Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbygrace92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would encourge you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai. It does not mean homosexual. Unfortunately that word really has no meaning. It is not really understood what Paul means by that word. It has only been used two or three time in all of history. A rough translation mean man-bed. Paul speaks of heterosexual and homosexual sex as being bad in situtations like rape, incest, and in false worshiping to false Gods.
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

“I would encourage you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai.”

“It does not mean homosexual.”

“That word has no meaning.”

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

Thank you for providing me a very good well reasoned justification for everything that I want to do. “Judge, the law says that I should not have exceeded the speed limit. But, you know ‘limit’ unfortunately has no meaning.”

That rationalization sounds like you have just about reached the bottom of the barrel of straws to grasp at in order to arrange the world in the manner you want it to be.
 
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

“I would encourage you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai.”

“It does not mean homosexual.”

“That word has no meaning.”

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

Thank you for providing me a very good well reasoned justification for everything that I want to do. “Judge, the law says that I should not have exceeded the speed limit. But, you know ‘limit’ unfortunately has no meaning.”

That rationalization sounds like you have just about reached the bottom of the barrel of straws to grasp at in order to arrange the world in the manner you want it to be.
Dan,

This is the Protestant dilema. Every person with a Bible is Pope/Magesterium/Church deciding what something means and what something does not mean. Tony’s problem is that basing a belief on the definition of one word is worth putting eternity on the line.

This is why we must fight against same sex marriage, the very notion corrupts the mind. Those that accept it try to corrupt the minds of others. It isn’t enough that they want to accept something and live their lives, they want to have others agree with their decision. This is part and parcel of the Same Sex Agenda. I am not going to change my mind, I already have.

The word for repent actually means change your mind and that word in Greek is used only 3 times as follows, twice in Matthew and once in Mark:
1Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
17From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
14Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; **repent **and believe in the gospel.”
metanoeó: to change one’s mind or purpose
Original Word: μετανοέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: metanoeó
Phonetic Spelling: (met-an-o-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I repent, change my mind
Definition: I repent, change my mind, change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God), repent.
So for Tony to try and change anyone’s mind on this issue should be seen as futile, particularly on this Catholic Answer site. My only suggestion is that Tony read the Bible more carefully and consider changing Tony’s mind, the only mind that Tony can change.
 
Tony,

Your mind has filters. Those filters are generalization, deletion and distortion. You have deleted what Paul says, you distort what is known and come to your own conclusions that you want others to accept. Many of these filters operate without effort, they are just part of our thinking. You are actively doing this suggesting that your inability to accept reality is a higher order of thinking related to thoughts formed by conscious decsion and not related to reality. Your insults are indicative of weak convictions due to your inability to accurately come to terms with reality.

You may want to spend some time with Dr. William Glasser and read, “Reality Therapy” and “Choice Theory”. You are making choices and not spending much time in reality.

Good luck with your agenda to prove to others what you want them to accept. I believe that your convictions are weak, looking for confirmation by others to no avail.

I agree with you completely. Our minds do have filters. I have no agenda, have no need to convert anyones thinking. Homosexuality is sin to you, that is fine. I hope you pray for everyone. Thank you for having me in your prayers. People are entitled to their beliefs. The Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. Unfortunately many people use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. It is up to the individual to look for the truth in Gods word.
Homosexuality is sin.

Homosexuality is aberrant behavior.

Homosexuals are God’s children.

Their behavior is an abomination.

If you are a homosexual I will pray for you.

You are incorrigible.
 
Dan,

This is the Protestant dilema. Every person with a Bible is Pope/Magesterium/Church deciding what something means and what something does not mean. Tony’s problem is that basing a belief on the definition of one word is worth putting eternity on the line.

This is why we must fight against same sex marriage, the very notion corrupts the mind. Those that accept it try to corrupt the minds of others. It isn’t enough that they want to accept something and live their lives, they want to have others agree with their decision. This is part and parcel of the Same Sex Agenda. I am not going to change my mind, I already have.

The word for repent actually means change your mind and that word in Greek is used only 3 times as follows, twice in Matthew and once in Mark:

So for Tony to try and change anyone’s mind on this issue should be seen as futile, particularly on this Catholic Answer site. My only suggestion is that Tony read the Bible more carefully and consider changing Tony’s mind, the only mind that Tony can change.
It is not up to me to change your mind, only you can change your mind, if you are willing to open and learn. Only you have that choice.
 
