yes I can, but will have to do so later. Kinship bonds are genetic in nature, observable, repeatable, and in some cases (such as mom/child bonding) we have identified the gene responsible. Interesting stuff.

Thanks for the response, Just J.

Before I go into what you posted, I just wanted to say that I love debate, and I love to hear all sides of something. When I was in college, I used to look at those friends around me who were also Pro-life, and sometimes I would think of them as "idiots." Okay, harsh word...and maybe not really idiots. but, I would listen to them talk about protecting the unborn child, and that is all they had to say about it. Believe me, I am the first person in line to wanting protections for the unborn and to get rid of that unconstitutional ruling called Roe V. Wade. But.....

I look to many of those that believe as I do, and I hear one viewpoit. they dont look at the big picture. What about the causes of abortion? Why is that woman there? Rape, incest? Poverty? Is she scared and have no support structure? My wife worked for many years at Carenet, working with women who were on the verge of deciding to kill their unborn child. And she believes as I do. That there are so many more factors than just making abortion illegal. There is the big picture.

Now, before I ramp this up into an abortion debate, let me get back to the point at hand.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The heart of the issue, for me, is whether the Institution of Marriage would be harmed by broadening its definition. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, I know this is true. And yes, that is part of the central core of this matter, no matter which side you are on.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Would it, in fact, help our society to decide that people who are already taking certain actions WITHOUT the rule of law or societal mores must take those actions within the bounds that society sets for them, and be limited in the same way as the rest of the world is?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No it wouldnt. Here's why. If a society has decided certain behavior is not what they want in that society, then that society has a right to restrict or ban it. If some want to continue in its practice, then they do so against the law. Take prostitution, where the girl is involved because she chose to (for whatever reason) and she wasnt forced by someone to do it. Society wants to restrict prostitution. Why? Because this society, as most have, believe that behavior is immoral and unethical. Even though Nevada has legalized prostitution. The rest of the country says no. But still individuals engage in it, outside of the norms that the society has set up. And they ask "who are we hurting?" So goes it with this debate. More below.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's the issue, for me. And my answer is a resounding YES. Our society would be helped if we put more appropriate boundaries on certain behaviors, in order to allow for a more healthy and productive expression of them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You are goingto hear this over and over in my answers to you. By taking myself outside the emotions of this for a minute, and trying to just look logically at the argument, you throughout your post propose prejudice and rules based on what you believe. You say society will be helped by putting more appropriate boundaries... What is appropriate? Who decides? So if society says homosexuality is inappropriate and puts boundaries up, is that okay? If the majority says so? Remember, slavery was legal because the majority said so. Now I know what you might say. Slavery hurt people. But many believe that homosexuality hurts people, that it is a sin. what if they are the majority? What then? again, it comes back to WHO MAKES THE RULES and what are they based on.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When I speak about my faith, I say “I believe,” yes. That belief is between me and the Divine, though I occasionally share it with others. And when I speak an opinion, whether based in religious doctrine, scientific studies, or my own personal experience, I also say that “I believe” something. (And come to think of it, I haven’t used “I believe” at all in this posting, except right here.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Beliefs are fine. Everyone has them. What I am more interested in is facts. Does the belief structure make sense? Is it supported by scientific, logical and rational facts? Just saying I believe something, or God told me so, isnt enough. Even the Bible says that isnt enough. That even prophets, or so called prophets, are to be tested. so, whether the word is beliefs, or "appropriate," these things are supposed to be based on something. And I will again and again come back to this throughout this post...is it MOB RULE? The society is based on the beliefs of the majority, the whim of the majority? That is NOT a very moral or ethical system. That is how we get Jews being killed by Nazis, women kept out of voting for so long and slavery as I have mentioned before.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My opinions and thoughts regarding marriage come from the Harley texts, from works like _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_, from a relatively unflinching study of modern marital law (as applied to my own personal situation), and from the other modern works that inform marital scholarship. My study is far from complete, but that's what I work from. Modern science and ancient texts both have their place in defining marriage and its healthy structures. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Look, I am not defending the current state of marriage. We have screwed it up. But the ethical and moral constructs are still there. It is GOOD for a man and a woman to marry and stay faithful tothat marriage for a lifetime. That is a moral and ethical choice made by society. Now, are we living up to it? Absolutely not. Marriage is in a terrible state, which I point back to really the 60s and 70s, when we decided in this country that everyone could just do their own thing.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m not a Christian, though. So when I speak about societal structures, I don’t use Christian religious contexts at all. I think in terms of socio-political, anthropological, and psychological ones, instead. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I want to hear these. I want to know where morality comes from, who decides what ethics are. Because if the society gets to decide what is ethical, then the society can decide that murder is ethical one day. All it would take is the majority to think that. You see, when we open the door for we humans to be the source of ethics and morality, then we open the door to ANYTHING! Some will say "that will never happen." But with majority rule, the Nazis were able to kill over 9 million Jews. Legally. Ethically. Morally. According to that society. Most societies say that it is ethical to kill in self defence. But what if that changes? What if we say it isnt ethical to kill at any time? So, the woman being raped kills the rapist...and society judges her for what it has decided is an immoral act.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now you are entitled to your opinion. Jesus has also allowed you to have free will

Uhm, wasn’t that Adam and Eve who did the free will thing? Truly, I’m not a Christian, but I did think that was an Adam and Eve story. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, this is the story of the whole Bible, not just Adam and Eve. Jesus whole life and message was about choices. And your freedom to chose to have Him pay for your sins, or that you accept the punishment.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But you see, when we make up rules based on personal preferences and ideals, then we really have nothing but controlled anarchy. Where is your authority for your views? Where is the evidence of what you speak?

