Home - List All Discussions

CA Supreme Court opens the floodgates

Polygamy, other group marriages, incest next

by: GodsLaw4Us2Live

In a 160 page decision the California Supreme Court threw out a 2000 law passed 61% to 39% by the voters of California. I believe the judges said it was not their intention to overstep their authority and they spent considerable time discussing how they were not overstepping their authority; despite the obvious fact that they did go into the area of making public policy and law rather than interpreting laws. In the decision the CA court said it was necessary to rule on giving gay marriage full and equal treatment with traditional marriage because it was not accepted by the masses. In another section of the decision the judges said one need not fear that polygamy and incest receive similiar treatment because it is well known that those are not accepted by the masses. Huh???? Wasn't that the very reasoning for the judges acting on gay marriage?
Soon, many will be clamoring to have their family arrangement recognized as a valid marriage contract; whether it be polygamy, or group marriages or incestuous unions. The CA decision never mentioned God and rarely mentioned children. The family is the building block of society. But, without references to God and children, the response to marriage of two men and three women, or an aunt and nephew will be, "Why not! Can you find any reason to oppress those groups and not give them their human rights? Of course you can not come up with any substantial objection they'll say. It's just hated like gay marriage and we must move beyond such restrictive limitations. Heck, there is nothing wrong with having sex with an animal either." (Peter Singer argued that you could be infringing on the non-consenting animals rights and using force is abuse against the animal. Under this reasoning, there is nothing wrong for an animal to have sex with a consenting human being if the animal initiates the sex.) Of course polygamy, group marriages, incest, etc will be accepted. Heck, the age of consent will be lowered and sexual relations with children will be next. Some psychcologists say it is healthy and beneficial to the child. Why, you got birth control, abortion and drugs for STDs; those should clear up any objections.
We are entering the age of letting human beings do whatever they want. Bring down restrictive barriers. This will also include such restrictive barriers as have been imposed on abortion in the past. The UN calls abortion a "human right". Men like Obama want it to be a guaranteed human right codified in his first legislative attempt (s).

reply from: sander

Yes, I heard about this...*sigh*
I'm heart broken that my grandchildren will not know the America I grew up in. No moral boundries, no rational thinking.
God help us.

reply from: galen

Sorry guys i don't have any problem with the civility of gay marrige... i do not think its going to lead to all this other. I do believe that every religion has the right to choose wether or not to condone it, but purely from a legal perspective a gay couple has the right to have insurance, kids, a home, and dispose of property upon death and a miriad of other legal priveliges that marrige entails. in the legal sense.

reply from: sander

But, that's what they said about abortion rights, in the beginning. It was only to be leagl in the first tri-mester. Now it's thru all nine months and babies born alive are left to die alone. Which opened the door to euthanasia.
There is such a thing as a slippery slope.

reply from: galen

i don't see gay couples doing what many stereotypes say they do.. ie pedophilia etc... as long as they operate in the bounds of the law they should be able to be happy. This slippery slope you speak of has already happened with hetero couples... and the devaluationwas already there and the homosexual couples had nothing to do with it.
The couples i know that have children have happy well adjusted kids who want for nothing.. i would gladly give each couple 100 more childen if i thought they could manage it. The prevailing myth that gay couples warp kids minds is just not true. Kids minds are warped by TV, absent parents, movies, abusive parents, molestation at the hands of a friend or relative ( almost NEVER a homosexual) and what they learn from peers at school. g
Giving legal rights to couples who want to have a committed relationship is not wrong. what IS wrong is the throwaway attitude that our society has about commitment. This attitude originated with heterosexual couples.

reply from: galen

i do not see ANY correlation between abortion and gay marrige.

reply from: Teresa18

Mary, we can't support gay marriage as Catholics.
Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. God instituted it for one man and one woman to join together, become one flesh, and bring new children into the world. All people of age are permitted to get married to one person of the opposite sex. Marriage has preceded the state. It exists as a building block for the state. The state is built on the family. God is clear that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral and is not his plan for creation. He did not create man and man or woman and woman to biologically join together, become one flesh, and bring new life into the world. The way they attempt to have sex is a perversion of the real thing. It is wrong to put children in an immoral situation. It stunts their spiritual growth and understanding of right and wrong. Obviously if they have their own children via heterosexual relationships, there is nothing we can do, but we don't have to adopt children into that situation. This lifestyle is immoral, and it shows by the vulgar parades, high level of promiscuity, disease, and behavior in places like bathrooms and parks. Make no mistake, they don't just want "tolerance". They want their lifestyles accepted and embraced.
The state legalizing same sex "marriage" has legitamized homosexual relationships as a perfectly moral, healthy, normal alternative to heterosexual relationships. The state is redefining marriage or the building block of our once Judeo-Christian society. They've redefined it once, who says they can't redefine it again to include polygamists, polymorists, and group marriage? It seems far fetched now, but the Netherlands, which long ago allowed homosexual marriage, allowed a trio of three to get married. This is a slipperly, immoral slope we are on.

reply from: galen

sorry threresa.. in secular life this is not my experience.
i don't say that the Church should accept gay marrige.... i do say that they deserve the rights and privelges under the law that every other couple does.
My feelings on a theological level are diffrent. if your religion ( like ours) says no to the practice fine... but we live in a country where we have freedom of religion. That freedon extends to those who have a diffrent religion than ours. Given that statement we have no right to say what consitutes a marrige based soley on the word of God. Not secularly...
The vast majority of gay couples do not have the lifestyle that you describe. The vast majority of couples are quiet and live out thier lives in a way that is loving and quiet. You probably know people who are gay and do not even realise that is thier orientation.
BTW i have yet to see a gay parent being brought up on child abuse charges...
Also most gay couples with children do a lot more to have healthy well adjusted children who have a good understanding of BOTH sexes than do most heterosexual couples.
I find nothing immoral in a loving couple raising healthy well adjusted kids.. no matter what thier orientation.
The reason that we hear so much about gay people being immoral is that the media sensationalizes the few bad acts that are brought to thier attention.

reply from: galen

here is a good article...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1005-34.htm

reply from: Teresa18

It's true. See this. It is thoroughly sourced - 129 sources.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Another:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

They aren't every other couple, though. They aren't a heterosexual couple. They are a homosexual couple, and their lifestyle is immoral. There is no right to marriage. Marriage is not a Constitutional right. It is a God-given institution for one man and one woman. Why not give these "privelages" to a couple practicing incest, polygamists, polygmorists, a group?
This country was founded under one God on Judeo-Christian moraltiy. As we have diverted from this, we have seen more problems in society. Why say it is ok to legitamize a lifestyle that goes against the God and morality this nation was founded under? Secular Humanism has a main tenet of moral relativism. Moral relativism dictates that morality varies from person to person, and no morality is greater than the other. Of course, this is ridiculous. This belief is what has lead to the legalization of abortion. In moral relativism, the morality of one who has an abortion is different than that of one who does not have an abortion. Each have a different morality, but neither morality is greater than the other. Absolute morality dictates that there is one morality whether people choose to believe in it or not. Going back to abortion, it is immoral whether people choose to believe it is or not. Just because people may believe that homosexual relationships are moral, does not make them moral. Nor does society have to recognize these relationships as such.