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

“I would encourage you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai.”

“It does not mean homosexual.”

“That word has no meaning.”

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

No ancient Greek writer used the word to mean lesbian or homosexual. There were a number of ancient Greek and Latin words Paul could have used in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 if God intended to prohibit committed gay and lesbian partnerships

Malakoi usually referred to intellectual weakness or moral weakness or some kind of softness which implied effeminacy but malakoi was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Homosexuality. Arsenokoites occurs only 77 times in extant Greek manuscripts

in the first 2100 years of Greek history. It is therefore an extremely rare word. In 1 Cor 6:9, Paul is the first writer we have on record as using the word.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of
themselves with mankind" (arsenokoitai).

Although scholars are unsure of its provenance, there are two reasonable possibilities for the origin of the Greek word, arsenokoitai or arsenokoites.
  1. Hellenistic (Greek speaking) Jews coined the word from the Septuagint
    a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, based on use of the two roots of the word in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Arseno is the Greek word for man and koite is the Greek word for bed, used euphemistically to mean having sex. We say ‘he slept with her’ when we mean, had sex with her. In the same way, koite-bed was a euphemism for having sex.

If the prohibitions of the Levitical Holiness Code informed its meaning, arsenos koiten condemns shrine prostitution, based on the context of Leviticus 18 and 20.

Philo lived at the same time Jesus lived. During the life of Christ, Philo understood Moses, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to be condemning shrine prostitution.

Philo’s understanding that the arsenokoit stem refers to shrine prostitution is 2000 years old. It is not a modern argument from gays and lesbians. Instead, it is the common first century Jewish viewpoint. Gays did not make up this viewpoint and it did not originate with gays therefore it is not historical revisionism by gays seeking an alibi for their sin.

If the arsenokoit stem from Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koiten, gave us the Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (most anti-gay Christians believe Paul borrowed the word from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13), then understanding arsenokoites as a reference to shrine prostitution was a common understanding in the first century, when Paul used the word in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.

The modern attempt to make Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 a prohibition of all homosexual activity is far from what Moses and God intended and far from ancient Jewish understanding of these verses.

The Jewish viewpoint articulated by Philo is 2000 years old. It was not invented by gay people as an excuse for sin. Understanding arsenokoites to refer to shrine prostitution is a commonly accepted meaning of arsenokoites in the first century.

Arsenokoites also condemns pederasty and incest, given the interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in Sanhedrin 54a and Philo.

Shrine prostitution, pederasty and incest are not analogs of a committed faithful monogamous partnership between two men or two women.

Paul coined the word, arsenokoites,
borrowing from the Greek words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If this is true, arsenokoites must have indicated a sin which confronted Paul’s readers, with which they were so familiar that it was not necessary for him to define the word. The best historical possibility for its meaning is shrine or temple prostitution.

Some modern scholars insist that shrine prostitution did not occur in ancient Corinth. Whatever the outcome of that argument, Philo, who was intimately familiar with cultic religion in the first century, identifies Cybele or Ceres worship with the shrine prostitution Moses referenced in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Because Paul did not define the word arsenokoites when he used it, the meaning must have been clear to Paul’s first century readers.

Philo leaves no doubt about the meaning of arsenokoites. For first century Jews, it was a given that the arsenokoit stem referred to temple prostitution. The first century cultural and historical understanding is that arsenokoites refers to shrine prostitution, in which male worshipers engaged in anal sex with male priests and female priestesses of the fertility goddess.
 
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

“I would encourage you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai.”

“It does not mean homosexual.”

“That word has no meaning.”

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

Thank you for providing me a very good well reasoned justification for everything that I want to do. “Judge, the law says that I should not have exceeded the speed limit. But, you know ‘limit’ unfortunately has no meaning.”

That rationalization sounds like you have just about reached the bottom of the barrel of straws to grasp at in order to arrange the world in the manner you want it to be.
Some more recent scholars who are not pro-gay agree with Philo and gay Christians on this point. For example, Leon Morris, in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians writes: “The inclusion of idolaters may point us to the immorality of much heathen worship of the day.”

