Remember Peter’s run on X-Factor, where he discussed the implications on a test that could determine if the fetus would be a mutant?
Welcome to the future:
WorldNetDaily: Bill would ban abortions of ‘gay’ fetuses
Maine legislator got idea listening to Rush Limbaugh
Posted: February 25, 2005 – 8:45 p.m. Eastern
• 
Craig J. Ries:
ME: “To adress ‘and so forth’ I think I first need to clarify ‘finding cures.’ “
CJR: “That the religous and conservatives of this country would use the ability to abort a ‘gay’ fetus will be the “cure” to the “gay problem” – you prevent gays from being born, you have no gays in the future to persecute.”
Hi Craig,
(This happens alot. I’m out of the loop for a day and then have to play catch-up)
Yes, there are indeed those that view homosexuality as something that requires a ‘cure.’ Personally, I’m thrilled not to be one of them. That mindset just seems primitive to me.
On the related issue of gay marriage I think it’s a non-issue. Or rather a red herring.
Iowa Jim (who, as I’ve stated before, I respect) believes that the core purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. I have to disagree. I believe that the core purpose of marriage is to spend ones life with the person ones loves beyond all others. Furthermore, the production of offspring is not for the purpose of propogating society. It’s for the purpose of propogating the SPCIES. Otherwise people from different societies would never ‘git naked and bump uglies.’
That’s why I don’t believe that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals.
Iowa Jim’s (sorry to keep harping on you Jim, but thus far you are the only one who has taken this position in this thread) own statements support my position: “I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children. That does not mean everyone who gets married has to have children, etc.”
If the purpose of marriage is to raise and have children then why do people with no interest in having children get married?
Marriage has also been used to consolidate power and wealth. That is just historical fact. I submit that if marriage were the sacred institution that many claim it to be then it’s use (abuse?) for said consolidations would never have happened. Nor would the divorce rate be so high.
People marry for a variety of reasons. Pregnancy has even been known to be a catalyst for marriage.
Again, historical fact.
So why is marriage sacred? Propogation of the species is done with out it, the divorce rate is high, marriage is abused to gain wealth/power… Where’s the sacred part?
If you ask me the sacred part only occurs when two people’s love for each other is true. Everything else just looks like product placement.
Personal Note To Iowa Jim:
I am in no way trying to denigrate your belief system or the foundations upon which you have built your life. I recognize that alot of good things come out of your faith and it’s those good things that gain my respect for your faith even though I don’t share it.
Jim,
Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.
Good point. I am saying they do make other choices that lead them to the point of having a gay orientation. If so, then it would seem possible that they could deconstruct those same choices and regain a heterosexual orientation.
Okay, fair enough — but why is that something you feel you have the right to ask someone to do? I could make exactly the same arguments about your choice to be a Christian, with exactly the same result.
You would (I assume) object to anyone making the attempt to change your faith, and quite rightly so — it’s clear that your faith is one of the things that makes you the person you are. Why, then, do you feel that it’s okay for you to suggest someone change a fundamental aspect of what THEY are?
You think homosexuality is harmful to the person and to society. I can make the same argument about some aspects of your faith. What makes your argument “right” and mine offensive?
(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)
My comments about the origin of homosexuality come because it has been emphasized by others who use it to say homosexuality cannot be any more wrong than being right or left handed. Due to my religious convictions, I would still say it was wrong, even it if was proven to be 100% genetic. On the other hand, whether it is 100% genetic or 100% a choice, I do not hate anyone who is gay and would defend them from harm from others.
“That was a stirring reply. Unfortunately, while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.” — Babylon 5
In other words, you’re not really addressing the question. If your opinions will not in any way change, then why does the issue matter to you in the slightest? Simply academic curiosity?
Can you elaborate on which “basic rights” you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)
The odd distinction was just being tired and writing things backwards.
Fair enough.
The basic rights would be the right to employment, housing, protection from violent acts and violent words. (Obviously, I don’t think saying homosexuality is wrong qualifies as violent words. Standing on a corner and screaming that they are perverts does. There is room to disagree on issues and behaviors, but no room to belittle and threaten people.)
Does that “right to employment” include any form of employment? Are you fine with a gay person teaching elementary school? (I’ve no reason to believe you’re against it, for the record — but since lots of people in the past have talked about “not wanting THOSE people” in schools, I thought it was a position worth checking.)
As I’ve said before, I think the real issue is that the word “marriage” is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I’m concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word “marriage” — make ’em all civil unions. Mine, Peter’s, yours (if you’re married), those of my gay friends, etc.
I am not in favor of your solution, but I would prefer it to gay marriage. The reason is simple, and goes beyond just my religious beliefs. I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children.
A purpose decided by whom? You bring in God, and we’re right back to you wanting dogma given force of law. You talk about “society”, and then that same society is perfectly able to choose otherwise. You talk about “tradition”, and suddenly we’re in a dinner-theater production of “Fiddler On The Roof.” Kindly clarify.
(And we’ve gone around and around on the “marriage implies children” question before. I know I’m not likely to change your mind there, and I trust you know you’re not even remotely likely to change mine.)
The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn’t redefining marriage or “diluting” it in any way. It’s simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?
That being said, I could live with a civil union system as you describe IF that was the vote of the people and not a command from a judge.
And your problem with judges is?
Our legal system exists, in part, to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If “the vote of the people” suggested that all evangelical Christians should be hacked to death at noon next Wednesday, I rather suspect you’d object … and rightly so.
Obviously, the question of marriage is not the same thing as the question of you being hacked to death (mother-in-law jokes aside), but I think the case is clear: in some cases, “the vote of the people” is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for doing something.
Based on listening to many gay activits, I don’t think your solution will be enough for some gay leaders.
That, quite frankly, is not my problem. Last time I checked, one working definition of “compromise” is “a solution where no one gets everything they want.”
Their drive is to destroy my definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Y’know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you’re awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction. (Similarly, while you may not have said “liberals are idiots”, you’ve proven in the past that you’re more than willing to blame Societal Ill #AE-35 on the nefarious “liberal elite” squad.)
Lots of members of the gay community would like to *change* the definition of marriage. That’s the neutral term for it. You want to characterize it as destruction, fine — but then you lose much right to be taken seriously when you accuse others of characterizing conservatives negatively.
Bottom line, there is a place where something is right or wrong, regardless of whether I believe so according to religious beliefs or some other moral standard.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble parsing that sentence. Is the “place” you refer to literal or metaphorical?