My authority for the good of marriage comes from the texts I mentioned above. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, those texts are subjective. The Harleys have a bias. Others have biases. Who decides whose bias wins? whos ideals, ethics and morals do we base society on? Why is murder bad? Why is rape immoral? Why is stealing wrong? Under what you propose, it was because most of the people of that society FEEL that they are bad or wrong. And I say again, what if the majority changes its mind? What if they think rape is good, that it isnt immoral? You may think I am being a little "out there" with this, but again...I am taking it from the perspective of logic. If the ethical and moral system of a society is based o nthe majority rules of that society, then every moral and ethical construct is subjective and subject to change. Which means any of those moral or ethical constructs can be changed...and there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, obviously, I have a problem with that!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I also believe that personal preferences come into all expressions of ethics and morality, yours as much as mine. You prefer Christianity, for example, over Judaism or Hinduism or communism or any other ethical structure. That’s fine with me – it’s a personal preference for a specific structure and if it works for you, great! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again personal preferences...choices. I do not believe that the socities morals and ethics should be based on my personal preferences. Oh sure, wouldnt that be nice. But would it. If I step back from my own selfishness, would me getting my way in this area really be the best thing for me or the society? Again, is it just subjective preferences, or is the a higher authority for morals and ethics?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mine is different, and it works for me. There's enough basic overlap between them that it works for society, so we're good to go. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is? Then why all the commotion? Even if there is overlap, how long will that overlap happen? What happens when there is no longer overlap? What we have here is making it up as we go along. And I have a huge problem with that.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I see no ethical problem with polygamy. (I’m tempted to mention the polygamous relationships in the Bible, but I’m afraid of being attacked for that, too.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You dont see a problem, but others do. The majority does. So, is the majority wrong, as the homosexual lobby says about the majority in regards to same sex marriages? Remember, the proposition here is that the majority decides the moral and ethical constructs. So you say that you have no problem. And the majority says it does. Is that wrong? Or now that the majority has spoken, would you be the one that is wrong for having the view that polygamy is okay, since the society has decided that this is immoral behavior. In anything you do or think, please take whatever it is to its logical conclusion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Under what circumstances would I support a polygamous marriage? Under the same ones as I support any marriage: Figure out how to protect one another and the children. Figure out how to meet one another’s needs. Follow a strong Policy of Joint Agreement. Nurture the children and ensure that they thrive. In other words, live an ethical life within the confines of your marriage. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You would accept it. Again this is subjective. The majority says no...thus it is an immoral act under what you have spelled out here. The majority is the author of morals and ethics under this system.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do I think that polygamy really works? Not very often, but yes, it can. It was popular historically and in other societies is still practiced, and even here and now I know three or four families that have worked it out and live in more-than-two-adults marriages. They work at it very, very hard. People have a hard enough time with POJA with ONE spouse. Can you imagine the debates with multiple ones??? Makes my head hurt, personally. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Look traditional marriages arent really working right now either. Should we outlaw them? Or should we be open to any kind of marriage, no matter what? Or if there are going to be rules and boundaries, who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What is marriage? A man and a woman? Just two people, no matter what sex? 3, 4, 5+ people together? What is it? Who decides?

Hmmm. I just finished writing a definition of marriage with Penny Tupy. If she approves it, I’ll post it here. But I will say that society decides what a marriage is. And societies all over the world differ on exactly what it means. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just J...you have proven my point here.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We have both polygamists and Christians in the United States today, but it doesn’t look like there’s much anarchy from my office window. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We dont? Then what is this moral decay everyone speaks of? We have made up the rules about marriage, and then WSs can go out and think "Well, I am separated...so it isnt adultery." We keep wanting to change the rules in order for it to fit our own selfish wants and desires. Believe me, if I were to make the rules and not bend my knee to God and His word, there would be a whole bunch of things that would change around here...and I can tell you, it wouldnt be pretty.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Society has a vested interest in its structures remaining constant over time. They lend stability and security to an otherwise dangerous and threatening world. So we are all benefited by agreeing to certain basic structures for interaction. Please, thank you, and marriage are all societal constructs that work surprisingly well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How does it remain stable? If majority rules and all ethics/morality come from its whims, then it is easy to change that. That is no stability. Again, you make my point. If we base our morals and ethics on majority rule, then that is NOT a stable system. Just as those people who wrongingly refer to the Consitution as a living document. It isnt, and never was supposed to be (go read the writings of its authors if you dont believe me). If it is a living document, and can be interpreted based on the feelings of the times, then that consitution and its laws are worthless. They mean nothing. Only when the Constitution means what the authors said of that particular part or law, does that Constitution have stability. sure it can be amended and changed. But it is hard to change, it is supposed to be (of course, we now have judicial fiat and the Constitution is being changed into a living document...to the doom of this nation). And by the designers making it hard to change, the put in stability. And the same goes for morals and ethics. They have to come from something else, somewhere else...and not the whim of the majority at this time. If not, then there really is anarchy...nothing is wrong, nothing is right. it all depends on the mood of the majority.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But does society have it RIGHT all the time? Does one particular segment of society have a Divine Lock on what’s right? Again, no; history shows quite clearly that that’s not the case. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You again prove my point.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We’ve heaped hate and oppression upon all kinds of groups – blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Germans, French (American Fries?!?), Iraqis, Muslims, Arabs, Jews. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, ditto.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Society screws things up with tremendous regularity, in fact. And much of the time it does so in the name of Jesus or other deities and prophets. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Exactly, Just J. Now take your statement to its logical conclusions. Subjective morals and ethics.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For me "wrong" is defined not by God, but by whether something is healthy for an individual and for society at large. So... polygamy and same-sex-marriage? Show me where they're dangerous for society or the individual. Adultery, I think we both know where the dangers are, there, for individuals and for society. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For you...gain, you make my point. You say what is healthy for an individual. Another says that isnt healthy. The next guy says it doesnt matter if it is healthy or not...he doesnt value "healthy." are there dangers in polygamy or same sex marriage? Sure. But that isnt what I am trying to argue here. Even if there werent, what does that matter. What if the society's majority believes that it values something else and doesnt care about danger or health? Look, in Germany they have the Autobahn. And on many sections, there is no speed limit. If the German government tomorrow passed a laws putting a speed limit in all areas, most Germans would obey it. They might vote everyone out of office in the next election and have the law repealed. But their societal norms are to obey the law.

Now, what if that happened here? Well, we see it all the time. Americans look at the speed limit as a bench mark for opportunity. The speed limit isnt a limit...it is where we start. Now, is that wrong? well yeah. We are breaking the law. But this law, the society has decided isnt as important as other laws. We are a different society than the German society. We are made up of all of the people who said "You have a king, you have a government, you have rules...I'm out of here." Germans are abhored at our callous disregard to laws and rules. But our societal norms are different...so we wonder why they are so uptight.

And I have just been talking here about the speed limit. Germans believe breaking the law is bad...any law. Americans weigh the law. Some law breaking is not so bad.