reply from: sander

Absolutley well said!
Irrespective of a belief in God there are fundamental truths that will either bring harm or good to a society.
Again, it's the, "if it feels good do it" and the "it doesn't hurt me, so why should I say anything" mentality that has led to society calling good what God calls an abomination. Both abortion and the homosexual lifestyle will leave people seperated from God and His salvation.
We have a moral obligation to call sin sin and speak the truth in love.
Putting the seal of approval on anything that is harmful to the individual or society as a whole will only lead to further deteration of society and widen the seperation between God and man.
It should not be so.
We will have to answer one day to a just and Holy God.

reply from: Faramir

What do we do about contraception then? Many of us see it as evil and playing a big part in our abortion culture. Do we outlaw all forms of contraception too?

reply from: Teresa18

Are you implying that just because contraception is legal, gay marriage should be legal too? I guess I don't understand where you are going with this.

reply from: Faramir

Are you implying that just because contraception is legal, gay marriage should be legal too? I guess I don't understand where you are going with this.
No, I wasn't implyinig that. I agree with what you posted.
But I am wondering at what point we stop. Even Aquinas acknowledged that not all morality can be legislated.
So on the one hand it would seem that even if I see contraception to be immoral, I should not impose that morality on others by law, but on the other hand, it plays a huge role in our abortion culture.
What's your opinion about it?

reply from: Teresa18

Contraception is immoral. I would prefer that it be illegal. It's one of the ways that we have rejected Judeo-Christian morality. Unfortunately, Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches believe contraception is moral. The Catholic Church stands alone with it's teachings on contraception. For the most part, the Catholic Church and conservative Protestants stand together on moral truths despite theological differences. This is one area of disagreement. Too many people accept contraception for it to be made illegal. It's too far seeped into our culture. The Catholic Church and conservative Protestants stand together and agree that homosexual relationships are immoral, so we still have a chance to stick to some of the Judeo-Christian morality this country was founded on. Without it completely, society crumbles. Nothing really needs to be legislated. You can't stop what people do in their bedrooms, but you certainly don't have to legitamize it and give it the title of marriage. You can discourage against it as being unnatural, unhealthy, immoral behavior.

reply from: cracrat

And why the hell shouldn't they? Gay people are just as much people as you and me. Whilst your Church may tell you their lifestyle is wrong, not everybody even belives in your God let alone follows his teachings so closely as you. It is vanity to insist that everybody behave according to a set of rules you ascribe to, but are entirely optional under your constitution. This really is a case of it's not causing me or mine any harm, let them be.

reply from: cracrat

I seem to recall a bunch of goose-stepping chaps from history saying similar things about a bunch of circumcised chaps. Pick a group, blame them for everything going wrong in society at large.
"And the most important of these will be love."

reply from: yoda

ONLY if a state legislature awards them such rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right, it is a privilege conferred by law, to whomever the legislature pleases.

reply from: sander

ONLY if a state legislature awards them such rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right, it is a privilege conferred by law, to whomever the legislature pleases.
And the legislatures are our representitves, not the courts.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

ONLY if a state legislature awards them such rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right, it is a privilege conferred by law, to whomever the legislature pleases.
And the legislatures are our representitves, not the courts.
We no longer have a representative body that makes laws for the people, by the people. A minority of unelected judges has taken it upon themselves to overturn the will of the people and decide important policy and make laws themselves (witness abortion and gay marriage). Our government may be suffering a serious constitutional breakdown. The people's will and the original constitutions no longer seem of value. Liberal judges who think highly of their own thinking are making the rules; forget the people, legislature and original constitution; we will argue that we see something in the constitution that the people and legislature overlooked. We imagine protections for killing unborn children and men digging around in each other's feces.

reply from: galen

ONLY if a state legislature awards them such rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right, it is a privilege conferred by law, to whomever the legislature pleases.
--------------------------------
under the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
it was not so long ago that a mixed race couple had a hard time being married. So again in the secular sense i have no problem with gay marrige.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

ONLY if a state legislature awards them such rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right, it is a privilege conferred by law, to whomever the legislature pleases.
--------------------------------
under the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
it was not so long ago that a mixed race couple had a hard time being married. So again in the secular sense i have no problem with gay marrige.
Many of the women folk, Ash Marie & yourself for example, find relationships based on sodomy okay. I wonder if you ever considered the actual physical acts that they do; which I find most disgusting. The anus and lower intestine are very important.
Under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been found the rights to abortion and sodomy.
You claim to be Christian. Christ means King, Ruler or Messiah. Jesus is the head ruler who authored the Bible. He thundered out the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. No one has ever heard or seen the Father at any time, but the Son has declared Him. The nation of Israel followed the Lord God (Jesus) out of slavery just as the King today leads us out of entanglement/slavery to sin. The Christ has clearly given us His Father's decrees, those that commit sodomy are worthy of death. You have no intention of following Christ, He is the Way to the Father. Why do you call yourself Christian (one subject to the Messiah) if you have no intention of following Christ?
Jude 5 "Now I will put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, that the Lord (Jesus in ESV), having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe."
Like Lot's wife, are you turning back to the ways of the world. Like those called out to be saints (one who obeys God's commands) in the Exodus, are you turning back to entanglement and slavery to sinful passions such as same sex (not that you yourself would engage in such, but you approve of such activities by others). Same sex activities is against the Law, Christ has said so. Are you his disciple (student) or not. You seem to be a student of the world's ways.

reply from: galen

Frued would have something to say about you obsessin with the anus and lower intestine... and your preocupation with its use.. BTW what goes on in my bedroom with my husband is none of your buisness..
But enlighten me... i can't seem to find anything that JESUS said about homosexuality... can you help me ther ... he seems remarkably silent on the matter.
Paul went on about beasteality... and sodomy... but not homosexuality.
BTW what about lesbians... they don't commit your brand of sodomy.