Charles Eerdman, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians says: “The practice of impurity formed a feature of idolatrous worship.”

Even anti-gay Calvinist Phil Johnson, a co-worker at John MacArthur’s conservative evangelical Grace To You ministry, and certainly not one given to defending gay Christians, admits this truth about 1 Cor 6:9, when he writes:

“At the heart of all the problems in the church at Corinth… a city filled with both temples and brothels—where fornication was literally deemed a religious rite…

The vast majority of the Jewish community in Corinth had rejected the gospel (Acts 18:6). So the church was made up of mostly Gentiles who, of course, came from a culture that was not inclined to see sexual sin as unspiritual. Just the opposite. Most of the “religion” in Corinth involved temple prostitution and debauched sexual behavior.” -Phil Johnson on Pyromaniacs Blog, January 31, 2011.

This cultic sexual activity in worship of the fertility goddess is what God and Paul intended to forbid and what Philo decried. Ashtoreth, Astarte, Isis, Ceres and Cybele were all fertility goddesses worshiped by our first century ancestors. The names are often interchangable (different names used by different cultures) to refer to the same goddess.

We know that first century Jewish thinking linked Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to incest, pederasty and shrine prostitution, based on Sanhedrin 54a. Philo also linked Lev 18:22 & 20:13 to shrine or temple prostitution.

Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul. These historical facts and this first century Jewish view of the meaning of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 certainly influenced Paul’s use of arsenokoites, whether or not he coined the word.

There is no cultural, historical or scriptural reason to assume Paul intended to convey a twenty first century, conservative Christian viewpoint (universal proscription of all homosexual practice), to his first century readers.

Arsenokoites is a compound Greek word, formed by joining arseno - man and koite - bed. A compound word does not always equal the sum of its parts.

Keep in mind that it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”

We cannot take the composite parts of arsenokoites and based on the meaning of those parts, insist that arsenokoites means homosexual when our ancient Greek ancestors did not use arsenokoitai or arsenokoites with that meaning.

Remember, it is intellectually dishonest to give words like arsenokoites a linguistic significance and meaning the Biblical word itself did not possess in actual historical usage.

There is not a shred of objective evidence that Paul used arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Notice what happens when we attempt to define compound words based on the meaning of their individual parts.
 
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

There is not a shred of objective evidence that Paul used arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Notice what happens when we attempt to define compound words based on the meaning of their individual parts.

Examples of compound words which
have a meaning different than
the meaning of their parts

1.Mandate - A date with a man? Oh, doesn’t that sound exciting! If we break down the word mandate the way anti-gay Christians break down arsenokoitai to mean have sex with a man, man+date must mean a date with a man. Isn’t that a foolish way to discover word meanings? A mandate is not a date with a man.

A mandate is a command, authorization or permission to perform a duty or a task. It has nothing to do with dating a man. The meaning of mandate is not the sum of its parts.

2.Butterfly - A dairy product with the ability to defy gravity? A fly who hangs around the dairy? The meaning of butterfly is not the sum of its parts.

3.Flywheel - A round piece of metal that flies through the air? A miniature wheel invented by a fly? The meaning of flywheel is not the sum of its parts.

4.Ladybug - A strange creature, part etiquette-conscious woman and part insect? A lady who loves bugs? A lady who hates bugs? A bug who loves ladies? The meaning of ladybug in not the sum of its parts.

5.Mankind - A man noted for his generous, always sympathetic, warm-hearted spirit? Tonto, describing the Lone Ranger? Mankind does not mean a man who is kind. The meaning of mankind is not the sum of its parts.

6.Chairman - A man who makes chairs? A chair for men only? A man who sells chairs? A man who sits in chairs? The meaning of chairman is not the sum of its parts.

7.Ladykiller - A woman of impeccable manners who murders others? A man who kills ladies? The meaning of ladykiller is not the sum of its parts.

Arsenokoites is a compound word

Just so, interpreting the compound word arsenokoites or arsenokoitai to mean homosexual, because arseno by itself means man and koite by itself, is a Greek euphemism for sex, is linguistically inaccurate. Ancient Greek writers, including the apostle Paul, never used arsenokoites that way.

The modern tendency which assumes arsenokoites must mean homosexual, ignores historic usage of the word. The modern assumption is based on the wishful thinking of antigay Christians, not actual usage of arsenokoites in antiquity.