But both these societies start from the basic construct that breaking the law is bad. Where did that agreement come from? Who decided that breakingthe law was inherently bad?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Personally, I’ve tried making life in my image more than anyone else I know. I’ve done things that I’ll regret for the rest of my life, and much of my pain over the last two years is of my own making. I’m fully aware of that, and I honor it as an experience that’s taught me more than most people have the chance to learn. I also fervently hope to never repeat the mistakes I've made. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Fortunately, it is life's hrdest lessons that teach us the most! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">All of it has given me the opportunity to really look, in a way that most people never can, at the rules I’ve broken, the lines I’ve crossed, the realities I’ve challenged and shattered. And what I see is that it’s not about who or what color or how many or any of those other rules that define people by arbitrary boundaries and then tell ‘em to stay on opposite sides of the line from one another.

It’s about the basic ethical rules that apply to everyone. Respect for one another. Treating each other well and gently. Being courteous. Being radically honest. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Who decides what the basic ethical rules are? Who decides breaking the law is bad? Who says respecting one another is good? Who says honesty is the best policy? What if these basic principles were changed by society?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Those things are SOLID, all the way to their core. If you can follow them, then the “don’t step on this line because it’s a line and you’ll go straight to hell if you do” rules fade into the background. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How says they are solid? I know people that believe honesty is not the best policy. Are they right? They dont believe honesty is SOLID to the core. What if enough of them get together and become the majority? What then to the solidness of thos constructs? Again, what are those basic, SOLID constructs based upon?

Look, what protects our Constitutional rights in the US? The Supreme Court? Congress? The President? Nah. They are all men and women. And power corrupts. What keeps them from just runnig roughshod over my rights (as they have been doign for the last 100 years)? Our Constitution is based on the gun...on the ability of the citizenry to take their moral and ethical righto defend their rights. It is the final arbitor in who is right. we had a revolution over 200 years ago for just that reason. The people changed their minds on certain principles...and the main none was their allegiance to the King of England. They changed their minds. So what again keeps these basic tenets of morality and ethical behavior from not being changed?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The trouble is, the two kinds of rules are hard to separate. People make rules of “you’re different from us so we’re going to put you on the ‘bad’ side of the line” in addition to the rules of ethical behavior. People make rules for all kinds of reasons, and separating them out isn’t something most people do very well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thats what rules and laws are. They decide what is right, and wrong. And if society says it is wrong, then you are "bad." Again, you are making my point. If society can do this (and has done this...I agree), then what makes those basic principles basic and unchanging? Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So you're saying that ethical behavior has dropped off. I agree with you. At the same time as all this stuff, we also began to end the oppression of women and African Americans and gays and lesbians, as well as many other flaws in our social system. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh I am not about oppression. But please do not confuse rules made to regulate behavior, from rules meant to oppress who someone is. There are laws in my state that outlaw sodomy...even among married couples. It is the societl norm that created that law, to regulate behavior it did not like or found offensive. Now, lets say my wife and I like sodomy between the two of us. Is that law the same as the Jim Crow laws? Hardly. The second law meant ot oppress who a person is, while the other was just restricting behavior. Sodomy is abehavior. Homosexuality is a behavior. Being black is a chracteristic of who someone is.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now we have to rebuild the good parts of that system, while avoiding the parts that oppress segments of society for no healthy reason except that the guys on top wanted to oppress people. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But you said the majority gets to decide what is healthy, and what oppression is. Yo usee, when humans are involved, nothing is objective. By nature, only a god cn be objective. So, we still have the unanswered question of who decides what are the good parts.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Difficult to do, and I do't imagine that it'll be done any time soon. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It cant be done. I'll explain below.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Uhm, I have a sense that the Super Bowl halftime was quite well planned... all the way down to the last rip of the last stitch. Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid -- Super Bowl AND showing of breasts on American TV. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But some find it offensive and immoral. Are they wrong? Or are the people who say it was no big deal wrong? Was Janet Jackson wrong? Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And really, how does this relate to a group of people who are currently living outside of a major societal structure and who are asking to be governed by it, exactly? It seems to me that in fact gays and lesbians are just about the only solid group of people in the country who are standing up and saying, en masse, "Hey!! Marriage is a good thing, dang it!" </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But society has decided that marriage is a man and a woman. so this group isnt talkign about marriage. It is talkign about something tht isnt recognized by society. And a note...check the stats on STDs, multiple partners, broken relationships, etc. The gay and lesbin socieies are actuall yones leadingthe pack in this. But, I didnt want to get into that. I want to stay on message here. Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You might want to support them on that one. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But what if I dont? What if the majority doesnt? What if the majority votes for this amendment? Is that immoral? Who decides?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> In other words, "just because it’s natural doesn’t make it right." That's true, to an extent. It’s important to express the inner self, whoever that is, in ways that are healthy for the individual and the society. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What is healthy? What if I dont care about healthy? what if society values the unhealthy? Is that immoral? Why is it? Because of some basic tenets out there? Well, who came up with those? what if the majority doesnt like them anymore? What if the majority find them immoral? Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We agree, here. Though I don’t consider pornography ITSELF sinful – its use to divert sexual energy from a marriage, on the other hand, is unethical, as are many of the practices used to create pornography. Still, a husband and wife who enjoy viewing a naughty magazine together are not sinning. You can choose to harness and use your energy for healthy expressions of your self, or you can choose unhealthy expressions of your self. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But many feel pornography is sinful, and destructive to the marriage (the Harleys beleieve this), to the individual viewing it and to those individuals involved in making it. If the majority believes it is immoral, then it is under this system you talk about.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Divine that I'm coming to understand asks for the healthy expressions of self. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ahhh...but the Divine of others asks for somethign different possibly. But, you are now hitting on where I am going with all of this. You have used the authority of the Divine as you know it for this issue of healthy expressions. And who can argue with the Divine? No one can, because the Divine by nature cant make mistakes and is objective. So, the answer to my question throughout here is this...the Divine must be the author of basic moral and ethical principles, in order for them to be SOLID (as you put it) and unchanging. Something which society can build its moral and ethical constructs.