reply from: galen

Scriptures Traditionally Used (Misused)
to Condemn Homosexuality
Old Testament Scriptures (written in Hebrew)
The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.
All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.
Old Testament Sodom Scripture References: Pre-destruction: Genesis 10, 13 & 14. Judgment and destruction: Genesis 18, 19:1-29. Post-destruction: Deut. 29:18-26 and 32:3-32, Isa. 1:1-9 and 3:8-9, Jer. 23:11-17, Ezek 16:44-52, Amos 4:11, and Zeph. 2:8-11.
New Testament Sodom Scripture References: Mt. 10:11-15 and 11:23-24, Luke 10:8-12 and 17:28-29, 2 Peter 2:1-10 and Jude 6-8.
The Holiness Code: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 The book of Leviticus was a priestly attempt to establish and maintain Jewish identity, purity and "holiness". The Jews viewed holiness as the preservation of wholeness or completeness.
For the Jews, Holiness was:
A whole physical body
Social order with no confusion between what is and what seems to be
Unmixed classes and categories of creation
The Jews believed that human life was in the semen. This resulted in many "sperm related" laws. This probably explains why sexual activity between women was not considered important enough to address in Leviticus or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.
It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.
One must consider the spiritual truths presented in Leviticus and recognize the cultural teachings which no longer apply. The New Testament teaches that as Christians, we are no longer "under the Law;" rather we are "under Grace." Jesus taught that love for God and other people is the fulfillment of the law. (Mark 12:30-31, and Romans 13:10)
Scriptures Traditionally Used (Misused)
to Condemn Homosexuality
New Testament Scriptures (written in Greek)
The Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
It's important to note that the Gospels, which record the life and words of Jesus, make NO mention of same sex activity. Jesus is silent on the issue!
Letters from the Apostle Paul Romans 1:26-27
If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.
Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.
Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.
The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.
First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.
Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)
Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.
The first translation of the New Testament from Greek to another language was the Latin Vulgate. The "Latin Vulgate" translates "arsenokoitai" as "male concubines" or extramarital male sex partners.
It was not until many years later that a Roman Catholic Pope first assigned "malakos" and "arsenokoitai" a homosexual connotation. However, the Pope did not include "arsenokoitai" in I Timothy 1:10. Thus, I Timothy is sometimes translated without a homosexual connotation.
I Timothy 1:8-10
Paul lists types of people who need to hear the law. His list includes "arsenokoitai." Again, it is significant that Paul did not use the Greek word "arrenokoites" which would have easily been understood to condemn all adult male same sex partners, had that been his intent. Evidently, it was not his intent!.
from crossroads community Church in TX

reply from: galen

here also is a link ( not catholic) that may enlighten you.
http://www.whosoever.org/v8i3/louise.shtml

reply from: galen

what nothing left to say Godslaws...?

reply from: yoda

Actually, I think you are quoting the DOI, not the constitution. And the DOI has no legal standing in our laws.
Besides, if we had a law that allowed EVERYONE to "pursue happiness" in WHATEVER way they chose to, what kind of society would we have?

reply from: galen

one without abortion, because the kids would have those rights too..
but yeah i was quoting the DOI. If its good enough a sentiment to break from England with....

reply from: cracrat

Britain actually, you uppity colonials got your big ideas long after the Act of Union...

reply from: yoda

I wish... in such a society, it would be the "Rule of the Jungle"... those with the power would kill those without.
It's a lovely sentiment, yes...... but it has no legal standing. And that's probably a good thing, in some ways...... there are dissident groups in this country who use the DOI as a blueprint for armed rebellion against the US government.

reply from: cracrat

I was once told by an American historian that that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. In Britain, at the time, the only people who could be armed as a matter of course were the upper classes and aristocracy. This made it very hard for the lower classes to rise up against an unjust government. The founding fathers felt that if all citizens could bear arms, it would act as the ultimate check against governmental abuse of power.

reply from: joe

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

reply from: Faramir

Jesus has told us MUCH about homosexuality being a disordered behavior.
Remember, he speaks through his infallible Church.
Look at your Catechism.
Or do you deny that the Church speaks for Christ?

reply from: galen

Britain actually, you uppity colonials got your big ideas long after the Act of Union...
--------------------------
yeah i did that just to annoy you a bit.

reply from: galen

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.

reply from: Faramir

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
Jesus didn't speak about contraception or abortion, either.
Yet through your Church, given authority by Jesus, you know they are both immoral, and your Church also says that the practice of homosexuality is immoral.

reply from: galen

Jesus has told us MUCH about homosexuality being a disordered behavior.
Remember, he speaks through his infallible Church.
Look at your Catechism.
Or do you deny that the Church speaks for Christ?
-------------------------
nope i do deny that the Church speaks for our government... go back and read my previous posts... i have been speaking in secular terms... i do not think the government should or could force a religious group to marry a gay couple.. but merely for the purposes of a secular lifestyle or a buhdist one or a presbyterian one etc.. WE can not dictate the laws of the land either.
for the purpose of a legal contract.. why not... for the purpose of sacrament of marrige in the church.. that is for the church to decide.

reply from: JesusLovesYou

gay marriage bother me, but I while baby killing is still legal I think we should worry about that first.

reply from: galen

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
Jesus didn't speak about contraception or abortion, either.
Yet through your Church, given authority by Jesus, you know they are both immoral, and your Church also says that the practice of homosexuality is immoral.
Jesus... and abortion... falls under the 10 commandments.
CVontraception... nope JESUS did not speak on this... but he did speak about kids, so there is some teaching on it.
The Church has had ministrey to homosexuals for many years... not that they are immoral etc... you should attend sometimes. it might enlighten you.
The fact is is that the rules on homosexuality were written by the Roman Church not God. therefore there is always room for discussion..
God gave us all a brain faramir... i'm sure he intended us to use it and not follow along blindly. If so he would have made us like fish in a school and not given us free will.

reply from: Faramir

Galen,
If you are speaking in secular terms, why are you trying to justify the postion by the bible or by Jesus' apparent silence about homosexuality?

reply from: Faramir

Are you a "cafeteria catholic"?

reply from: galen

because i was having an debate with Godslaw and HE only uses religious argument... to him there is no other... so that was for HIS benefit.. not yours.
However i also believe in using all available written text in any argument that is secualr as long as you stick to the relm of the secular..
notice i never tell anyone thy will go to hell even if i firmly believe it.
I am quite sure I will not know the mind of God before i am dead.

reply from: galen

-----------------------------
i agree love by anyone is outdone in evil by murder of innocents any day of the year.

reply from: joe

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
JOINED TO HIS WIFE
(I decided to post this again you seem to be having vision problems.)

reply from: galen

Are you a "cafeteria catholic"?
--------------------
are you.. cafeteria catholics pick and choose the doctrine wich they abide by... i abide the doctrine but discuss things i am not clear on, don't understand, or disagree with. They taught me how to do so in theology class in Catholic School. the church does not want blind faith but faith with understanding of why a thing is so.
So said all the sisters.

reply from: galen

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
JOINED TO HIS WIFE
(I decided to post this again you seem to be having vision problems.)
--------------------
my eyes are fine... did you forget to go read?