I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.
I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.
TWL
I believe that the core purpose of marriage is to spend ones life with the person ones loves beyond all others.
And this goes back to the point that marriage is an entity that evolves.
I would agree that, at one time, marriage was done for children (particularly heirs), for convenience, for money.
But, for the most part, that isn’t the case today.
So, I can’t just say no to gay marriage, when the idea is to prevent two people, regardless, from showing that they want to be together in an official and legal manner.
Okay, fair enough — but why is that something you feel you have the right to ask someone to do? I could make exactly the same arguments about your choice to be a Christian, with exactly the same result.
You would (I assume) object to anyone making the attempt to change your faith, and quite rightly so — it’s clear that your faith is one of the things that makes you the person you are. Why, then, do you feel that it’s okay for you to suggest someone change a fundamental aspect of what THEY are?
First, I have no problem if someone wants to politely persuade me to change my faith. I have not problem with people saying they think I am wrong as long as they are willing to talk about it rather than just call me names or assume I am an idiot/uneducated/etc. In the same way, I would politely try to persuade people to my viewpoint.
Second, I don’t tell every gay person I meet that he is immoral (nor do I tell that to a man and woman living together but not married). If the person asks, I will tell him/her my beliefs. And if the person has a desire to change or is unsure that being gay is something they want to be, I will tell them of how others have changed and found their true self in the process.
Does that “right to employment” include any form of employment?
I do not have a problem with a gay school teacher (or an unwed woman who is pregnant or living with her boyfriend, etc.) as long as they don’t make it an issue of it. (They don’t have to hide it, but they don’t have to wear it on their sleeve. And no, a Christian teacher does not need to hide it, but also should not wear it on his or her sleeve.)
I think private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, churches, etc., should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs systems. A church should not have to hire a gay administrative assistant. But that is the only exception.
The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn’t redefining marriage or “diluting” it in any way. It’s simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?
Your solution does not dilute it; gay marriage does.
Y’know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you’re awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction.
Not hard to do when it is a stated goal. I don’t have the references in front of me, but this IS the stated goal of SOME gay activists. One of the articles I posted above notes a study that deals with some of these issues.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble parsing that sentence. Is the “place” you refer to literal or metaphorical?
Metaphorical
I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.
I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.
I’ve stated it, you just don’t agree. I believe that gay marriage does cause harm to the value of marriage and the family in society. It does so by changing the structure upon which society is built, namely, the family. This is not just a religious conviction, it is a logical and sociological conviction.
The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
Iowa Jim
Second, I don’t tell every gay person I meet that he is immoral (nor do I tell that to a man and woman living together but not married). If the person asks, I will tell him/her my beliefs. And if the person has a desire to change or is unsure that being gay is something they want to be, I will tell them of how others have changed and found their true self in the process.
What if they’re unsure that being straight is something they want to be? Will you be equally up-front about the (far larger) number of people who’ve come out later in life, and how the vast majority of them have found their true selves?
True story, Jim: I had a ninth-grader come to me several years ago and ask me something along the lines of “you’re an atheist, right? Can I ask how you came to that?” She grew up in a strongly Christian family, but as she moved into young adulthood she was starting to question whether said faith really matched her own convictions.
I was flattered to be asked, but also enormously chastened and cautious — not because I was worried about anything like parental pressure or employer disapproval, but because I wanted to make sure that when I looked at myself in the mirror I could say “I spoke honestly, but did not force any choices upon her.”
I would hope that you exercise the same discretion if people come to you and ask about their sexuality.
Does that “right to employment” include any form of employment?
I do not have a problem with a gay school teacher (or an unwed woman who is pregnant or living with her boyfriend, etc.) as long as they don’t make it an issue of it. (They don’t have to hide it, but they don’t have to wear it on their sleeve. And no, a Christian teacher does not need to hide it, but also should not wear it on his or her sleeve.)
That sounds great, and I appreciate it. The one question I have is how you define “wearing X on his/her sleeve.” For example, I have pictures of my wife and daughter on my desk at school. If a gay teacher were to have pictures of his/her partner, is that making it a big public issue?
[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn’t generally bring it up unless it’s relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he’d given blood that day — we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn’t, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said “well, because I’m married to a man.” Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]
I think private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, churches, etc., should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs systems. A church should not have to hire a gay administrative assistant. But that is the only exception.
That sounds fine by me, as long as said private organization isn’t getting public funding. Otherwise you could turn the same argument around and insist that the NAACP hire a Klan member.
The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn’t redefining marriage or “diluting” it in any way. It’s simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?
Your solution does not dilute it; gay marriage does.
You’re changing your answer. If my solution does not dilute it, why do you oppose my solution?
I also note that you avoided answering the “purpose decided by whom?” question. I will assume that means you’re conceding the point.
Y’know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you’re awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction.
Not hard to do when it is a stated goal. I don’t have the references in front of me, but this IS the stated goal of SOME gay activists. One of the articles I posted above notes a study that deals with some of these issues.
I’m going to call bûllšhìŧ on this one. Show me a reference where a gay activist is quoted as saying (or writing) that their intent is to “destroy” marriage.
(I’d point out, by the way, that if you can come up with a single quote that’s by some person on the fringe of the gay-rights movement, I’ll find that about as representative as you would me pulling quotes from Rev. Fred Phelps.)
Is there some reason you are opposed to simply using the word “change” rather than “destroy”? It’s an accurate term, and one far less likely to make people dismiss your arguments as Chicken-Little doomsaying.
I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.
I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.
I’ve stated it, you just don’t agree.
True enough — I’ve yet to hear any reason from you that does not in the end boil down to either (a) a religious argument or (b) a pure assumption about how marriage is “supposed” to work and what it’s “supposed” to be for. If there are no common assumptions upon which you can base your argument, then you can hardly be surprised that I’ll find your arguments baseless.
I believe that gay marriage does cause harm to the value of marriage and the family in society. It does so by changing the structure upon which society is built, namely, the family. This is not just a religious conviction, it is a logical and sociological conviction.
Well, no. Actually it’s only your claim that it’s a logical conviction. It’s actually argument from authority — “I say this is logical, therefore this is logical.” As usual, you’re welcome to that conviction — but you are not welcome to base societal policy on it.
The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:
Thanks. I’ve just read it.