Now, once we can agree on this...then all that need be debated is which Divine is the true one. But as long as man is the author of ethics and morals under your system, then it is majority rules...anarchy...and there is no right or wrong...just what is right or wrong right now. When the moral constructs are based on Divine principles, rules and commnds, then they are objective.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure, that’s my natural reaction, too. And yes, acting on that arousal in a manner that hurts me or others is unethical and dangerous. However, I don’t define acting on that arousal within the confines of a union between two people as wrong. It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t hurt the other person (assuming she’s a consenting adult), and it doesn’t hurt society. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You said it is unethical if I act upon it in way that hurst someone. What makes it unethical? Who says so? If humans say, then that can be changed. If the Divine says, then that is an a rock solid truth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Society is based on rules and morals, yes – what I’ve been calling ethical behavior. Ethical behavior is defined by humans, not by Divine Right, by imperfect humans who often make mistakes. These are human social structures, nothing more. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, so the divine has nothig to do with it? Ethical behavior is a human construct? Thus, society being prejudiced against blacks can be said to be immoral, or it might not be immoral...depending on the constructs of society? Or maybe, just maybe...the Declaration of Independence actually spoke on this and said there are some basic rights, basic principles, basic morals/ethics, given to us by our Creator. And if the Creatir gave them to us, then they are immovable. They will always be what they are. They are SOLID. If they are based on man, well, there is nothing less solid than that.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Has no choice but to act on this? Of course there’s a choice. The question in my mind is, what are healthy expressions of these natural urges? What allows the individual and the society to thrive? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And that is the question thosetht want to limit marriage to its historic definition want also. So, who decides? What basis of morality?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sorry, I disagree here. Humans have been working under democratic principles for a long while, and under evolutionary ones for a whole lot longer. A Divine Hand is not necessary for there to be basic ethical structures in place for the functioning of human society. A human society that grows, changes, and learns. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would love to have a discussion on Evolution and the impossiblity of it, but that is another time. Why isnt a divine hand necessary? What if the society values anarchy, murder, oppression? How is that society to function? Again, you make my point. Morality and ethics MUST start from outside of man, otherwise there really are no morals or ethics...just situational morals, that can be changed on a whim.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Homosexuality is, as you say, a natural urge. There is no right or wrong there. Ethical expression of that urge is where right and wrong come into play.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My wanting to dismember the OM for what he did with my wife was a natural urge. Thus, there was no right or wrong to that, huh? Oh, but if I actually did it, then it would be wrong? I agree wholeheartedly. But, what is the ethical expression of my anger? Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And there is no harm that comes to anyone from a gay or lesbian union that supports the individuals, children, and society to the same extent as a straight one. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Who says? There are whole books and libraries filled with information to refute this. but Just J, I am really not here right now to go into that, although we can. I am just trying to say tht many in this society belief that homosexuality hurts people and the society. And whether they have reasons or not, under majority rule, they have the right to decide what is moral. Right? No? Well, then who does? If the rules are based on the society and not some outside constant, then society gets to decide what is harmful, and what is good. And that can be changed at any time. Nazi Germany decided the persecution ofthe Jewish community was the right thing to do. Even codified it. Were they wrong? Of course they were. Well, why can we say they were wrong? What is the basis of that statement? "Well ,everyone knows that is wrong." They do? Why? Who decides?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I could dig out the research that points to adults and children coming out whole and healthy, and possibly moreso than in straight unions, but I don't have time at the moment. I think I ran across a recent reference to it at www.familyscholars.org, though -- in the blog section, which is absolutely fascinating to read. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And there is whole research showing that it isnt healthy. So again, society will embrace one set of research or another and make a decision. And it will be majority rules. And that wont be wrong, will it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Anyway, that leaves society, and personally I think society would be well advised to treat them the same as everyone else's marriages -- either regulate and tax them, or stay out of it altogether and for everyone. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And you may be right. But society has a vested interest in regulating and promoting that which that society feels protects and enhances itself. So, if the society feels it must go into our bedrooms, then it must.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But I have just one question if that is true. Just J, if I could prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible is the unerroring Word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Son of God...would you then accept what the Word says nd believe and move away from your flesh?

I’m sorry MM, but in all honesty, you’ve tied two things together that don’t go together for me. If you could prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible were the unerring Word of God, I would read it carefully and think a lot. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, I bring this up because if society decides what is moral and ethical, then ultimately, the Divine is irrelevent to that society. But, if I am right about the basic tenets of morality, that it must come from outside of man, then the argument then goes to who that divine is. Is He Mohammed? Jesus? That rock over there? The sun? Who is the author of the basic morals and tenets tht socities throughoutthe world build on...who gives these inalienable rights our forefathers talked about? If I can bring fact to you, scientific, historical, mathmaticl, etc...that the Bible is the true Word of God...every word of it. And that Jesus said He was who He said He was. And the rules, commands, morals in His word are the true expressions of the Divine. And the Divine has stated, as He has in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, then would you turn to that Divine and obey? Becuse ifthe Divine is the author of basic morality, and He has said what it is, and we disobey...isnt THAT the definition of sin...of immorality?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Would I move away from my flesh? Depends on what you mean here. If you mean giving up on my marriage to WP? Nope. I'm in Plan B, thanks, and I'll stay there. For me, for my WP, for my daughter.

Would I continue to work to understand healthy, ethical expression of who I am? Yes. I’m going to do that anyway, barring complete loss of my faculties. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not the question, Just J. If I proved beyond a shaow ofa doubt the Bible is the unerring word of God, and in it, He said that homosexuality is immoral, then how in the world could you work for an ethical expression of something that God has said is immoral? Again, maybe I cant prove this. Maybe I cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if you gave me that chance, and I do? What would you do then?

Just J, again...you know I love you. I wish only the best for you!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> But, throughout your argument here, you have not taken things to their logical conclusion, and I have shown that. I am not arguing for Jesus right now. I am saying no matter which Divine it is, society must make its morals and ethics based upon his/her basic definitions. Our inalienable rights are inalienable because the Creator gave them to us. If the Creator didnt give them to us, if mn gave them to us, then man can take them away.

Once we can agree on that, then we can sit down and really find out where or whomthese rights, morals and ethics, came from.

In His arms.

Am I the only person who objects to this site being used for ANY political purpose?

Politics will ruin a great site that helps people, IMHO.

<small>[ February 27, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: JustinExplorer ]</small>

<small>[ February 28, 2004, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: believer ]</small>

Hm. If anyone objects to this debate, I'd be happy to take it to e-mail. Mortarman, my e-mail's in my signature line-- feel free to e-mail me there

All in all, I suspect you and I agree on a great deal.... and will still fundamentally differ on the question of same-sex marriage. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Such is the way of these things, I've found. But I'll happily debate you -- I too enjoy a debate for its own sake, rather than for the sake of "winning."