reply from: joe

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
JOINED TO HIS WIFE
(I decided to post this again you seem to be having vision problems.)
--------------------
my eyes are fine... did you forget to go read?
Maybe you should take your own advice...it is clear that marriage is between a man and woman according to this teaching. A homosexual marriage therefore is not recognized by God which would then constitute at the very least the sin of fornication.
Now if you want to me to find you our Lords teaching about fornication because of vision issues I will.

reply from: galen

Joe if your not even going to try and understand my position then well i won't even try to understand yours.....

reply from: galen

here is that chapter you want to quote.. in entirety .. you see when you take it out of contex he is speaking about something very diffrent.
Matthew 19 King James VersionKing James Version w/ ApocryphaNew American Standard BibleNew International Version << Book < Chapter Chapter > Book >>
1.And it came to pass , that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2.And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3.The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4.And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read , that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5.And said , For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6.Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder .
7.They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ?
8.He saith unto them , Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9.And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery .
10.His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry .
11.But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given .
12.For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
13.Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and the disciples rebuked them.

reply from: 4given

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
For most people, reading the Bible does no good. Jesus, The Word (author) of the whole Bible, did not speak without using a parable. He immediately starts with parables right from the beginning in Genesis. He explained to his disciples (students) that he spoke in parables so that people would not understand him. Men are doing their own work now, that is God's decree. Only those called to be rulers and teachers in the coming Government of God are blessed with eyes that see and ears that hear. I believe Jesus was talking about you, Galen, when he referred to people that although they have eyes and ears, they do not really see and hear, for they do not perceive and understand. Their hearing is dull and their eyes are barely perceptive.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ says God gave his message to Jesus, who gave it to angels to transmit to men of high character (Holy, perfect).
Do you think that in the line of authority and transmission (God to Jesus to Angel to Holy Men), that Jesus somehow did not carry out His Father's Will? Will you say that God is a bad asx but Jesus is a sweet lumpkins?
Look, everything in the Bible is there because Jesus gave it to angels to give to Holy men to record. None of the words in the Bible got there without going through Jesus. I believe Jesus made a special exception and actually spoke face to face with Moses at times rather than sending an angel as an intermediary. Jesus is the Word because the Bible is the Word, his revelation intended for the saints; but gibberish to the disobedient and uncalled such as yourself. Jesus directly told Moses in the Books of Moses that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman. Jesus gave us the prohibition against homosexuality in accordance with His Father's Will. This command of Christ is recorded way back in Leviticus.
No, Christ's Words are not limited to the red letters found only in the New Testament.

reply from: Faramir

What doctrine do you disagree with?
A Catholic accepts it ALL.
There is nothing wrong with questioning or trying to understand it, but the bottom line is that you cannot reject it, and you cannot wait to accept it until you understand it.
That is not "blind" faith.
If you think the Church could teach error, then you do not understand your faith.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
For most people, reading the Bible does no good. Jesus, The Word (author) of the whole Bible, did not speak without using a parable. He immediately starts with parables right from the beginning in Genesis. He explained to his disciples (students) that he spoke in parables so that people would not understand him. Men are doing their own work now, that is God's decree. Only those called to be rulers and teachers in the coming Government of God are blessed with eyes that see and ears that hear. I believe Jesus was talking about you, Galen, when he referred to people that although they have eyes and ears, they do not really see and hear, for they do not perceive and understand. Their hearing is dull and their eyes are barely perceptive.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ says God gave his message to Jesus, who gave it to angels to transmit to men of high character (Holy, perfect).
Do you think that in the line of authority and transmission (God to Jesus to Angel to Holy Men), that Jesus somehow did not carry out His Father's Will? Will you say that God is a bad asx but Jesus is a sweet lumpkins?
Look, everything in the Bible is there because Jesus gave it to angels to give to Holy men to record. None of the words in the Bible got there without going through Jesus. I believe Jesus made a special exception and actually spoke face to face with Moses at times rather than sending an angel as an intermediary. Jesus is the Word because the Bible is the Word, his revelation intended for the saints; but gibberish to the disobedient and uncalled such as yourself. Jesus directly told Moses in the Books of Moses that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman. Jesus gave us the prohibition against homosexuality in accordance with His Father's Will. This command of Christ is recorded way back in Leviticus.
No, Christ's Words are not limited to the red letters found only in the New Testament.
You should read 4Given post. also, I noticed you said someone else's vision is bad. My post above points out that you have eyes that don't see.

reply from: galen

the only person i consider infallable is the Pope... the only diety i have is God, all others are human and therefor suspect...
My disagreements are what they are... some stick around and some don't. Its part of the process of growing. But i will tell you this, my ability to question has led to a clearer understanding of the Church and my own personal faith... it is therefor stronger ( at least to me).

reply from: Faramir

Doctrine comes through the poes and the bishops.
It is good to question and try to understand fully.
But I'm not getting what you mean about "disagreements."
I know some people who claim to be Catholics who disagree with the Church about contraception and abortion. They think they are good Catholics just "thinking for themselves."

reply from: galen

--------------------------------------------------
here is the king james version... what are you using?
1.Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
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?
3.Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4.If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5.I speak to your shame . Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6.But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7.Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong ? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded ?
8.Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren.
9.Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10.Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11.And such were some of you: but ye are washed , but ye are sanctified , but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12.All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient : all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13.Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14.And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15.Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid .
16.What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he , shall be one flesh.
17.But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18.Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19.What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20.For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
------------------------------------------------
22.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ,
23.And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25.Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27.And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet .
28.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ;
29.Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30.Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
------------------------------------------------
all of the quotes above were not the words of Jesus but the words of his apostles that related in letters to very specific problems in the areas addressed... not homosexuality....but very real problems of society.
I tend to disregard the Old testament because Jesus gave us reason to believe the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount over the old admonitions of the old prophets.

reply from: joe

Looks the same to me. A union between a man and a woman.

