
Monkey1976 said:
“…the female pope Joan has gone down in the history of the European Middle Ages as a spectacular, if isolated, case.”
Click to expand...
I still say she isn’t claiming the reports are true, only that they exist. She jumps from antiquity (Amazons, Herodotos) to the middle ages (Pope Joan) to other “reports” from the United States. You are taking her way out of context.
 
bellasbane said:
I still say she isn’t claiming the reports are true, only that they exist. She jumps from antiquity (Amazons, Herodotos) to the middle ages (Pope Joan) to other “reports” from the United States. You are taking her way out of context.
Click to expand...
She wrote “case”. Not legend, not allegation, “case”. If these are all to be treated as legends, she should have made it clear that it was so, even though that would invalidate their usefulness as examples for her thesis. Citing the Amazons, Scythians, and Sarmatians as support for the “historicity” of men living as women (and vice versa) only makes sense if she was taking these accounts at face value. Not particularly impressive scholarship.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent posts Elizabeth502! Your posts ring absolutely true and very well thought-out. As I follow this discussion, I can’t help but noticing that your answers along with other posters such as Abyssinia, GaryTaylor and others as well leaves those who defend SSM grasping for straws. And that’s the beauty of your posts, the truth always shines brightly and clearly. And it leaves those who defend untruths stuttering and stammering for answers! And it is plainly obvious to anyone following this thread IMO.

Peace, Mark
 
Mark121359 said:
Excellent posts Elizabeth502! Your posts ring absolutely true and very well thought-out. As I follow this discussion, I can’t help but noticing that your answers along with other posters such as Abyssinia, GaryTaylor and others as well leaves those who defend SSM grasping for straws. And that’s the beauty of your posts, the truth always shines brightly and clearly. And it leaves those who defend untruths stuttering and stammering for answers! And it is plainly obvious to anyone following this thread IMO.

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
Mark, you’ve made my day. Soooo sweet of you. I’m very humbled 😊 but also very grateful. :thankyou:
 
Mark121359 said:
Excellent posts Elizabeth502! Your posts ring absolutely true and very well thought-out. As I follow this discussion, I can’t help but noticing that your answers along with other posters such as Abyssinia, GaryTaylor and others as well leaves those who defend SSM grasping for straws. And that’s the beauty of your posts, the truth always shines brightly and clearly. And it leaves those who defend untruths stuttering and stammering for answers! And it is plainly obvious to anyone following this thread IMO.

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
Actually…we just have jobs and other things to do with our lives. 😉
 
Monkey1976 said:
She wrote “case”. Not legend, not allegation, “case”. If these are all to be treated as legends, she should have made it clear that it was so, even though that would invalidate their usefulness as examples for her thesis. Citing the Amazons, Scythians, and Sarmatians as support for the “historicity” of men living as women (and vice versa) only makes sense if she was taking these accounts at face value. Not particularly impressive scholarship.
Click to expand...
She is only using them as examples to help people get their head around a completely different cultural understanding of gender and sex. Her thesis is not about the “historicity” of men living as women (and vice versa) in our culture.

In any event, the term once used for these people is the berdache. However, it seems that this is now considered to be derogatory and other terms such as Two-Spirit, inkte (from Lakota) or nadle (from Navajo) are preferred - thefreedictionary.com/berdache
 
bellasbane said:
She is only using them as examples to help people get their head around a completely different cultural understanding of gender and sex. Her thesis is not about the “historicity” of men living as women (and vice versa) in our culture.

In any event, the term once used for these people is the berdache. However, it seems that this is now considered to be derogatory and other terms such as Two-Spirit, inkte (from Lakota) or nadle (from Navajo) are preferred - thefreedictionary.com/berdache
Click to expand...
Ummm…sounds counterproductive to me. The Pope Joan myth was a put down.
 