I, for one have enjoyed the debate. The ones that don't are free to just avoid your thread.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just J:
<strong> Hm. If anyone objects to this debate, I'd be happy to take it to e-mail. Mortarman, my e-mail's in my signature line-- feel free to e-mail me there

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think this is a wonderful, thoughtful discussion. Please don't go away! If others don't like it, please just avoid the thread.

Far be it from me to tell people what to post at this site. If others like it fine with me. I will simply ignore it.

My concern was and is that politics can often poison a good group. We live in a day where the "loyal opposition" no longer exists. Instead people who disagree with a political stand are some type of evil villan bent on the destruction of the nation, human rights, want to starve children, enemies of decency, etc.

Just my 2 cents. Best wishes to all.

Rather than go point-by-point, I'm just going to address a couple of things that recur throughout your post.

As near as I can figure, your basic belief is that ethics and morals have to arise outside of the society that uses them or the society will self-destruct or get really yucky.

My comment here is that society DOES get yucky all the time and that all the major religious structures in the world have been used to perpetuate yuckiness. (And what you and I define as yucky may certainly differ.) Still, if any of them are externally inspired and they still have yucky results then what you were saying doesn't actually hold true. Externally designed structures do not result in ethical societies.

You may also claim that all those instances of yuckiness, whatever they were, were just places where people thought they understood God and didn't. To which I say, okay, then show me what the difference is. Prove it.


Throughout your post you also say that I believe that majority rule is the rule under which ethical structures is developed.

Not so.

My working hypothesis is that all social structures are the product of evolution. They evolved and changed over tens of thousands of years of human history, and on millions of years of homo sapiens' ancestors walking around in packs (another social structure) and learning how to do it without becoming extinct.

Humans act from a huge range of points of view -- some in contact with what they experience as Divine, others not. And that all of that input becomes society's starting point -- the mutations, if you will, that lead to either societal death or a new way to thrive.

So, now that we're working with the right hypothesis, what do you see as logical outcomes?


Oh, you also asked whether, if you could prove that the Bible is the Word of God and that God doesn't like homosexuality, would I "stop."

My question back to you is this: Stop what? Stop being homosexual? Stop acting on my natural urges? End Plan B? Walk away from the lifetime vows I took? Walk away from my daughter? I can't answer the question until I know what you mean.


And let's end where you ended: Our inalienable rights are inalienable because the Creator gave them to us. If the Creator didnt give them to us, if mn gave them to us, then man can take them away.

Yep. Man can take them away, and does, all the time.

Just J,
I'm with you all the way on this one!

I think that this country and this world has much bigger problems than two consenting adults pleding their love till death do us part, to spend their energies on.

A question posed here..."I wonder how confused your children will be when they grow up?"

No more confused than having to deal with the breakup of thier loving family, no more confused than you were or I was coming to terms with our sexuality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual....no more confused than wondering, why people are not loved on the basis of what's in their hearts and the good they do, than on the color of thier skin, their religious beliefs, their sexual preference or their social status.

Their are plenty of things for children to be confused about, however if they having loving parents and family to guide them and love them and instill in them a sense of pride and self-worth...then they will not be confused.

I grew up where racism and bigotry were the norm and religion was used to rationalize and promote it. I WAS CONFUSED!!

Having rejected what I grew up with, I AM NO LONGER CONFUSED.

Wow, never thought I'd be reading about topics like this here. Hey, relax I'm not offended, just surprised.

While I'm decidedly just slightly right of Ghengis Khan, I don't see where it is productive for Christians to get mired in the rules and regulations.

To me, Christianity is about relationship, and specifically, a relationship with God in all three parts.

God the Father,
God the Son, and
God the Holy Spirit.

I don't agree with the assertion by others before that there is little purpose for the scriptures, for it is the scriptures that feed the Holy Spirit that dwells within you.

If you don't read the scriptures, I believe you have a hard time hearing and heeding the Holy Spirit.

On the question of how do you tell you are hearing the Holy Spirit or listening to Satan, my pastor last Wednesday night gave a great test. Satan can ONLY speak to your flesh, not to your spirit. So his appeals will appeal to your flesh.

These must be tested against what scripture tells us. Looking at the fruits of the spirit, we can often test what we believe that we are asked/invited to do.

For example, my wife says that God has told her it is ok for her to divorce me. (I've not been unfaithful, something I believe is the only grounds for divorce in the bible.)

Yet if you measure that against the fruit of the holy spirit, I think it fails that test. It might make her feel good, as I know she suffers with me, and I'm just beginning to learn how my suggestions were interpreted by her as sharp criticisms.

But her desire to divorce is not an action that can be categorized as:

* love;
* joy;
* peace;
* patience;
* kindness;
* goodness;
* faithfulness;
* gentleness;
* self-control.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Galatians 5:19-26
<strong> The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">However, it's not my place to judge anyone here, but to offer this measuring stick, this litmus test that God gives us to see if the action we are prompted to perform is consistent with God's Holy plan.

Since I believe sexual relations are ordained by God to be between a man and a woman and then within the boundaries of matrimony, I think any other sexual relationship doesn't pass the self-control test of the fruits.

I'm trying to learn to filter all my actions through this filter. Do they pass the test of these 9 characteristics of an action consistent with heeding the Holy Spirit.

I have much work to do in this arena, so it is not appropriate for me to judge anyone else in this area. Instead, I simply offer the test I try to use. (And often fail at using, see verse 26 of the above passage and understand that we are not to become conceited, and that includes being smug in the rightness of our position.)

HTH,

Tony

One of the things that I find most interesting is how closely two things correlate:

Opposition to same sex marriage

and

Christianity

I don't really know what to think about that. But in the debates I've seen here and in the rest of the world, the folks who oppose same sex marriage seem to inevitably have a religious basis at the core of their arguments.

Now, please, don't bash me, here. I'm not judging Christians as a whole. I know many many many Christians who are in favor of same sex marriage.

I just don't know any non-Christians who oppose it.

This may, of course, be a purely cultural thing -- the non-Christians I know are either relatively liberal Jewish folks or former Christians. It may simply be that the people I know.

And it's also particularly interesting that not one person who's met me face-to-face has ever been anything but wholly supportive of my fight for my relationship with my daughter.

Not one of the hundreds of people I've talked to about it at this point. Well, no, I take it back. There was one lawyer I talked to who suggested that I walk away from her because it would be a pain in the butt to deal with custody disputes. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> I didn't call him back.