reply from: galen

in the context of divorce... it makes no mention of homosexuality... that subject or allusion to that subject never comes up.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
For most people, reading the Bible does no good. Jesus, The Word (author) of the whole Bible, did not speak without using a parable. He immediately starts with parables right from the beginning in Genesis. He explained to his disciples (students) that he spoke in parables so that people would not understand him. Men are doing their own work now, that is God's decree. Only those called to be rulers and teachers in the coming Government of God are blessed with eyes that see and ears that hear. I believe Jesus was talking about you, Galen, when he referred to people that although they have eyes and ears, they do not really see and hear, for they do not perceive and understand. Their hearing is dull and their eyes are barely perceptive.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ says God gave his message to Jesus, who gave it to angels to transmit to men of high character (Holy, perfect).
Do you think that in the line of authority and transmission (God to Jesus to Angel to Holy Men), that Jesus somehow did not carry out His Father's Will? Will you say that God is a bad asx but Jesus is a sweet lumpkins?
Look, everything in the Bible is there because Jesus gave it to angels to give to Holy men to record. None of the words in the Bible got there without going through Jesus. I believe Jesus made a special exception and actually spoke face to face with Moses at times rather than sending an angel as an intermediary. Jesus is the Word because the Bible is the Word, his revelation intended for the saints; but gibberish to the disobedient and uncalled such as yourself. Jesus directly told Moses in the Books of Moses that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman. Jesus gave us the prohibition against homosexuality in accordance with His Father's Will. This command of Christ is recorded way back in Leviticus.
No, Christ's Words are not limited to the red letters found only in the New Testament.
You should read 4Given post. also, I noticed you said someone else's vision is bad. My post above points out that you have eyes that don't see.
I also wanted to point out that Jesus said His Father was greater than him. Jesus always did the will of His Father. The Father testified that with Jesus, "I am well pleased." The Father is greatest in authority. Jesus (number two in authority) always obeyed His Father and carried out his will. All Scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction and correction (Old Testament and New Testament, not just the red letters). Not one stroke of the pen, jot or tittle, is voided. However, a better way, the blood of Jesus rather than the blood of animals has been instituted. Writing the law on the fleshy tablets of our heart so that we do them rather than merely on tablets of stone is also part of the new improved covenant; not that there was any fault with the old covenant itself, but the fault was with the people. Hebrews says, "For finding fault with them...." All the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus are in full force and effect.

reply from: joe

So on such a fundamental issue such as marriage you are claiming that Jesus forgot to mention that the other spouse might be a male?
If you make a stretch like that you can justify all sins.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
For most people, reading the Bible does no good. Jesus, The Word (author) of the whole Bible, did not speak without using a parable. He immediately starts with parables right from the beginning in Genesis. He explained to his disciples (students) that he spoke in parables so that people would not understand him. Men are doing their own work now, that is God's decree. Only those called to be rulers and teachers in the coming Government of God are blessed with eyes that see and ears that hear. I believe Jesus was talking about you, Galen, when he referred to people that although they have eyes and ears, they do not really see and hear, for they do not perceive and understand. Their hearing is dull and their eyes are barely perceptive.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ says God gave his message to Jesus, who gave it to angels to transmit to men of high character (Holy, perfect).
Do you think that in the line of authority and transmission (God to Jesus to Angel to Holy Men), that Jesus somehow did not carry out His Father's Will? Will you say that God is a bad asx but Jesus is a sweet lumpkins?
Look, everything in the Bible is there because Jesus gave it to angels to give to Holy men to record. None of the words in the Bible got there without going through Jesus. I believe Jesus made a special exception and actually spoke face to face with Moses at times rather than sending an angel as an intermediary. Jesus is the Word because the Bible is the Word, his revelation intended for the saints; but gibberish to the disobedient and uncalled such as yourself. Jesus directly told Moses in the Books of Moses that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman. Jesus gave us the prohibition against homosexuality in accordance with His Father's Will. This command of Christ is recorded way back in Leviticus.
No, Christ's Words are not limited to the red letters found only in the New Testament.
You should read 4Given post. also, I noticed you said someone else's vision is bad. My post above points out that you have eyes that don't see.
I also wanted to point out that Jesus said His Father was greater than him. Jesus always did the will of His Father. The Father testified that with Jesus, "I am well pleased." The Father is greatest in authority. Jesus (number two in authority) always obeyed His Father and carried out his will. All Scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction and correction (Old Testament and New Testament, not just the red letters). Not one stroke of the pen, jot or tittle, is voided. However, a better way, the blood of Jesus rather than the blood of animals has been instituted. Writing the law on the fleshy tablets of our heart so that we do them rather than merely on tablets of stone is also part of the new improved covenant; not that there was any fault with the old covenant itself, but the fault was with the people. Hebrews says, "For finding fault with them...." All the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus are in full force and effect.
I am curious Galen, as to whether you believe only the red letters in a red letter edition count.

reply from: galen

the bible in its original was written at the point of a sword in Nicea...because constantine would have a Roman religion of the state.
If you say that its the only inspired books then .* shrug* i have to wonder how inspired you would be at the point of a sword..
many other gospela were left out or done away with because they were written by someone who was on the outs politically.
Just look at how many versions are around today.
King James... written by a homosexual to keep his crown.. first proposed by a Queen who wanted the masses to read the protestant version of the word of God.
all the way to the newer NIV... when you look at the modern language translation they seem almost of a diffrent world altogether.
the closest we have are the dead sea scrolls and the vulgate.. unless you read latin and greek its hard to understand what i mean about translation
for argument however i bowed to the predominately protestant readers on this board and used the King James version for my argument.

reply from: galen

anyhow... i'm done with the argument because my secular viewpoint was the one that i posted in response to this thread... that and Godslaws unbelievable preocupation with the human anus.

reply from: sander

It isn't Godslaw that has the preocupation with the human anus, that would be the homosexual's preocupaiton. It's an unnatural act, just as much as killing a child in the womb. Neither are healthy for the people involved and neither glorify God.

reply from: galen

i have yet to see a homosexual bring it up on this forum... and Godslaws does so on a regular basis.. lol.

reply from: Teresa18

Mary, I don't understand why you have posted support for homosexuality from a Church that has not only broken off from Catholicism but with conservative Protestantism as well. If the Catholic Church's teachings are infallible and thus true, then the teachings of CCC TX can't be correct. Homosexual behavior can't be both right and wrong at the same time.
Jesus speaks on homosexuality through Scripture and tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit who is one with Jesus, as there is one God in three persons.
A society must stand for something, or it will fall for anything. I would much prefer it stands on the Judeo-Christian morality of the God it was founded under than that of secular humanists.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

A gay man that I knew just died of cancer of the anus. It made a real impression. Don't you know that this world is ruled by physical laws? Abuse your body, break it, and you will die. These people must be insane for breaking their bodies.

reply from: sander

A gay man that I knew just died of cancer of the anus. It made a real impression. Don't you know that this world is ruled by physical laws? Abuse your body, break it, and you will die. These people must be insane for breaking their bodies.
The death rates will only rise with society's approval, just like the unborn.
Not enough are willing to speak the truth.
And if some have thier way it will be against the law to speak the truth.