The fact that arsenokoites was never used in ancient times, to refer to men in committed homosexual partnership, provides a powerful clue that arsenokoites does not mean homosexual.

An ancient example where
the arsenokoit stem
did not mean homosexual

The following quotation is attributed to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around AD 575. Here, the word arsenokoitia, refers to a man having sex with his wife.

“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel]

Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one’s son; another the wife of one’s brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father’s concubine.

Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”

John the Faster, Penitential, about AD 575. This quotation is ascribed to John the Faster although the provenance is disputed.

Conclusion: None of the citations
given in Greek lexicons to
support arsenokoites having our
modern meaning of homosexual,
uses the word with that meaning.

Arsenokoites and arsenokoitai were never an exclusive reference to homosexuals nor were they ever used to refer to lesbians. In 56 usages during the six hundred years after Paul first used the word, arsenokoites or arsenokoitai never refers to men in committed faithful homosexual partnership. And it probably goes without saying that the word was never used to describe two women in committed faithful partnership.

Deconstructing a word to obtain the meaning of its parts, and then assuming that the meaning of the parts equals the meaning of the whole, leads to linguistic error.

Defining arsenokoites based on the meaning of arseno and koite tells us nothing about the meaning as Paul and his readers understood it.

The common error, found even in Greek lexicons, that arsenokoites means “homosexual men who have sex with men” may explain the etymology of arseno and koites but does not explain their meaning when they form one word.
 
Hate used to be the way homosexuality was diagnosed. Now, with modern science, shown to us by God, most of us know homosexuality is not a disorder.
Stephen168;9394312:
When did God show science that homosexuality was ordered? And what is it ordered toward? And would this included heterosexuality, pedophilia, or incest? If not, how? If so, how?
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
 
Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith belief,

Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.

It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation)—advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?

Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?

When you attend a wedding at church, what passages of Scripture do you expect to hear? Congregations occasionally invite me to speak on the current same-sex marriage debates, and I ask them this question. Their answers are remarkably consistent.

Someone invariably mentions 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “Love Chapter.” Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage.

Others call out, “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16; NRSV). Another moving passage, but it’s certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi.

The second creation story in Genesis comes up: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, but he isn’t exactly discussing marriage. Instead, his topic is divorce (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). When ministers read the Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I’d rather not hear about divorce at a wedding

Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9.

The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:1-11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage. My church, the United Church of Christ, has developed a new wedding liturgy, but it retains this common formula: “As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God’s reign of love.”

So we know Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding? That’s the best we can do? No wonder it’s common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn’t have much to say on the topic.

Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.

It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation) – advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?
 
Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith beliefs.

Maybe the question isn’t “WHY must we fight?”, but more “HOW must we fight?” because I don’t think holding protests or telling people they are “going to hell” is the right way to do things…
Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?

Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance – and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial – but not victimized – love. That’s a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
Gosh, the scientific evidence is so overwhelming.

I’ll give you a historical background.

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as “unnatural,” which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day.

Religious teachings soon were incorporated into legal sanctions. Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as “wickedness not to be named”). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).

By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D’Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).

Even within medicine and psychiatry, however, homosexuality was not universally viewed as a pathology. Richard von Krafft-Ebing described it as a degenerative sickness in his Psychopathia Sexualis, but Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis both adopted more accepting stances. Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976).

Sigmund Freud’s basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too…

“If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed…” (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

Later psychoanalysts did not follow this view, however. Sandor Rado (1940, 1949) rejected Freud’s assumption of inherent bisexuality, arguing instead that heterosexuality is natural and that homosexuality is a “reparative” attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening. Other analysts later argued that homosexuality resulted from pathological family relationships during the oedipal period (around 4-5 years of age) and claimed that they observed these patterns in their homosexual patients (Bieber et al., 1962). Charles Socarides (1968) speculated that the etiology of homosexuality was pre-oedipal and, therefore, even more pathological than had been supposed by earlier analysts (for a detailed history, see Lewes, 1988; for briefer summaries, see Bayer, 1987; Silverstein, 1991).

Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts’ clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.
This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways. First, the analyst’s theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the “double blind” procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality.