And people debate back and forth about my relationship with WP (on the grounds that she's "not worthy" of me), but they never question the ethics of the relationship in the first place.

Do I live in THAT liberal a world? I don't think so. Many of my colleagues are very conservative in their viewpoints. And yet, they look at me and they look at my daughter and they support in a way that I have never experienced before.

I guess this goes to the big picture thing MM was talking about. There's our philosophies of the world... and then there's how we deal with the neighbor or colleague or friend. And sometimes those two things clash a bit.

MM, you live in NVA if I remember right. You're always invited (with your wife, of course) to have lunch with me and DD some day. Anyone else in the DC area is just as welcome.

I got a ton of articles and interesting references about marriage and its historical perspectives over the weekend. I don't want to inundate the board with them, but here's one of the most interesting and accessible of the lot.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...perfectunionmarriagehasseenmanymakeovers

Depends on what your definition of a Christian is. To me, a Christian is someone who has accepted Jesus Christ into their life as their personal Lord and Savior. That is Scripture and to be a Christian you must pass the litmus test of the Bible. The Bible is the sole authority of normality and correct living, to me as a Christian. I, as a Christian, have no authority or right to reject certain portions of Scripture that may rub me wrong or not agree with my political or secular leanings. The Scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, it is learned and abhorrent behavior, and those who practice it will face eternal punishment. That is not my opinion based on "homophobia", it is Scripture. I tell someone who has a problem with my stance to not bash me, but have a heart-to-heart talk with God, if they believe He exists, and thrash it out with Him. He, and the Holy Spirit, wrote it. I'm just reading it as written. I know it to be truth and I know that it says "Heaven and earth will pass away but My Words will never pass away". My Christianity is based upon the Biblical Jesus, not the name over my church door, my political persuasion, or my secular learnings.

I would like to expand upon what Promise keeper said here...and to clarify a few things in the last few posts.

First off, when fellow Christians start posting that they are not supposed to judge, I like to gently nudge them back to the Scriptures. You see, even with my fellow Christians, I find many that do not read the Bible cover to cover...many that take one sentence, one paragraph...and then use it for whatever purposes (I am not saying that it is used for BAD purposes everytime...just that it is used out of context or we dont get the complete picture).

Now I will take this "Thous shalt not judge" issue, and go over it...so I can expand it to the bigger argument here concerning God's Word, Christianity...and why it seems that Christians appear inflexible and "unloving" to the outside world.

Now,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now, one more Scripture verse...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> 1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And another translation making the meaning a little more clear...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2 Don't you know that someday we Christians are going to judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide these little things among yourselves? 3 Don't you realize that we Christians will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disagreements here on earth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I could go on and on. Many Christians (and unbelievers), use Matthew 7:1 to say that we shouldn't judge. But they dont read on, because this verse is not the end of the sentence, nor the end of the thought being portrayed. Here is basically what it DOES say...don't judge if you are going to judge someone hypocritically. If you are guilty of adultery, you have no right judging someone else's adultery. If you are guilty of spouse abuse, you have no right to judge someone else who is guilty of the same. It doesnt say for Christians NOT to judge, it says be careful when and how you judge. Why?

Because...if you judge a person hypocritically, then you will have to endure the same judgement. Take the adulteress at the well. They wanted to stone her for adultery (there is even a scene of this in the Passion). Jesus bends down and writes in the sand. What does He write? "Sue...Sally...Amber...Paige...etc" What does that mean? He was writing the names of the women that these men (who were about to judge and stone to death this woman) had gotten into their own affairs with. Jesus was writing the names, and then said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Was He saying that the person with no sin ever in his life should cast the first stone? No. He was saying that the person in that crowd, who had not done that sin (adultery) was free to cast the first stone. The writing in the sand let them know that He KNEW that they were also guilty. And it says "they all left." They knew that if they judged this woman for adultery, and Jesus had already proven with His writings in the sand, that they were guilty of the same offense, then when they were done with her, they would have to be judged the same way. They would have to jump in the quarry and be stoned themselves. So, they all left.

The Bible does not teach the Christian not to judge. It just admonishes the Christian to be careful when he/she judges, because that judgement can and will be brought upon them if they are guilty of that offense also.

Now, let me take this little deal I have spelled out here and go to the bigger picture of what we are discussing.

People have problems with Christians because they seem so inflexible. They believe there is only one way to Heaven, thru Jesus Christ. That all others will perish in Hell. And are inflexible on so many issues. Why?

Because the God they serve says so. For a Christian to say "I believe Jesus died for me, but I also believe there are other ways to Heaven" COMPLETELY negates what He did on that Cross. To say that Man suffered and died, when there was another way, is the ULTIMATE slap in Jesus' face.

On the issue of sin, homosexual marriages, etc. Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Because of that, if God says something is a sin, then it is a sin. Believe me, in my flesh, if I were in charge, I might white out a few passages in there so I could get away with a few things myself. But I do not have that luxury.

Christians are inflexible because they follow the narrow road, not necessarily the popular road. God says that He NEVER changes. He is as He has always been. SAnd when He says "Thous shalt not commit adultery," He means it!!

Do I have all the answers on why God has said homosexuality is a sin? No. But guess what? First off, He created everything...so He gets to make the rules! But beyond that, Chrisitans believe that God is a God of love. That His rules, the Bible...are a love letter to us, keeping us from harm...and showing us the way to Him and His love. So, when He says something is a sin, He means that it is harmful to you, to others and/or your relationship with Him.

Many Christians question parts of the Bible. They'll say that they believe in Jesus, but dont believe in the homosexuality ban, or adultery, or whatever. But, if that book is not taken in its entirety, then none of it can be said to be safe. It is either truth from cover-to-cover, of it is just a bunch of writings from a bunch of different authors. I could go into here the FACTS of why the Bible is the unerring Word of God, inspried by Him...but that is probably another discussion.

Many think God is a killjoy. That He makes these rules so we cant have what we want, what would make us feel good, etc. Well, that may be true initially. But what is He really keeping you from? Think about it. What are the ul;timate damages of sin. Well, the Bible says DEATH! Not only physical death, but also spiritual death.

Unbelievers (and even some believers) continue to have problems with the followers of Christ because of their inflexibility. But as a follower of Christ, I have been told thru His word, and thru the Holy Spirit, that there is ultimate truth. And if God says something is right, or something is wrong, no matter how we may try, we cannot change that truth. In the end, the consequences of ignoring truth is disasterous. And this is why Christians appear inflexible. Not because they are unloving, uncaring, or prejudiced. Precisely the opposite.