It’s … well, let’s just leave it at “unimpressive”. Okay, “paranoid” works pretty well, too. Card seems to believe very strongly in the Great Lurking Gay Menace ready to carry off small children and forcibly convert them into clones of Carson Kressley (sp?). Talk of “dark secrets” and “danger” and “abduction” is stuff out of a bad Lifetime movie-of-the-week, not a serious examination of any social issue, let alone marriage.
Card makes all sorts of grand, sweeping statements that are ultimately meaningless, at least in many cases. Children need a father to help them learn what morality is? Every man apes his own father’s parental behavior when he becomes a father, and every woman her mother’s? Not in the families I know, my own firmly included.
Men will go into a frenzy of sexual “every man for himself” behavior if left unchecked? Geez, fella, why not quote from Jonathan Edwards, or Gen. Jack D. Ripper? Society expects that everyone keep childbearing urges under wraps as though they’re shameful? Um … what?
Basically, Card is simply asserting that all of his (and, apparently, your) assumptions about societal roles are not assumptions so much as indisputable facts. From there, he argues that since gay marriage is a threat to those assumptions, they must actually be a threat to society.
All very nice — but ultimately not much more than self-congratulatory preaching to the choir.
If that’s the “best defense” you have, then with all respect, I’d hate to see the ones you consider lousy.
(I’d like to think the days of treating “A implies B, which therefore proves A” as a valid argument are long gone, though the current political climate implies otherwise.)
I’m sorry, Jim. I know you believe as you do very deeply, and I respect that — but you are not making a case that’s remotely convincing to anyone who hasn’t already bought into your premises. And quite frankly, if you really think Card’s apocalyptic vision is what’s best representing your views on this matter, then you’ve done little more here other than make me more than a little wary of letting you near my own child.
I encourage everyone to read the essay Jim linked to. It’s an eye-opener for certain … but perhaps not in the way Jim’s expecting.
TWL
Ow. Okay, have just attempted to do just that, Tim. Only made it as far as the part where he starts ranting about how gay have the right to marry. As long as they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Y’know, someone they have no romantic or sexual interest in….
I may have been able to make it farther than that, but I’m already fighting a viral infection, so my tolerance for nonsense is lower than normal.
Jim, honestly, I’ve respected you in the past because you generally avoid foaming at the mouth when talking to those whose view you disagree with. (Sadly, with the state of discourse in these Divided States, that simple bit of common courtesy is enough to garner respect.) But if this is what you hold up as the best explanation of your beliefs…. Wow. I don’t have words.
“[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn’t generally bring it up unless it’s relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he’d given blood that day — we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn’t, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said “well, because I’m married to a man.” Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]”
One hopes he didn’t just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)
“I’m going to call bûllšhìŧ on this one. Show me a reference where a gay activist is quoted as saying (or writing) that their intent is to “destroy” marriage.”
“(I’d point out, by the way, that if you can come up with a single quote that’s by some person on the fringe of the gay-rights movement, I’ll find that about as representative as you would me pulling quotes from Rev. Fred Phelps.)”
I think though, by definition, anyone who makes that statement is instantly on the fringe. You could probably find a lot of lesbian feminists who have made such statements–I went to school with some of these nuts (and I hasten to add, one of the dearest friends I ever had there, a person I love as though she were my own sister, is a lesbian feminist. But she wasn’t a nut. Good thing too, because I’d still probably love her and loving a nut is more trouble than it’s worth. But I digress…)
But that’s probably more a function of extremist feminism than extremist homosexuality.
Nancy D. Polikoff, respected professor, wrote an article titled “An end to all marriage” with the tagline “Critics of gay marriage say we’ll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they’re right, and maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing.” I think she is arguing for taking all the legal rights of marriage out and letting pretty much anyone set up any kind of partnership they choose and get full rights. I guess it’s close to the “make all unions civil unions” idea that you and Jim favor.
To me, that seems far more damaging to marriage than just letting gays marry. Seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Is it me or has the level of discourse here gotten a whole lot better now that the election is behind us?
First, wecome back, TIM! It is an extremely interesting discussion taking place here.
I have been itching to join the fray, so here goes:
CRAIG RIES
Iowa Jim Said:
“You have to provide scientific proof a gay gene does not exist. And the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it does not, at least not in the way most think of it. The lie that there is a gay gene s just that, a lie.”
YOU said:
“Interesting. Yet, there is no “burden” to prove that there is in fact a god. Go fig.”
Actually, it isn’t that hard to “go fig”ure out, if you’re actually somebody who is interested in making sense and having an intelligent discussion rather than being sarcastic and determined to shoehorn an anti-religious comment in your “argument”, regardless of how awkward it “fits”.
If we are to acept the notion of a “gay gene”, it must, like other SCIENTIFIC hypotheses, bear up under scrutiny before we accept it as fact.
No burden is necessary for those who believe in GOD/god/Yahweh/etc. because it is by definition something taken on FAITH. If there was a burden of SCIENTIFIC proof that indicating that there was in fact a god, that would take FAITH pretty much out of the equation, and end a heck of a lot of arguments to boot.
PAD SAID: “The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admited to having participated in homosexual activities. The percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups.”
IOWA JIM THEN SAID: “You fail to mention that other reputable scientists who are not conservative also dispute the methodology and accuracy of these figures. And that other studies have failed to duplicate Kinsey’s results. But heaven forbid that real science should ever enter into the debate. Let’s just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research in the subject.”
YOU SAID: “Well, conservatives are idiots.”
MY REPLY:Are you determined to be a troll? Is there any subject/thread/ comment in which you cannot call someone (Bush, Cheney/ conservatives/Giuliani) idiots? Are you capable of actually having a conversation that implies you’re not stuck at fourth-grade level intelectually and emotionally?
YOU SAID: “I wonder how much research some of them have actually done”
MY REPLY: “Well, there is no way to actually answer such an open-ended question, is there? But that is the whole point, isn’t it? You’ve already made up your mnd, as your following statement shows”
YOU SAID: “Regardless, they’ll go for whatever results are skewed in their view”
MY REPLY: “Really? Ignoring, for the moment, that you are trying to group all of “Them” as some monolith (since I admittedly fall into that trap myself), this is a perfect example of you doing what you accuse others of.”
You ignore Jim’s points, because it is so much…what? Easier? Fun? Lazier?….to simply bash conservatives as idiots than try to engage in an enlightened discussion on the topic.
But you have made a pattern of this recently. Shame, really.