A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care – in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
Other social science researchers also argued against the prevailing negative view of homosexuality. In a review of published scientific studies and archival data, Ford and Beach (1951) found that homosexual behavior was widespread among various nonhuman species and in a large number of human societies. They reported that homosexual behavior of some sort was considered normal and socially acceptable for at least some individuals in 64% of the 76 societies in their sample; in the remaining societies, adult homosexual activity was reported to be totally absent, rare, or carried on only in secrecy.
As with Kinsey, whether this proportion applies to all human societies cannot be known because a nonprobability sample was used. However, the findings of Ford and Beach demonstrate that homosexual behavior occurs in many societies and is not always condemned (see also Herdt, 1984; Williams, 1986).

Although dispassionate scientific research on whether homosexuality should be viewed as an illness was largely absent from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine during the first half of the twentieth century, some researchers remained unconvinced that all homosexual individuals were mentally ill or socially misfit. Berube (1990) reported the results of previously unpublished studies conducted by military physicians and researchers during World War II. These studies challenged the equation of homosexuality with psychopathology, as well as the stereotype that homosexual recruits could not be good soldiers.
A common conclusion in their wartime studies was that, in the words of Maj. Carl H. Jonas, who studied fifty-three white and seven black men at Camp Haan, California, “overt homosexuality occurs in a heterogeneous group of individuals.” Dr. Clements Fry, director of the Yale University student clinic, and Edna Rostow, a social worker, who together studied the service records of 183 servicemen, discovered that there was no evidence to support the common belief that “homosexuality is uniformly correlated with specific personality traits” and concluded that generalizations about the homosexual personality “are not yet reliable.”

… Sometimes to their amazement, [researchers] described what they called the “well-adjusted homosexuals” who, in [William] Menninger’s words, “concealed their homosexuality effectively and, at the same time, made creditable records for themselves in the service.” Some researchers spoke in glowing terms of these men. “The homosexuals observed in the service,” noted Navy doctors Greenspan and Campbell, “have been key men in responsible positions whose loss [by discharge] was acutely felt in their respective departments.” They were “conscientious, reliable, well-integrated and abounding in emotional feeling and sincerity.” In general, “the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements” and was “neither a burden nor a detriment to society.” Fry and Rostow reported that, based on evidence in service records, homosexuals were no better or worse than other soldiers and that many “performed well in various military jobs” including combat (Berube, 1990, pp. 170-171, footnotes omitted).

Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published studies in this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.
Code:
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

Although some investigations published since Hooker’s study have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators – for example, a man’s psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.

Some studies found differences between homosexual and heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual and homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood experiences or family relationships. It would then be assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated pathology, even though there were no differences in psychological functioning between the two groups.
 
Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?

Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance – and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial – but not victimized – love. That’s a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.
Why should I accept you personal interperation of scripture?
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
So the weight of the evidence…

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
Removal from the DSM…

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM’s third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual’s dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread… [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well.”

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
The text of the APA resolutions…

The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists’ actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation (APA, 1975; 1987).

In conclusion…

Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.
The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychological problems (Meyer, 2003). The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).

Unfortunately, because of the way they were originally designed, most of these studies do not yield information about whether and to what extent such risks might be greater for various subgroups within the sexual minority population (e.g., individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual versus those who do not; bisexuals versus lesbians and gay men). In future research, it will be important to compare different sexual minority groups in order to understand how so many individuals withstand the stresses imposed by sexual prejudice, and to identify effective strategies for treating those with psychological problems.

I hope this has helped your understanding about science.

I believe science merely seeks to explain the nature of things that already are, even if part of the explaination is that things are as they are now in part because of the way they were. Science simply reveals to us what is and how it works

Our faith, on the other hand, tells us why things are.
 
Removal from the DSM…

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

).
So “science” is determined by social norms? It should be noted that there was NO science backing this decision-it was changed based on a vote where only a plurality of members supported it. the breakdown was:

*On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854*

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

Perhaps the American Cancer Society should vote that cancer no longer exists!
 
Gosh, the scientific evidence is so overwhelming.
When did **God **show science that homosexuality was ordered? (The date And what God said should be enough)
And what is homosexuality ordered toward?
And would this include heterosexuality, pedophilia, or incest?
If not, how?
If so, how?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top