I want to see my friend Just J come to Christ, to repent and turn away from her sins...why? Because I am a killjoy and am mean and I dotn care? No. It is because I care, and because I know that any other path than that whic is laid down by God, only leads to destruction.

My fellow Christians need to stop trying to water down the Word in order to be popular, or appear non-threatening. The Word of God is threatening to those that dont believe. That is why Jesus was killed. Jesus is NOT a moderate!!! He makes you decide which side you are on...His side, or your own.

And as a Christian, if Jesus has taken sides and laid out a path, I really have no choice but to follow.

In His arms.

<small>[ March 01, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Mortarman ]</small>

Mortarman - Very well put and annointed by the Holy Spirit. I want to share with you all an example taken from personal experience. I coordinated a prison ministry at a major military base for 8 years. One of the men who attended this service was an avowed homosexual. Even the Christians was wary of him because he was one of the blatant, "in your face" variety. When he first attended he was shy, withdrawn, with no joy and no hope. His eyes were lifeless. He had bought into the secular theory of "diversity is to be tolerated under all circumstances" platform. If he had conducted himself in the outside world the way he did in the military his actions would have been applauded and encouraged. He would have been the poster child for NAMBLA or any "alliance" promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

Anyway, he came every week and gradually opened up. He didn't undertstand why he was incarcerated along with murderers, thieves, adulterers (yes, adultery is still frowned upon in the military), and the like. He didn't see his abnormal conduct as detrimental - he didn't like the military policy on homosexuality - he felt he was innocent of any wrongdoing - he was a professional "victim" in a system that wouldn't validate his victimology.

He, for the first time in his life, heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ presented in a loving, but firm and uncompromising, way. As the weeks passed he would sit and cry as we worshipped and the Word was brought forth. One night "Bob" went forward at the altar call, surrendered his life to Jesus, and was saved. A few weeks later he was Baptised in the Holy Spirit and a few weeks after that we baptised him in water.

"Bob" went on to totally repent of his homosexuality and seek a normal, painfree way of life. He was eventually released, GOT MARRIED, went to seminary, and is now an ordained minister. He and his W have lovely children.

No, this was not a political post. Yes, it clearly shows the grace and mercy of Jesus. If God had created "Bob" as a homosexual, why the need for change? If "Bob" was already a normal, well-adjusted man, why the need to repent of a lifestyle that God approved of? The reason - over time, "Bob" was exposed to the literal, lifechanging truth of the Gospel. He CHOSE to apply the Scriptures to his life, to his area of need, to his goals - dreams - vision. The Bible showed him the way to the Cross. The Cross showed him the way to Jesus. Jesus showed him the way to God.

Hi J,
I have only skimmed this thread, but it seems to be a very interesting discussion.
(but perhaps not what you intended when you started it.)

It looks like - from the little I have read, that we are only seeing the "tip of the iceberg" as far as getting peoples opinions on this subject matter. If you want to know the truth, I just plain like you - and I know you seek the truth. I think your search for truth is not a casual flippant thing, (not like - "see, I told you I was right,") but I believe you really want to know.

I believe knowing the truth about religion is perhaps even more important than knowing the truth about the law of gravity, and there are similarities. We can say we don't believe in the law of gravity, but if we happen to find our selves out in the air somewhere with nothing under us for a few hundred feet, and no means of support, it could really affect our quality of life regardless of our belief.

I am one that feels that God gives us "commandments" or rules (or whatever you want to call them) not to restrict our freedom, but to increase our happiness. I don't believe he makes up the rules, but that he knows the eternal laws, (such as the law of gravity) and teaches all who will accept those teachings so that they may be happy - here, and in the future. I believe in the immortality of the soul, and that things we do here affect our quality of life for - for eternity.

In short, I believe that God knows what will make us the happiest, and that if we do what he recommends we will be more happy IN THE LONG RUN. I think sometimes in the short term, it can make us uncomfortable - Much as an exercise program produces some pain, and some discomfort, but is good for our long term health. I could go into detail about that part, but I think you understand the concept so I will just go on.

I wish sometime I could meet you and talk, because I value you as a person, and because you are an intelligent and interesting one too. I think that once there was a time when felt you had all the answers, and had little tolerance for others point of view. Once what ever you took it into your heart to do, that was fine and you thought little about what effect it had on others.

Now you have a better understanding - and you care about others and their feelings. You also seem to want to know the truth even if it changes your life - and long held beliefs.

What I am giving you now, is what I believe. From what I know about you, ( and admittedly there is much I do not know,) I think it will help you in your search.

I will use some scripture, because it will be faster than trying to do this with my own words. I think I understand (in a small way) your feelings (about accepting some of the quotations you have been given) as truth, but I will use quotes to illustrate concepts and give background to my ideas, not to try and prove something to you.

Let me begin with this - from Genesis , the first book in the bible.
2:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Think about this one for a little bit. I think something - perhaps an idea - will come to you.

So God created man and women IN HIS IMAGE and then he married them and told them to have children.

This is his plan of happiness - this is where we find joy in this life and the world to come.
I believe you have had a daughter long enough to know that this is true. We do all kinds of other things - we have jobs, we play, we travel, but this is the center of our happiness. Our marriage, and our children.

There are two parts to us. The body, created from the "dust of the earth" and our spirit that comes from God. The spirit is innocent when it arrives, and you have seen this in your daughter. Wordsworth wrote a poem that describes my feelings about this -

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting,
The soul that rises with us - our life's star
Has had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar.
Not in entire forgetfulness
And not in utter nakedness
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God who is our home.

Does this describe your daughter? Did she come trailing clouds of glory?
Does she already have some traits that you can't explain?

The body is of this earth, and it gets hungry, thirsty, and it has cravings. One of the reasons for our being here is to learn to have our spirit control our body, not the other way around. We learn to walk, to talk, and later we learn to do other things that are an advantage to us. We learn to get up on time (at least most of us do.) We learn that we can't eat anything we want without consequences - and that we are better off not eating everything our body tells us it wants. We learn control. Some people are better at this than others. I will never win a marathon - but those that do have a great deal of control - spirit over body.