reply from: galen

A gay man that I knew just died of cancer of the anus. It made a real impression. Don't you know that this world is ruled by physical laws? Abuse your body, break it, and you will die. These people must be insane for breaking their bodies.
-----------------------------------------
and i supposed you yourself have never drank, smoked, got overheated...
anal cancer is just as prevalent among heteros as homos.. sorry this does not wash.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The Bibles of the last 150 years, like the NIV, are based on the oldest complete scriptures (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). However, I believe the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus exhibit many ommissions and errors and were simply defective writings sitting on a shelf. The KJV was referred to as the "Received Text" and corresponds quite well with the "Majority Text" (majority of old Greek Texts). I believe the Latin Vulgate wriiten by Jerome is defective. The original New Testament writings were in Greek, so it made no sense to translate the Greek into Latin then claim the Latin was better. I don't know a lot about the dead sea scrolls. If they were not the interpretations of some cult, they may have great value as they were written down near the time of Christ.
The Roman ruler Constantine did have an unhealthy influence in religious matters. To unify the citizenry, loved and cherished pagan traditions were retained and added with some of the new religious ideas to meld society together. Church, State and pagan ideas all compromised together to make a cohesive whole; the Holy Roman Empire. In the future, some one world government type of guy would like a one world type of religion that all can accept and digest: ideas from Islam, Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, etc, etc. The old big tent philosophy.

reply from: galen

---------------------------------------------
Jesus did not speak on homosexuality... nor did he speak on a lot of things, the thing he did speak on was forgiveness and love and do unto others... rember those??
Sorry but i find it much more disturbing to have someone abort a child than wether my neighbor down the street who is a good person, gets married to his boyfriend.
Homosexuality was not something that Jesus spoke on his disciples did... maybe he wanted us to stay out of each others bedrooms... maybe he thought that as a speciese we had other things to worry about...i don't know. I 'm sure i'll find out when i die. If so maybe i can come back and tell you who knows...

reply from: Faramir

I don't know about that. Somebody might feel a need to make you accountable if you're doing naughty things there. You might just see some pictures on the internet someday...

reply from: galen

if i did them in front of a camera then maybe i would deserve it.

reply from: galen

So on such a fundamental issue such as marriage you are claiming that Jesus forgot to mention that the other spouse might be a male?
If you make a stretch like that you can justify all sins.
-------------------------------
well you seem to want them to stretch to fit what you think He is saying....

reply from: galen

Matthew 19:4-5
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (A)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(B)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (C)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
---------------------------------------
yep and that's why men and women can marry... but it says nothing about 2 men and 2 women... because JESUS did not speak on it.....
go back and read your bible.
For most people, reading the Bible does no good. Jesus, The Word (author) of the whole Bible, did not speak without using a parable. He immediately starts with parables right from the beginning in Genesis. He explained to his disciples (students) that he spoke in parables so that people would not understand him. Men are doing their own work now, that is God's decree. Only those called to be rulers and teachers in the coming Government of God are blessed with eyes that see and ears that hear. I believe Jesus was talking about you, Galen, when he referred to people that although they have eyes and ears, they do not really see and hear, for they do not perceive and understand. Their hearing is dull and their eyes are barely perceptive.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ says God gave his message to Jesus, who gave it to angels to transmit to men of high character (Holy, perfect).
Do you think that in the line of authority and transmission (God to Jesus to Angel to Holy Men), that Jesus somehow did not carry out His Father's Will? Will you say that God is a bad asx but Jesus is a sweet lumpkins?
Look, everything in the Bible is there because Jesus gave it to angels to give to Holy men to record. None of the words in the Bible got there without going through Jesus. I believe Jesus made a special exception and actually spoke face to face with Moses at times rather than sending an angel as an intermediary. Jesus is the Word because the Bible is the Word, his revelation intended for the saints; but gibberish to the disobedient and uncalled such as yourself. Jesus directly told Moses in the Books of Moses that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman. Jesus gave us the prohibition against homosexuality in accordance with His Father's Will. This command of Christ is recorded way back in Leviticus.
No, Christ's Words are not limited to the red letters found only in the New Testament.
You should read 4Given post. also, I noticed you said someone else's vision is bad. My post above points out that you have eyes that don't see.
I also wanted to point out that Jesus said His Father was greater than him. Jesus always did the will of His Father. The Father testified that with Jesus, "I am well pleased." The Father is greatest in authority. Jesus (number two in authority) always obeyed His Father and carried out his will. All Scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction and correction (Old Testament and New Testament, not just the red letters). Not one stroke of the pen, jot or tittle, is voided. However, a better way, the blood of Jesus rather than the blood of animals has been instituted. Writing the law on the fleshy tablets of our heart so that we do them rather than merely on tablets of stone is also part of the new improved covenant; not that there was any fault with the old covenant itself, but the fault was with the people. Hebrews says, "For finding fault with them...." All the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus are in full force and effect.
I am curious Galen, as to whether you believe only the red letters in a red letter edition count.
-------------------------------
no actually i preferr to read from the vulgate

reply from: Teresa18

Jesus spoke and speaks via the Holy Spirit through the Church in Scripture and Tradition. Jesus does forgive if we repent and vow to sin no more. Jesus will forgive a person who has practiced homosexual behavior if the person is sorry and vows not to engage in that behavior anymore. The "staying out of each others' bedrooms" argument is one used by liberals to justify sexual immorality. It's true that we can't control what consentual adults do in their bedrooms (although sodomy used to be illegal). We don't have to condone it, though.
As far as anal cancer, check out those links I provided. See this as well:
http://cfsh.net/3.html

reply from: galen

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html

another link for your enjoyment

reply from: joe

So on such a fundamental issue such as marriage you are claiming that Jesus forgot to mention that the other spouse might be a male?
If you make a stretch like that you can justify all sins.
-------------------------------
well you seem to want them to stretch to fit what you think He is saying....
Now I see....he was referring to a gay male wife. Thanks Galen for showing me how I stretched the saying to fit my interpretation. How dare I take his words for how it is written...keep an open mind...keep an open mind...

reply from: galen

sorry theresa... but the medical literature does not confirm this papers findings..the rates for heteros and homos are about the same with women slightly higher than men...
sorry i just don't see a coverup... and believe me when i do i sing about it loud and clear.

reply from: galen

here is a better link
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2008icr/croi/docs/032108.html

its not just for gays.....

reply from: galen

So on such a fundamental issue such as marriage you are claiming that Jesus forgot to mention that the other spouse might be a male?
If you make a stretch like that you can justify all sins.
-------------------------------
well you seem to want them to stretch to fit what you think He is saying....
Now I see....he was referring to a gay male wife. Thanks Galen for showing me how I stretched the saying to fit my interpretation. How dare I take his words for how it is written...keep an open mind...keep an open mind...
------------------------
lol
you get weirder and weirder dude!!!!!