Mark121359 said:
The truth tends to hurt…doesn’t it? …Sure appears like it! 😉
Click to expand...
I have no idea why it appears that way to you. Because truthfully I’m not feeling hurt for understanding the difference between civil law and religious law. I believe too that God understands not only where we live, but understands out minds and most importantly: He understands our hearts. May God bless you on your journey and God bless us all, straight or gay, Catholic, Protestant as we strive to walk with His Son. God bless all His children wherever they may be on their journeys. As an Episcopal priest once told me. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are. And peace be with you and with all.
 
Mark121359 said:
Excellent posts Elizabeth502! Your posts ring absolutely true and very well thought-out. As I follow this discussion, I can’t help but noticing that your answers along with other posters such as Abyssinia, GaryTaylor and others as well leaves those who defend SSM grasping for straws. And that’s the beauty of your posts, the truth always shines brightly and clearly. And it leaves those who defend untruths stuttering and stammering for answers! And it is plainly obvious to anyone following this thread IMO.

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
Thank you for your nice words
 
Food for thought:
Prejudices against left-handers abound, for throughout history, lefties have been considered inferior. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church declared left-handed people to be servants of the Devil. For generations, left-handers who attended Catholic schools were forced to become right-handed. Only a few decades ago in Japan, left-handedness in a wife was sufficient grounds for divorce. The wedding ring is placed on the left hand in order to chase away evil spirits that may haunt the marriage. In Arab nations, the right hand is used to touch parts of the body above the waist, while the left hand is used for below the navel. Bedouins segregate the women to the left side of the tent to keep the right side free for the men. (Making it fairly obvious to determine which gender is considered more important.) Natives on the Guinea coast never touch their left thumbs to their beer mugs, in the belief that it would poison the beverage. Maori women weave ceremonial cloth with the right hand, because to use the left hand would profane and curse the cloth - the penalty for using the left hand is death. African tribes along the Niger river do not allow their women to prepare food with the left hand for fear of poisonous sorcery.
Click to expand...

Why it's right to be a leftie

with being left-handed.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church considered left-handedness the mark of Satan. As late as the early 20th Century, Japanese women could be divorced simply because they were left-handed.
Click to expand...
 
CMatt25 said:
I know. I try to understand different sides to a lot of issues. I’d like to think most reasonable people try too. You might think divorce laws would be a hot topic. And there are other things Christ talked about that I’d think would be hotter topics than they are. But no the hottest topics on this forum seem to be abortion and homosexuality. With some Republican politics thrown in.
Click to expand...
These topics are hot because they are instances where society deems evil to be good and good to be evil. I’m aghast at this because I know that sinful behavior even if the individual does not acknowledge the behavior as sinful damages human beings. That is why it is sinful, the behavior gets between the offender and God.

I want everyone to go to heaven, but worry how can they be saved when the acts they do are condemned by God?

Belief in the rightness of those sinful acts necessarily turn them away from the Church (who correctly condemn those acts), the Church that is their normative means of salvation.

Separated from the normative means of salvation I fear and am distressed for their salvation, greatly. SO I come here to express this concern. If I do so outside this forum where consciences are so malformed I fear I will do more harm than good, more heat than light. So basically it is CAF and one on one conversations where I can most clearly communicate a sense of charity in my arguments as I try to get people to access the normative means of salvation, i.e. the sacrament of confession.

Your observation is a good one and I felt it deserved a serious answer.
19Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. 20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Click to expand...
 
CMatt25 said:
I have no idea why it appears that way to you. Because truthfully I’m not feeling hurt for understanding the difference between civil law and religious law. I believe too that God understands not only where we live, but understands out minds and most importantly: He understands our hearts. May God bless you on your journey and God bless us all, straight or gay, Catholic, Protestant as we strive to walk with His Son. God bless all His children wherever they may be on their journeys. As an Episcopal priest once told me. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are. And peace be with you and with all.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m not “hurt” because other people have different opinions than I do. I’m not “hurt” because I understand that civil law is about all citizens while Catholic teaching is about Catholics.

People who have different views and ideology do not “hurt” me because they don’t agree with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top