We have other things that we "desire" and we learn that some of them are helpful, and if used correctly can bring good, and if used incorrectly can bring great pain. Our sexual desires are one of these. Adultery can bring such pain - but used correctly these same feelings can bring such beauty into our lives.
I said I believe God only teaches eternal laws - I do not believe he creates these laws. In the garden, in a perfect world, he created man, and women, and he married them. He created a place of safety for them, and for the children that would come to them. He bound them together in love and more - with rule of law. This further protection perhaps was not needed in a perfect world, but he (God) knew they would soon be "in the world", and also knew what the future would bring.

The man and the women had been given the power to share in the creation of children. They create the body that houses the spirit God sends. It is not an accident that it takes both man, and woman, and it is not an artificial thing that God specified it (the creative power) only be used within the bonds of marriage. The desires that come with this power are very strong. Sexual desires are fleeting in animals, but in us they are more or less constant. If no one ever used these powers outside of the bonds of marriage - think of the problems that would be solved, and the sadness and pain that would be averted. Because these desires are so strong, and so constant, there is a great danger of misuse. The results of misuse are easy to see by anyone that has spent time on the MB forums.

Is there any better example of these rules or commandments being given to us for us for our happiness?

It is a protection for both the man and the woman, and also the children. If you have studied men and women much, you know there are differences. These differences - brought together in marriage normally give the children the best chance at their own happiness. God knows - and he teaches us what he knows that we may be happy.

In this world there are many cases of divorce, abuse - and more............war - murder...........

If everyone followed Gods plan, there would be none of these things. The plan is there - but we are given free will, and we get to choose. Because we forget most of our prior life, there is a way given to us to know. In fact, there is more than one way, but one of the best is prayer.

I don't doubt that you had joy in your relationship. There is joy, and there is Fullness of Joy.
God would know about that for you. He would know about that for your daughter.

Once I asked you what perhaps many would consider an odd question, but consider - what can we take with us when we leave this life?

We can take our relationships with others....................

SS

<small>[ March 01, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: still seeking ]</small>

Mortarman, HPK, Still Seeking, I cannot pretend that I agree with your words. I don't. But I respect and honor your willingness and right to say them. With one exception.

HPK, please don't confuse NAMBLA with gays and lesbians; it's about like confusing the Klu Klux Klan with Southern Baptists

I'm offended, and I ask you to make amends. I would appreciate an apology, but I’d like it after you take the time to learn about the average people that most gays and lesbians are.

I'm certain that there is a chapter of PFLAG or the HRC nearby. Please go and listen and meet the people you’re judging. If you’re in the DC area, I can find you a group to attend and will even go with you. You may not like what you hear… but you won’t hear criminals who molest children.

I'm a mom, HPK, and lumping me in with NAMBLA is really, really, REALLY not okay.


Now, gentlemen, I would ask of you questions. You say (one of you said) that non-Christians burn, and that what’s required is to take Christ as my personal Savior. So tell me.

Let's say that I DID sincerely accept Christ in all His glory.

Now let's go back to my life.

I have a daughter
with another parent
who is also a woman
And I swore solemn vows
and promises
To love her
To care for her
To nurture her
for the rest of my life
And I believe our daughter
Needs both her parents
So what, praytell, would God say to do?


Still Seeking, the whole “it takes a man and a woman to make a child” bit? I know you have a half-dozen kids and in your worldview I’m sure that it’s self-evident. Not so in my world. When I was 15, my ovaries began to work in the way that they’re designed to work… and they were immediately attacked by my immune system. They shut down entirely, and I went from childhood to old age, from pre-pubescence to menopause in the space of a few months. I have ovulated perhaps half a dozen times in my life. It’s a condition called Premature Ovarian Failure (POF) and it afflicts 1 in 100 women sometime in their lifetimes. There is no cure or treatment. See www.pofsupport.org for more details.

And yet, through the wonders of modern technology, it’s likely that I could bear a child through a donor egg procedure. Not my own DNA at the core, but it turns out that mother/baby DNA and RNA are a lot more complicated than anyone thought a few years ago, and all that other stuff (9 months of broccoli and peanut butter sandwiches, as one person I know put it) turns into a bouncing baby with a lot of DNA and RNA from the person whose womb the egg grows in.

And then there’s the dad’s DNA. A single little sperm swimming in a sea of female stuff. Critical to get the whole process started, and yet, it turns out, less than 50% of the whole. No wonder you guys are sensitive about it sometimes. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

So my partner bore our daughter, not because I didn’t want to, but because I’m simply not able to. And that would be true no matter who I’m with. And that bit of male DNA, well, a man I’ve known and loved for more than half my life gave it to us – a gift of unsurpassed generosity, in my view. I am honored to be one of the moms of a child who carries some of his genetics.

So why am I telling all of you this? It goes back to the one-man one-woman theory. It’s a complete oversimplification in this day and age.

Now y’all are just going to tell me that we’re messing with nature and we have to STOP RIGHT NOW. Err, well, but isn’t this all about modifying our natural urges to make sure that we’re doing things in the ways that God wants us to?

How do we know God doesn’t want us to do genetic engineering and figure out all the cool things that She’s left lying around for us? I mean, well, there’s nothing in the Bible about genetic engineering, but then there’s nothing in there about the earth revolving around the sun either and look at all the trouble Galileo got into for that one.

A related item for subdb: Since you’ve not provided the scientific references to support your claims, I’ll point you to http://www.arts.yorku.ca/soci/ambert/writings/pdf/ADOPTION.pdf, which has a quite extensive portrayal of adoption and appears to indicate that your claims are false. See in particular pages 11 and forward for a discussion of adoptive versus biological children. Summary: There is disagreement about whether there are any differences at all, and if there are, they are very small. It then goes into a long dissertation about why those differences arise, most of which have to do with the environment the child was in prior to being adopted, but also occasionally have to do with the environment post-adoption. But the important thing is that MOST adopted kids are just kids and MOST adoptive parents are just parents. Not your blanket statement to the contrary. Oh, and it also points out that between 5% and 10% of children (other studies quote as high as 20% to 25%) of children being raised as “biological” children are not any such thing… at least where their fathers are concerned.


Mortarman, if all the Christians die out as our society evolves, will that just mean that all the people who could have been saved have been? (Okay, I’m teasing you … a little.)

HPK, completely off-topic, but were you at Leavenworth? I did a long-term study of some of the garrison employees there. Good people in Leavenworth. In the community and at the base, and yes, in the DB too. I loved staying in Gen. Custer’s house. Great breakfasts.