reply from: galen

another link...
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_Anal_Cancer_47.asp?sitearea=

how can this be a gay curse if women are getting it more than men... believe me if this was a gay health issue than gay men would be screaming about it... just like they did with AIDS.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

http://cfsh.net/3.html
There are at least two sides to all homosexual issues, but because the dominant media tend to be strongly pro-homosexual, for the most part we are only hearing the pro-homosexual sides of those issues from the dominant media.
Because of this favoritism or bias of the dominant media, the facts about homosexuality often come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people. But our goal is not to hurt or upset anybody. All we want to do is present facts.
One fact the dominant media is censoring or ignoring is that the anal cancer rate for male homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal, according to a 1982 study.1 And a 1997 study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."2
You probably already know the homosexual community has been decimated by AIDS. But you may not know that, as another study has found: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about 33% of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population."3
Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (NO heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.4
According to another study, anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is four times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men.5 And another study found that the "prevalence of EBV type 2 among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%)."6 (EBV type 2 is the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus, which virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.)
And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection,7 prostate cancer8, colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis9 in homosexual men.
An article in the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age and that the incidence of gonorrhea among homosexual men rose 74% between 1993 and 1996.10
The Chicago Department of Public Health reported that the percentage of Chicago AIDS diagnoses connected to homo/bisexual men increased from 37% in year 2000 to 44% in 2003; and in mid-2006 it also reported that homo/bisexual men accounted for approximately 73% of Chicago syphilis cases in the year 2005. And a June 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control titled HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men noted: "MSM [men who have sex with men] accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting)....[R]ecent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group."
Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: "Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant....[And] Not having children increases a woman's breast cancer risk by between two to six times."11 Not having children also "may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well."12
Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: "Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians."13 (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)
Another study of lesbians found "a relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV]."14 And according to another: "Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women."15 HPV has been connected to cervical cancer. "DNA analysis has revealed that about 15 types of the virus account for more than 99 percent of all cervical cancer cases."16
One reason lesbians have a relatively high incidence of STDs is that, as some studies have documented, lesbians have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. For example, a large University of Chicago study concluded that lesbians have four times as many sexual partners as straight women (E.O. Laurnarm and others, The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States, U. of Chicago Press, 1994).
It should be noted that lesbian sexual diseases and cancers have not been researched nearly as much as male homosexual sexual diseases and cancers. This is because lesbian sex was presumed to be relatively safe. Some doctors are fairly calling for more research into the health of lesbians. With more study, we may find the "lesbian lifestyle" is not so safe after all.
Another relatively unknown fact: the blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.
In sum, using regular mainstream medical journals, it is easy to show that the "homosexual lifestyle" tends to be a very unsafe, very unhealthy lifestyle. The average lifespan of a homosexual is much shorter than normal, 20-30 years shorter than normal. Even smokers live about 10 years longer than homosexuals, on average. (It is somewhat odd that many of the very same people who believe in restricting the rights of smokers want to expand the rights of homosexuals.)
Some of you might say, "So what, it's their choice." Fact is, diseases are being spread all over this country by people engaging in unsafe sex, heterosexual and homosexual. That's wrong. Innocent people have contracted various diseases through no fault of their own, like, for example, by being transfused with infected blood. Babies have been born with AIDS. Unsafe sex is clearly not a private matter; it's society's business.
The federal government is spending roughly $12 billion annually dealing with sexually transmitted diseases, and individual states like Illinois are each spending millions more. We could be spending that money feeding starving children in other countries if we didn't have to spend it on sexual diseases. Kids are starving because some people think they have the right to spread sexual diseases. If that doesn't outrage you, you may have lost your humanity.
One would think homosexuals would have learned by late 1997 the importance of "safe sex," but that is not the case. As homosexual activist Larry Kramer wrote in 1997 in the New York Times, male homosexuals are returning to unsafe sex and their rates of H.I.V. infection and gonorrhea and syphilis are rising to "frightening heights" (his words).17 More:"Alarming health officials, the rate of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco nearly tripled over the past two years [1998 and 1999]."18
(Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair-----and homosexuals are so selfish they don't care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It's pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?)
Let us ask and answer a basic question. Is there a "right" to homosexual behavior? It is relatively easy to show, as we will, that the answer is NO. First of all, nobody has ever proven there is such a right, because it can't be done. Second, it is relatively easy to point out the flaws in all of the arguments homosexuals use to try to justify homosexual sex. (For example, let's consider their "consenting adults" argument; namely, that if two consenting adults agree to engage in homosexual sex, what's the problem? This argument is clearly flawed because just because two consenting adults agree to do something doesn't make the act right. Two consenting adults could agree to assault someone or rob a bank or have sex in public.)
Moreover, there is a valid argument against homosexual activity that is time-tested and solid. Nobody has ever proven it wrong, because nobody can. That argument, if we may oversimplify it to save time and space, boils down to this:
Homosexual activity is immoral and illegalizeable because it is a bad and absurd legal precedent. Homosexual sex is obviously a physiologically unnatural deviation from the heterosexual norm. If we condone homosexual deviations, then we must fairly condone all kinds of other deviations by all kinds of aberrant people. (Either that or discriminate in favor of some aberrant people and against others.)
We don't have time to discuss all the many many other deviations we'd have to fairly tolerate, but if we did tolerate them the world would become an unpleasant, confused, and sick place.
Indeed, over the last 30 years or so, as we have become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has soared, the teen suicide rate has tripled, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of STDs, millions of babies have been aborted, etc., etc. It's time we wake up and smell the rotten coffee.
Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to "discriminate" against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren't hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to "discriminate" against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity. We don't want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.
Incidentally, we don't mean to imply that all deviations from norms are bad. There are good ones. Being a genius and getting straight As in school is a good deviation, for example. However, it is easy to show that homosexual activity is one of the bad deviations, as we have explained already.
We should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.
As to the question of whether homosexuals are born that way:
First of all, from the perspective of morality it is not a relevant question. Wrongful behavior, like stealing or bullying or whatever, is wrongful behavior, no matter if we have an inborn desire to steal or bully or engage in homosexual activity.
Second, currently there is no solid evidence that anyone is born homosexual. This fact was even noted in a November 2003 column in the very pro-homosexual Chicago Tribune newspaper.19 Indeed, there is more evidence that homosexuals are born heterosexual than there is evidence that they are born homosexual. We'll talk about that shortly. Right now, the consensus of most experts is that sexual orientations are too complicated to be caused by genes only; they appear to result from a combination of biological and environmental factors. (And if homosexual genes ever really existed in humans in the past, it seems logical to conclude that they would have died out a long time ago since homosexuals tend to NOT reproduce.)
Third, we do know that many homosexuals were sexually abused when young.20 (Homosexuals do not want you to know that fact because people who were sexually abused often go on to sexually abuse others. Homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals are.21) We also know that many homosexuals came out of dysfunctional families. (Many homosexuals understandably have psychological problems because of their troubled pasts.)
As to whether or not homosexuality itself is a mental illness, from the perspective of morality it is not a relevant question. For example, rape and murder are immoral and intolerable whether or not the perpetrators are sick. So, we'll leave that question to the psychiatrists and psychologists. (We would urge, however, that psychiatrists and psychologists look into the probability, based on testimony provided by homosexuals themselves, that many homosexuals are heterophobic. For example, the homosexual author Dennis Altman admitted that many homosexuals are afraid to let themselves feel close to members of the opposite sex. His exact words: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."22 And well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has acknowledged that he "was afraid of the opposite sex,"23 according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual. It looks like those homosexuals who are fond of labeling certain people "homophobes" are just projecting a variation of their own phobia onto others.)