TIM LYNCH and IOWA JIM,
Okay, I read Card’s bit, too, and….let’s just say thought it was a BIT harsh. Hëll, I love bare knuckled arguments (which is why I love Ann Coulter) but this kind of column makes Coulter’s look like Maureen Dowd’s
I would not choose this as an example of my “best” argument, but then I am libertarian and feel it is not the government’s place to outlaw sodomy – I just feel gay marriage is a bad idea that IS being rammed down a lot of people’s throats. So e don’t think alike. Fine. This does give me a bit more insight into your psyche, though.
Tim, I feel you may be overreacting a bit. While I would not use such harsh words or concepts in discussing the matter, I feel if you look past the tough “shell” and try to get the meat of what Card is trying to say, it is at the very least thought-provoking.
Having said that, I feel your response is equally over-the-top, Patrick. Your response that includes stating that someone not foaming-at-the-mouth being while explaining their views is so rare that the absence of said “foam” is enough to garner respect illustrates this.
Craig J. Ries:
“And this goes back to the point that marriage is an entity that evolves.
I would agree that, at one time, marriage was done for children (particularly heirs), for convenience, for money.”
Hi again Craig,
I can’t disagree with you there. Marriage evolves, indeed. I still want to know: Where’s the sacred part of marriage? I’m not asking you specifically, Craig. But I am asking anyone who is solidly of the belief that marriage is sacred.
Having said that, I feel your response is equally over-the-top, Patrick. Your response that includes stating that someone not foaming-at-the-mouth being while explaining their views is so rare that the absence of said “foam” is enough to garner respect illustrates this.
And you are free to feel so. I can only proceed from my own experiences, as can you.
Then again, your liking for Coulter could be interpreted to say that you *like* foam with your arguments… 😉
Tim Lynch:
“That’s why you’ve named yourself after a fictional character who does nothing but stir up trouble.”
You don’t know that it’s not my real name. Just like I don’t know whether or not you’re really a former member of the Flamin’ Groovies. None of which makes any difference to the conversation.
“Peter’s already addressed the 10% question”
Which he wouldn’t have had to do if you answered me the first time.
I figured you were referencing the Kinsey Report, but I didn’t want to assume you were relying on that bogus and biased “study” which has been blown out of the water too many times to count (the Leuchter Report might even be more reputable). The US Census Bureau reports the real figure between 1 and 2 percent, and gay couples only represent 0.5 percent of all couples living together.
“and as for “evidence”, you can read back through the thread, as the grownups involved have actually had some real discussions.”
Who says there’s no civil discourse on the Internet? Still no evidence presented.
“I look forward to hearing [the reasons why gay marriage is not wise]”
Because they can’t keep it together, that’s why. Gay relationships only last on average 1-1/2 years. More male gay relationships than not feature illegal drug use issues. Women in lesbian relationships are more likely to become victims of domestic violence. Gay unions that include children in the household are almost always the products of prior broken and trougbled relationships. Unless gays can provide a reasonable quantity of solid role model relationships, there’s no reason why they should be endorsed.
Not even getting into the likelihood that millions of non-gays would take advantage of same-sex marriage simply for undeserved financial gains.
Because they can’t keep it together, that’s why. Gay relationships only last on average 1-1/2 years. More male gay relationships than not feature illegal drug use issues. Women in lesbian relationships are more likely to become victims of domestic violence. Gay unions that include children in the household are almost always the products of prior broken and trougbled relationships. Unless gays can provide a reasonable quantity of solid role model relationships, there’s no reason why they should be endorsed.
To quote a wise man–Still no evidence presented. Over 50% of gay male relationships involve illegal drugs? That’s a new one to me. Lesbian domestic violence has become a topic of interest but where are the stats saying it occurs at greater frequency than in hetero relationships?
And isn’t it possible that these problems–IF they are true–might be alleviated by conferring some societal legitimacy on the relationships?
Not even getting into the likelihood that millions of non-gays would take advantage of same-sex marriage simply for undeserved financial gains.
You have GOT to be kidding. If anyone wants to get financial gain through smae-sex relationships they could already be a part of the lucrative male prostitution business. Any takers? Didn’t think so.
Tim,
I will try to respond later. But let me give one quick statement: I don’t agree with everything Card writes. (For that matter, I disagree with him about Mormonism.) But I do feel the basic points he makes are valid and worded better than I could (if at moments a little more strongly). So I do stand by the article as being a good and valid defense of traditional marriage. If that makes you think less of me, so be it.
Iowa Jim
Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you… *g*
Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you… *g*
Yeah, that’s the fever talking.
Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you… *g*
Yeah, that’s the fever talking.
Well, there is that…
Must be why you’re just so dámņ cute right now… 😉
The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:
Which is comparable to getting an unbiased opinion on Bush from Michael Moore.
Card is quite the homophobe.
but this kind of column makes Coulter’s look like Maureen Dowd’s
That’s some talent then on Card’s part. 😛
If there was a burden of SCIENTIFIC proof that indicating that there was in fact a god, that would take FAITH pretty much out of the equation, and end a heck of a lot of arguments to boot.
Oh, obviously, because science has put ‘to boot’ alot of those faith arguments about evolution, haven’t they?
Or does that also come back to accepting what you want to believe, discard the rest as long as you have a non-existant being to fall back on?
Where’s the sacred part of marriage?
Well, it’s not in the 50% of those marriages, between a man and a woman, that end up in divorce.
Which is another reason I fail to see the “gay marriage destroys marriage” argument – divorce already sent marriage crumbling long ago.
Bill,
[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn’t generally bring it up unless it’s relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he’d given blood that day — we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn’t, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said “well, because I’m married to a man.” Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]
One hopes he didn’t just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)
As to the latter — that’s the policy of the Blood Centers of the Pacific, which is the group running the bloodmobile: if you’re a male who’s had sex with another man even once in the last N years (where N is some reasonably large value, though I don’t recall specifics), then you’re out. I think it’s a somewhat extreme policy, but there we are.
As to the former — this was a few years ago, so I don’t remember the rest of the conversation very well. He certainly at least emphasized that it meant he wasn’t allowed to, not that he chose not to — beyond that, I’m not sure.
On “destroying marriage”:
I think though, by definition, anyone who makes that statement is instantly on the fringe.
Not if they’re in sufficient numbers. Ten years ago anyone who wanted to abolish Social Security was considered on the fringe. Now it’s mainstream GOP policy.
I see your larger point, but I still think claiming “gay activists want to destroy marriage, muhahaha” is being needlessly and counterproductively over the top. (Of course, if you’re a politician and it’s the only way you get publicity … well, you’re Alan Keyes.)
Nancy D. Polikoff, respected professor, wrote an article titled “An end to all marriage” with the tagline “Critics of gay marriage say we’ll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they’re right, and maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing.” I think she is arguing for taking all the legal rights of marriage out and letting pretty much anyone set up any kind of partnership they choose and get full rights. I guess it’s close to the “make all unions civil unions” idea that you and Jim favor.
I wouldn’t say Jim favors it — he’d reluctantly go along with it, but that’s all.
If that’s what she means, and that’s what “destroying marriage” would mean, then frankly you can count me in as well. But that also means something significantly different than “kill them all.”
Jerome:
Thanks for the welcome back.
On the Card essay:
Tim, I feel you may be overreacting a bit.
So noted — but obviously, I don’t. I’d heard in the past that Card was known for somewhat extreme views on homosexuality, but this is the first time I’ve read them — and frankly, I found them halfway between laughable and appalling. (And that does mean the “meat”, not just the phrasing. For example, I do not buy into the “a nuclear family with one mommy, one daddy, 2.45 kids and 1.38 beagles is the absolute ideal that everyone should always strive for” hypothesis. Never have, never shall. Card clearly takes it as an axiom.)
I’m left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.
TWL
Comment from Tim Lynch:
“[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn’t generally bring it up unless it’s relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he’d given blood that day — we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn’t, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said “well, because I’m married to a man.” Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]”
Response from Bill Mulligan:
One hopes he didn’t just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)
Bill, obviously you haven’t heard the Red Cross’ official policy concerning gays and donating blood.
Red Cross guidelines currently prohibit any male who has had sex with another male EVEN ONCE since 1977 from being accepted as a blood donor. This has been policy since 1985.
From the Red Cross’ website (more info at http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html):
HIV, AIDS
Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:
you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O.)
you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;
Wait for 12 months after close contact with someone who is at an increased risk for HIV infection. This occurs when paying to have sex, as a result of rape, or when having sex with an IV drug user.
On the other hand, if you have herpes, policy allows blood donation “as long as you are feeling well”. And, you only have to wait 12 months after syphillis or gonorrhea. (Of course, if any of these were the result of male/male sex, you can’t donate.)
Card is quite the homophobe.
Because he disagrees with homosexuality? What makes him a homophobe?
This accusation is rather amusing to me since until 3 months ago, I thought Card did not have a problem with homosexuality. Two of his novels have a gay character, and it was not a negative portrayal. They were not flamboyantly gay, but neither were they weak straw men to easily bash. They were very engaging characters and the novels never made clear Card’s personal view on the subject. (His portrayal is not inconsistent with his beliefs, but the portrayal was very realistic.)
I’m left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.
Not assuming you are including me, but let me see: I have a male family member who definitely had a homosexual orientation, but who is now happily married to a woman. I have another friend who was in the Air Force for 20+ years who is gay and very conflicted about it. I worked with another man who was gay who left a gay lifestyle and is now happily married with two kids and just adopted a third kid from another country. I have 3 aquaintances at another job who were very openly gay. Two of them were in a relationship. Their family made life very miserable for them (yes, they talked to me and shared some of these issues). But they were very proud to be a gay couple. I know of another late teen at my church who was also gay, believed God made him that way, and felt no need to change.
Just in case you were wondering. I have no idea if I am the norm, but I have had extensive conversations with those who are happily gay, those formerly gay but happily married now, and those who are just plain screwed up right now.
Iowa Jim
This accusation is rather amusing to me since until 3 months ago, I thought Card did not have a problem with homosexuality. Two of his novels have a gay character, and it was not a negative portrayal.
Implicit in that statement is surprise that a gifted writer can competently and accurately write points of view he or she disagrees with. Considering whose site we’re on, I’m more than a little surprised by that surprise.
Not assuming you are including me, but let me see:
I wasn’t, but thanks for the information.
TWL
I’m left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.
I actually get along famously with gay people. Two of my best friends are or have been gay.
Best frined in the world is a lesbian in New York, and when I’m there I hang out with her and her lesbian friends. They know I’m conservative and at least to my face have expressed no problem with that.
Interestingly enough, though, they can’t stand gay men, at least the feminine ones. I gotta admit that info kinda messed with my head until I got into a flame war with a hard core lesbian attorney who was coming down pretty hard on gay men. The flame war was because I was defending the gay men.
Although I will say this about that “debate” It led me to suspect that there’s a fair amount of “gender jealousy” going on between some masculine lesbians and feminine gay men.
The homosexual marriage question is a very small tributary of the Congo-sized river question of Society. To try to do any justice to the answer while divorcing it from the Societal question is to invite disaster.
What is our Society? What should it be? What will it be? What is it becoming (through agenda, lack of attention, what have you)?
Until these questions are answered, the tributary questions truly can’t be answered well.
Gay marriage (and homosexuality) harms the society I desire. It does no harm to the society that, for example, Tim wants. Tim’s solution of removing “marriage” from legal definition promotes a society with no boundaries (despite this, I tend to agree with his solution).
A ‘boundary-less society’ should be able to accept within it societies that do have boundaries (Canada’s does not, since speaking against homosexuality is punishable by law), and therefore should probably be the answer… a bit hard for me to say, since I would view things ‘outside’ my society to be harmful… but that way everyone would have the right to try and find their own ‘society’. The problem is the overlap can be difficult to navigate…
You can see why it’s easy to throw one’s hands up and just forget about it all; the answers are out of reach. I have strong feelings about right and wrong, but I can’t make others live by those as long as they don’t impact my rights. I’m equally uncomfortable with the government “validating” what I consider wrong… but I can live with being uncomfortable. I have very Libertarian leanings despite conservative feelings.
For what it’s worth, while the sixth grade teacher’s reaction was a tactful one, my answer tends to be “their rules say I can’t” and leave it at that (in my pre-Christian days I was intimate with a girl from the Cameroon, which denies me the ability to give blood at all – no time limit. In a classroom setting, such personal issues don’t need to be clarified).
I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot. Rather unflattering considering the amount of time I do try to reconcile these issues…
Gay marriage (and homosexuality) harms the society I desire.
In what way?
It does no harm to the society that, for example, Tim wants. Tim’s solution of removing “marriage” from legal definition promotes a society with no boundaries (despite this, I tend to agree with his solution).
The only challenge I’d make here is that (a) it’s more a society with FEWER boundaries than none at all, and (b) it would be fewer boundaries *on this particular issue*. I agree with your overall point — I just want to be cautious of overstatement.
I have strong feelings about right and wrong, but I can’t make others live by those as long as they don’t impact my rights.
And that, I’d say, is why far fewer people consider you an idiot than you might think. I certainly don’t.
I think we all have strong feelings about right and wrong — it’s the recognition that our feelings aren’t universal ones that lets society function.
TWL
Rather unflattering considering the amount of time I do try to reconcile these issues…
Well, it’s meant to be unflattering when you automatically consider that gay marriage must be harmful to society.
Btw, there’s a wonderful article about Ann Coulter, a part of which I’m going to post here, just to show that anybody who takes that woman seriously needs a lobotomy:
WASHINGTON, 2 March 2005
Robbnn: “I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot.”
Hi Robbnn,
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider you an idiot. You’ve demonstrated thoughtfulness ofen enough to be outside the idiot camp.
People have a tendancy to paint “Them” (“Them” being the oposing voices on any given topic) with a wide brush. Because of that wide brush generalizations tend to get progressively more hostile and so on…
I prefer to think of you and Iowa Jim as “Us” with a different point of view. I think that way because this is a microcosm in which the totality of who we are is not fully represented here and to label someone as “Them” based on a few snippets on a small variety of subjects is as prejudicial as anything else.
Besides, I like having my point of view challenged.
Craig J. Ries: “Which is another reason I fail to see the “gay marriage destroys marriage” argument – divorce already sent marriage crumbling long ago.”
Hi Craig,
Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…
Robbnn: “I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot.”
I don’t consider Christian conservatives idiots. I consider idiots to be idiots. Tragically, there’s a lot of idiots who happen to be Christian conservatives. I’m not saying there aren’t idiots in other walks of life; there most certainly are. And I’m not saying that are all Christian conservatives are idiots; that is certainly not the case. But the idiots in the Christain conservative wing are certainly accomplished in getting the most notice.
PAD
Implicit in that statement is surprise that a gifted writer can competently and accurately write points of view he or she disagrees with. Considering whose site we’re on, I’m more than a little surprised by that surprise.
Tim,
I am not surpirsed that he could write a view he doesn’t agree with. But since that was the *only* thing I had read by Card on the subject, I was surprised at him being called a homophobe on various talkbacks when he was announced as the new writer for Ultimate Iron Man. Frankly, after reading “Postwatch,” I also was surprised he supported the war in Iraq.
I don’t usually do much research on an author. I just enjoy the books and look for ones that tell a good story. I try not to assume the author’s views, but when you read a story, it is easy to wonder if the author is laying out his view. I did not assume Card was pro gay rights or against the war in Iraq because it didn’t really matter, I still enjoyed the story.
Side note: While watching Babylon 5, I was very impressed with how religious figures were portrayed. I was very surprised to learn that JMS was an atheist since I saw a lot of religious themes. It is one thing for an author to not write against something he doesn’t believe (such as by making all Catholic priests crooks and perverts). Most authors are professional enough to avoid that mistake. But few can absolutely nail a character to the degree that you would think the author knows first hand what it is to be a Mormon or a Jew or gay, etc. That is why I appreciate PAD, JMS, Card, and others.
Iowa Jim
I don’t consider Christian conservatives idiots. I consider idiots to be idiots. Tragically, there’s a lot of idiots who happen to be Christian conservatives.
Ok, can’t argue with you there.
Iowa Jim
Dude, just give the baby for adoption. What gives the right to any human being to abort a fetus like it was a faulty chicken?
My God says homosexuals are going to rot in hëll. And so are all that are sexual immoral, liars, murderers, greedy, egotistical, or filled with hatred. Unless they repent. Sorry. I don’t make the rules, God does.
“It is detestable,” the Lord says. If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.
Of course I don’t expect anyone who lives as if they are their own gods to understand this.
Of course I believe anyone should be left free to make their own choices, this is, after all, our God-given right.
But we all gotta give an account to the Big Guy in the end.
“When gay groups were trying to ram down this “born gay” crap in the 80’s…”
As is often the case, I’m coming in very late on this topic and much of what I might have said has already been said shorter and better. One point which does not appear to have been made explicitly, however, is the difference between born gay and genetic.
If someone says, “I was born gay”, it does not necessarily mean there is something in their genes that led to them being gay. There are many non-genetic pre-natal influences that could be responsible. While evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality would confirm that some people are born gay, the absence of such a genetic component does not mean people are not born gay. It would just mean they were born gay for non-genetic reasons.
I believe I was born straight. I have friends who were born gay. I have no more reason to doubt their self-evaluation than I have to doubt my own.
I also have friends who believe they made a choice as to their sexuality. I’m inclined to believe them, too — which indicates to me that they were born such that they could be attracted to both sexes, and that the strength of those attractions is non-compelling enough that they are able to choose which sex to engage (or not engage) in sexual relationships with.
I suspect there are many, many types of people — that not all gay people are gay in the same way, that not all straight people are straight in the same way, that not all bi people are bi in the same way. Some people may be born with a kind of sexuality that allows them to choose either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Others, it seems clear to me, are not. How many people are born with such an ability to choose, I do not know, but to assume either that everyone is able to make such a choice, or that everyone is not able to make such a choice, seems to me a foolish assumption.
Considering how many prominent conservatives, and children of prominent conservatives, have turned out to be gay, I am a little surprised how eager some on the right are to say that no one is born gay. If it is true that no one is born gay, wouldn’t it make sense for those who believe homosexuality is evil to do research into what Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, and the Cheneys have in common in their method of child-raising?
UX-Gal
>My God says homosexuals are going to rot in hëll. And so are all that are sexual immoral, liars, murderers, greedy, egotistical, or filled with hatred. Unless they repent. Sorry. I don’t make the rules, God does.
The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books. Old Tesament was determined once and for all in approximately 100AD and the New Testament was in the year 482AD (If I’m remembering correctly.) This leaves us with the Church deciding “making the rules”. You are welcome to believe, but don’t be surprised when anyone takes exception with you dictating your god/church or absolute morality on us when our choices don’t directly affect you, taking nothing away from you.
>”It is detestable,” the Lord says. If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.
Which makes my stance on gay marriage so much easier. Again, you accept the Bible as the word of God, that is your right to believe. I simply don’t agree.
>Of course I don’t expect anyone who lives as if they are their own gods to understand this.
Wow… so anyone who doesn’t believe in your god must fall in this category?
>Of course I believe anyone should be left free to make their own choices, this is, after all, our God-given right.
Nope, God had nothing to do with it. I gave myself that right when I educated myself and made a choice. Others who educate themselves and remain one of the flock have given themselves that choice.
>But we all gotta give an account to the Big Guy in the end.
….. in your opinion. Where is your proof?
Fred
“….. in your opinion. Where is your proof?”
Religious fanatics don’t need proof, they have faith.
The same faith that convinces PLO terrorists to strap bombs to themselves and board public busses or enter restaraunts and dentonate.
The same faith that drove a set of whackos to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and attempt to do so to the White House… (you’d think the terrorists would’ve planned better and at least made sure the Prez would be home on Sept. 11, 2001 instead of visiting am elementary school)
Jim,
I am not surpirsed that he could write a view he doesn’t agree with. But since that was the *only* thing I had read by Card on the subject, I was surprised at him being called a homophobe on various talkbacks when he was announced as the new writer for Ultimate Iron Man.
Okay, that seems sensible enough. I appreciate the clarification.
And I completely share your opinion of B5. I knew JMS was an atheist when I started watching the show, but I too was very impressed at how sympathetic and how well-rounded many of his religious characters were. The moment at the end of “Parliament of Dreams” where Sinclair introduces the whole line of people is still one of my favorite moments from the first season.
TWL
Considering how many prominent conservatives, and children of prominent conservatives, have turned out to be gay, I am a little surprised how eager some on the right are to say that no one is born gay. If it is true that no one is born gay, wouldn’t it make sense for those who believe homosexuality is evil to do research into what Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, and the Cheneys have in common in their method of child-raising?
Actually, if we want to be truly scientific, the answer is yes. For instance, there is a very high number of gays who report they had emotionally and/or physically absent fathers. If their father was emotionally distant, was that a factor in leading them to have gay desires, or did latent gay desires cause them to perceive the dad as distant, or did their latent desires cause the dad to withdraw and thus be distant? There is a pattern, but until research is done, you can’t say if any of the above are true.
As mentioned above, the extreme on both sides would be reluctant to have such research done.
Iowa Jim
The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books.
This is not an historically accurate statement. This lie has been repeated often, but it is not true.
Concerning the Old Testament, there is ample evidence that the books of the Old Testament were widely agreed upon long before the church began. The LXX (Septuagint) Greek translation is proof of this, as are contents found in the so called “Dead Sea Scrolls.” The even in 100 AD was simply an acknowledgment of what had been true, not a determination of what books were included. You must keep in mind history. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. The Jewish nation was obliterated by the Romans. The decision in 100 AD was not done by the church, but was made by Jews wanting to make sure they did not lose their traditions while in exile.
There is also plenty of evidence that the books in our New Testament today were in circulation from virtually the beginning. You have to remember, there was no printing press, Barnes and Noble, internet, or book publishers. Scrolls had to be copied by hand. So it was understandable that some areas did not have all of the same books that others did. The surprising reality is how quickly and how widespread the current 27 books of the New Testament were circulated.
Keep in mind that for the first 200+ years of Christian history, it was NOT a recognized religion. On the contrary, there were times of very strong persecution where people were executed. You had to be very confident that a book was “holy” to be willing to die for possessing it. The books we have today were the same ones people were willing to die for, long before any official church began or rose to power. We know this from a very large body of writings of early Christians, often called the church fathers. They quoted these books and debated whether they should be included. In fact, there are objections to these books that we only know of today because they are preserved for us in the Church fathers’ writings as they wrote to refute those same objections.
The first list of the current 27 books was made by Athanasius in 367 AD. It was confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 and 419 AD). All of these councils simply affirmed the same books that everyone was using. They did not exclude any book that was already widely accepted, and they did not add any book that was previously widely rejected.
Of course, none of this “proves” that the Bible actually is the word of God, etc. But to say the Catholic Church chose and imposed the current books of the Bible on the church is totally without any historical warrant.
Iowa Jim
If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.
And you gotta admit that you’re a hypocrit, because for those that “accept” it, very few, I’m sure, follow it to the letter.
The same faith that convinces PLO terrorists to strap bombs to themselves and board public busses or enter restaraunts and dentonate.
The same faith that lead Bush to tell people that God told him to attack Iraq, to kill innocent civilians, to trade American and Iraqi blood for money and oil.
Craig:
>>If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.
>And you gotta admit that you’re a hypocrit, because for those that “accept” it, very few, I’m sure, follow it to the letter.
… not even getting into the multiple interpretations of the same passages, the changes of intent when translated from language to language, the inconsistancies from book to book, or the scores of holy books that were dropped from the Bible.
Fred
“… not even getting into the multiple interpretations of the same passages, the changes of intent when translated from language to language, the inconsistancies from book to book, or the scores of holy books that were dropped from the Bible.”
And if the Bible truly was the word of “God” (there is no such entity however), then there would be nothing to interpret and it would be crystal clear…
Iowa Jim:
>>The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books.
>This is not an historically accurate statement. This lie has been repeated often, but it is not true.
Just as much as continuing to deny it and label it a lie does not make it so.
>Concerning the Old Testament, there is ample evidence that the books of the Old Testament were widely agreed upon long before the church began. The LXX (Septuagint) Greek translation is proof of this, as are contents found in the so called “Dead Sea Scrolls.” The even in 100 AD was simply an acknowledgment of what had been true, not a determination of what books were included. You must keep in mind history. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. The Jewish nation was obliterated by the Romans. The decision in 100 AD was not done by the church, but was made by Jews wanting to make sure they did not lose their traditions while in exile.
The Church closed the canon, determining what books would be included in the Old Testament at the Senate of Jamnia in 100AD.
>There is also plenty of evidence that the books in our New Testament today were in circulation from virtually the beginning. You have to remember, there was no printing press, Barnes and Noble, internet, or book publishers. Scrolls had to be copied by hand. So it was understandable that some areas did not have all of the same books that others did. The surprising reality is how quickly and how widespread the current 27 books of the New Testament were circulated.
Certainly in circulation via verbal storytelling from early on, but the books of the New Testament were decided upon by the Senate of Rome under Pope Damasus in, I stand corrected after looking it up, 382AD. The earliest printed version we see today was in circulation somewhere in the 10th century AD, if I am not mistaken.
>Keep in mind that for the first 200+ years of Christian history, it was NOT a recognized religion. On the contrary, there were times of very strong persecution where people were executed. You had to be very confident that a book was “holy” to be willing to die for possessing it. The books we have today were the same ones people were willing to die for, long before any official church began or rose to power. We know this from a very large body of writings of early Christians, often called the church fathers. They quoted these books and debated whether they should be included. In fact, there are objections to these books that we only know of today because they are preserved for us in the Church fathers’ writings as they wrote to refute those same objections.
Minus the books that were destroyed due to inaccruacies or statements that the church did not want included.
>Of course, none of this “proves” that the Bible actually is the word of God, etc. But to say the Catholic Church chose and imposed the current books of the Bible on the church is totally without any historical warrant.
I’m sorry that I was not able to respond sooner, but I wanted to check on some dates before replying and even now time does not allow me to build a more comprehensive response. As I said, I have no disrespect for anyone who calls themselves Christian, although I am disturbed at the aggressive nature of many in that group to label and attempt to dictate morality based on documents that have no factuall basis other than faith.
Alan Watts is a pretty article speaker on these issues and he made a very solid point regarding the Christian movement in this direction, making a comparison with our legal system and that those who are the strongest advocates are also placing themselves up as the judges determining these absolutes…. we certainly wouldn’t want our judicial system set up this way.
Though there are thousands of sites online, one that appears pretty reliable and succinct is:
http://www.thesower.org.za/Boodskap/origin_of_the_bible.htm
Thanks for the conversation, Jim.
Fred
The Church closed the canon, determining what books would be included in the Old Testament at the Senate of Jamnia in 100AD.
It was NOT a church senate, it was a group of rabbis. The church barely existed at this point. To suggest that the church had the ability to override over a thousand years of Jewish tradition and customs is beyond absurd. The church in no way determined the 39 books contained in what we now consider the Old Testament. To argue that they did is to say the church rewrote Jewish history and Jews today still accept it. Your comment ignores the fact that a Greek translation was made over 100 years BEFORE the senate to which you refer, and the contents of that translation are the same books that were affirmed at the senate. The senate did not choose the books, they simply agreed that they had the correct books.
It is also inaccurate to say the church closed the cannon. They did not arbitrarily say no more books could be included. What they said was that no other books met the commonly agreed upon tests for it to be included. These tests included the book being widely circulated and accepted, its consistency with other accepted books of the Bible, and it having been written under apostolic or prophetic authority. The second test, consistency with other books, was not just a test to exclude a particular teaching. Instead, it looked at the book as a whole. If you compare some of the current books that some suggest were deliberately excluded, even a casual reader today reading a translation of the work can easily see the differences.
Certainly in circulation via verbal storytelling from early on, but the books of the New Testament were decided upon by the Senate of Rome under Pope Damasus in, I stand corrected after looking it up, 382AD. The earliest printed version we see today was in circulation somewhere in the 10th century AD, if I am not mistaken.
On the contrary, they were not just verbal storytelling. Scholars date a fragment of the Gospel of John to at least as early as 150 AD. And we have partial manuscripts of many other books from a very early date. We have nearly complete written manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries. Codex Sinaticus is a complete copy of the Greek New Testament in uncial script, and it comes from the 4th century. The Bible is without parallel in ancient literature. No other work even comes close to the number of existent copies and how close the date of the copies are to the orginal documents.
Compare this to the Koran. History is quite clear that there was a very organized effort to “correct” and edit the contents, and that any copy that varied was destroyed. There is absolutely no history of this happening by the church. On the contrary, you find an unheard of diversity in the documents that still exist.
The reality is, the early church often took pains to include anything that might be part of the original text. That is why the story in John 8 and the longer ending to Mark 16 still exist. That is why there are some very minor differences between the King James version and current translations. They use different original manuscripts. The changes are very minor, and are overwhelmingly obvious copying errors, such as repeating the same phrase in the next line because the copier lost track of where he was on the page or scroll. In later years, others kept in the obvious copying errors (making note of the errors in the margin) rather than accidentally deleting anything that should have been there to begin with.
Minus the books that were destroyed due to inaccruacies or statements that the church did not want included.
Again, you are making an assumption for which there is absolutely no evidence. As noted above, history actually testifies the opposite is true. Name a single book that was widely accepted and that the church destroyed because it did not agree with it. There are books that were rejected, yes, but they were rejected by virtually everyone, not just a small group of powerful church leaders.
There are numerous scholarly works that lay out the evidence for all of this. Perhaps the best is “The Text of the New Testament” by Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press). He is a world renown and respected expert on the topic, having studied the actual manuscripts for years.
(To be fair, I have not just read a little on this subject. My college and masters degrees are on this topic. That is not to “pull rank” and say I am right, but to simply say I have done a lot of research on this and am not just repeating what I heard a pastor say once when I was a kid. I fully admit that there are some who disagree with my view, but the research is so overwhelming that few who have studied the matter make such claims.)
Iowa Jim
One more thought on the origin of the current books of the Bible:
It is a mistake to believe the Roman Catholic Church was such a powerful force in the 4th century. There was actually at least 4 powerful bishops at the time who considering themselves the equal (if not the superior) of the others. You did not have a Pope who was seen as infallible and supreme. In some ways, it more resembles current Christianity with its diverse denominations. For all of them to agree on something was a rather great accomplishment. That is why this myth that “the church” chose the books in the Bible and destroyed any they did not like is just plain impossible in light of history. There was no monolithic “church” that had the power to do so.
Iowa Jim
Jim, I bow to your apparent knowledge and will readily admit that I am no expert. I base my points on articles I have read as well as transcripts from scholors in the field. I mentioned Alan Watts, who seemed to me to have some pretty firm credentials. If I blatantly spoke mistruths, than I apologize and say it is out of my own ignorance or misunderstanding of materials.
Thanks for the information from your end. I look forward to having some free time this weekend and exploring these topics again more thoroughly for my own further education.
Fred
Fred,
The article you posted was actually fairly conservative and did not seem to support the view you mentioned. I won’t have time right now, but I am curious to find out more about Alan Watts and his writings. If you have another link to his stuff, I would be glad to read it.
While believing the Bible is the Word of God is a matter of faith, my beliefs about its transmission, etc., is not. So I welcome any evidence for other viewpoints. But having done so much research, short of another “Dead Sea Scroll” type discovery, I doubt there is anything currently out there I have not at least heard about on this issue. Unlike science, history has a way of staying the same once most of the evidence is on the table.
Iowa Jim
I live at 21088 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?
I live at 21088 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?