While leaving the question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not to psychiatrists and psychologists, let us consider this though: Taking into account all the solid scientific evidence that homosexuals are mentally disturbed to one degree or another because of sexual abuse or dysfunctional parents or whatever, we can say that there is solid scientific evidence that homosexuality should not have been removed from the officially approved list of mental illnesses. (Indeed, Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, has written a book titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis which explains how the decision to remove it was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.) The psychiatrists and psychologists who voted to remove it seem to be incompetent malpractitioners more interested in being politically correct than in the truth. Malpractitioning doctors should have their licenses to ply their professions revoked.
(Having just discussed heterophobia, this would be a good spot to comment on the use of the term "homophobic" by those who love to call people like yours truly pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn't really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others "homophobic" are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.)
Then there is the matter of legislators including "sexual orientation" in their anti-discrimination laws. Is that justified? Why just single out sexual orientations for protection while ignoring or discriminating against all the many other orientations out there? Isn't that wrong, unfair?
Moreover, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Do we really want to protect people who have sex with little kids? Zoophilia is a sexual orientation. Do we really want to protect people who copulate with animals? Necrophilia is another sexual orientation. But you get the picture.
And besides all that, nobody is penalized because of their sexual orientation anyway. A person's sexual orientation is in his/her mind. We can't see it like we can see a person's race or age. Even if you ask a person what their sexual orientation is and the person answers you, you still don't know it because the person could be lying.
What people are penalized for is not sexual orientation but behavior, like limp wrists and lisping and cross-dressing in men or overt homosexual behavior. Since it is behavior people are penalized for and not sexual orientation, it makes no sense to add sexual orientation to our anti-discrimination laws.
So, should we add sexual behavior instead of sexual orientation to our anti-discrimination laws? That doesn't make any sense either, because it is unfair to single out sexual behaviors for protection in those laws and ignore all the other behaviors out there. In our anti-discrimination laws we protect passive states of being, like one's race or age or maleness or femaleness, and we protect beliefs like religious beliefs; but we don't explicitly protect behaviors. It's up to other laws to protect behaviors.
(And having mentioned "race" in the preceding paragraph----homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)
So, again, neither sexual orientation nor sexual behavior should be added to anti-discrimination laws and policies.
To give you an idea of where some liberals really want to take this country, some college campuses (like Cornell University and New York University) are actually using textbooks that openly promote the acceptance of pedophilia. A couple of examples of those textbooks are a book titled Child-Loving and another titled Out of the Closets. Sex between adults and children is no longer taboo to some confused liberal "intellectuals."
In addition, the radically liberal American Civil Liberties Union, in its Policy Manual #4, has taken the position that the distribution and sale of child pornography should be legal.
Also, the radically liberal American Library Association has a website which takes a nonjudgmental stance towards humans having sex with animals. And a Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.
It's almost like some liberals want to take us back thousands of years to decadent Rome and Greece or even further back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Let's progress not regress. Let's act less like animals and more like thinking human beings.
On another matter, those who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are doing a disservice to everyone. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. We should not be instilling the false hope--we should not be fooling young people into thinking--that homosexual activity is okay.
Another point needs to be made. Groups like Exodus International (whose main goal is to try to help homosexuals, who don't want to be homosexual, become functionally heterosexual) are constantly being contacted for help by people unhappy with their homosexual orientations.
In order to give these suffering people a way out of their unwanted homosexual orientations, in order to give them a choice, this country should begin to spend serious money researching effective therapies for these people.
A way out of homosexuality potentially or actually exists, whether it's a genetic way out and/or a psychotherapeutic one. A humane society will not force people to be homosexual (or bisexual or transsexual, etc.). A humane society will find a way for everyone to choose to be happily and healthily heterosexual. Because it's the right thing to do. Those who oppose finding a way out of homosexuality just want to keep homosexuals trapped in orientations they may find distressing. Those who oppose finding that way out want to deny homosexuals a choice.
Can homosexuals change and become heterosexual? Many can and have (possibly because they were born heterosexual and are just becoming what they really are). As Dr. Reuben Fine, Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training, has written: "It is paradoxical that even though the politically active homosexual group[s] denies the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenck-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used....If the [homosexual] patients were motivated, whatever procedure [i.e., treatment] is adopted, a large percentage will give up their homosexuality."24
Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything: loving or hateful, greedy or sharing, etc. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals can be changed with therapy if they want to be changed, if they are motivated. They are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes.
An organization acronymed NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) actually specializes in what it calls reparative therapy for homosexuals. It can refer people to psychiatrists around the country who have been trained to practice such therapy. (A list of pro-family organizations that minister to homosexuals is available. The groups on this list all have websites.) Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.
Before concluding, one last point needs to be made. Homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 "the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive."25) And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages. They should also apologize for setting bad examples for our children.
To conclude: based on all the aforegoing, we can see that it would be very wrong to allow homosexuals (and bisexuals) to impose their values on us. It would be wrong to allow them to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. There just is no sufficient rationale for society to condone homosexual activity or homosexual "marriage," etc. Thinking people can accept that truth. Irrational, arbitrary, excessively emotional people may not be able to, unfortunately. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don't homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? They should get a life.
FOOTNOTES
1. Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States," Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1, 1996, p. 1355. Because the homosexual anal cancer rate is so much higher than the heterosexual anal cancer rate, and because the difference is associated with the frequency of anal sex, we find many homosexuals and their supporters try to flat-out deny the inconvenient truth. Since this is a significant fact which reflects negatively on the physiologically unnatural homosexual lifestyle, we are going to provide ample documentation to prove our point. The following medical journal articles, in no particular order, also refer to the abnormally high homosexual anal cancer rate (we don't mean to imply these are the only ones that do---we're sure there are other such articles since that rate is very well-documented): M. Frisch, "On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma," Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, "Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships," Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, "Health care screening for men who have sex with men," Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, "Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men," AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, "High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study," BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, "Marital status in relation to Kaposi's sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era," J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, "Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study," J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, "The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer," Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, "Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study," J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, "Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer," Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, "Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62.

reply from: galen

interesting that your quoted atats are from 2005 and BEFORE DECADES BEFORe... the latest from the American cancer society that prooves you wrong on the anal cancer stuff is 2007.
While the lifestyle of lesbians may lead them not to have kids many of them do and thier stats of STDs and CA in recent years are not much diffrent from heterosexual women who are single..
once again... maybe its promescuity not homosexuality that's to blame?
There are at least 18 unbiased reports out there in the first google of this subject... and NONE of them have your info GL42L


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics