Sunday, January 08, 2012

Agenda Lies 4: "Uglyass"

The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:

"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."

And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.

I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.

Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.

Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.

However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.

The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?

Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.

But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?

Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.

But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.

And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.

290 comments:

1 – 200 of 290   Newer›   Newest»
Feodor said...

"The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions.”

You find the diseases created by genetic homogeneity to be a lie?

Simpleton.

4simpsons said...

Good points, Marshall. Consider most arguments offered up by the pro-gay advocates (e.g., the recent interaction of Santorum and some college kids). The "they love each other" and "how does their relationship hurt you?" and "don't they have a right to be happy" and "they were born that way" sound bites prove nothing, because they attempt to prove too much.

That pro-"same-sex marriage" reasoning isn't a causal slippery slope argument (a fallacy) but a logical slippery slope, or what I call a "cliff" argument -- as in, you don't roll the slope you fall off the cliff. All the things they proclaim immediately serve as reasons to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc. It is just a matter of time until those lobbies follow the pro-gay playbook and use political pressure to de-stigmatize them in the psychiatric community (it is already happening with pedophilia) and elsewhere.

And the pro-gay "Christians" will be just as creative in explaining how God is fine with those things as they have been with their pro-gay theology ("It's just all about love, Jesus never said anything about those things, the Bible didn't really say that, God has changed his mind, you just hate pedophiles and those who commit incest, those traits are gifts from God, etc.).

"Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."

Exactly. Just look at how common it is for them to use their made-up definition of "Santorum" just because the guy has the guts to state the obvious about marriage: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex." They are just like the men of Sodom, so blinded by their desire that they still grope about in their blindness to keep on sinning. They don't even realize how applying the name of their ideological enemy to the disgusting byproduct of their behavior is a self-parody. While seeking to harm him they mock themselves. (Yes, I know there argument will be that not just gays have anal sex, but I'd wager the rate of gays to straights is exponentially higher than the 46x rate of HIV and syphilis in gay men.

If you love yourself, the world and your popularity you will spout the theological liberal lines about sexuality. If you really love God and love gays then you'll proclaim his truth and the Good News.

4simpsons said...

P.S. If disease prevention was a real concern then you'd be hearing lots more about the 46x higher rate of HIV and syphilis in gay men. Even if it was an issue the liberals should be happy with promises of incestuous couples to use birth control (because we know that is 100% reliable!) or to abort any children that are conceived (especially if they have any diseases diagnosed in utero). Those things alone would virtually prevent any problems.

Marshall Art said...

"You find the diseases created by genetic homogeneity to be a lie?"

Wow! Talk about a "simpleton"! Such diseases aren't automatic simply because of conception between siblings. It's the result of inheriting the same defects both parents carry. No defects, no diseases or defects in the child.

But, as I stated in the post, you new age secular bozos (I include you due to your corrupted interpretation of that which you claim to believe) don't believe having children is a relevant factor in granting state sanctioning couples wanting to marry.

What's more, simp, is that I never even implied that genetic homogeneity is a lie. But you are definitely a liar for (among other things) trying to imply that I did.

Marshall Art said...

Neil,

I thought of bringing up the discussion between Santorum and the college kids, but elected not to as the post was rather long already. But you're right that they employed all the usual arguments that can easily be used by any other group not otherwise qualifying under the proper definition of "marriage".

Wintery Knight has a recent post indicating the Canadian moves toward legalizing polygamy, citing a professor or two who argue in its favor. They use the same arguments used by the homosexual movement. Santorum, among others, has been saying for years that this will happen and the response has been hateful at worst, and dismissive at best. Yet, here we are.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall Art,

EXCELLENT article!!!

When it comes to incest, you made the excellent point that biologically speaking there is nothing wrong with it.

One also has to remember that the first people on earth were all incestuous - all Adam's and Eve's children had to intermarry in order to populate the world! And would think there would have been brother-sister relations in Noah's family to restart the population.

I don't see any mention of parent-sibling relations in the Bible except for Lot's situation, so I'm thinking that probably never was considered right due to the particular relationship. But brother-sister relations were common, and even Abraham married a half-sister. It wasn't until the Law with Moses that God stopped. Most likely it was because by then there were plenty of people in the world and more and more genetic defects were entering the system.

The point is that God permitted incestuous relationships for about 1500 years or so, at least, before stopping it. Meaning it wasn't a violation of the use of human sexuality, it wasn't an intrinsic violation of what marriage is, etc. On the other hand, homosexual behavior was NEVER permitted under any circumstances!

And yet the homosexualists decry incest while advocating homosexuality! Pretty upside-down thinking.

Jim said...

This place is REALLY getting WEIRD.

Now you all are defending incest?

Feodor said...

Hey, Simp, if family values were a real issue for conservatives then why don’t you all turn your attention to the higher rates of divorce in red states?
________

Two names for you, Fartshall, Susan Karolewski and Patrick Stuebing.

The Piper's Wife said...

The only defense of incest is that it is the natural use of the human body, is not biologically wrong, and was once approved by God as a way to populate the world.

The point is that God has NEVER approved of homosexuality and condemned it in the most severe terms. Yet homosexualists will raise up in disgust about incest while seeing nothing at all wrong with misuse of the human body for bizarre sex.

The point is that they can't condemn the one without logically condemning the other!

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

I demand, once again, that you at least act like the Christian you claim to be and stop referring to my visitors by anything other than the names under which they post their comments. You have lost all privilege of assuming you can be less than perfectly formal with them. What's more, you have not in the least bit provided any evidence that you possess the intelligence that permits you to condescend to call anyone "simp".

Indeed, your responses indicate a singular lack of intelligence. This is evident in your last comment attempting to change the subject, and then, to provide names of people not relevant to the topic at hand.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Are you so feo-like as to miss the point (or is that "Geoff-like"?)? Please indicate where you see a defense for incest in this post. What you should be seeing, that is, what you refuse to see in order to crack wise, is a refutation for the position of homosexual activists and their enablers who pretend there is no similarity between their demands for "equity" and "justice" and the exact same demands used by the incestuous. If you had any desire to debate honestly, you'd not have suggested such a thing about a post that clearly and plainly contains the following:

"And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong."

So where do you see a defense of the practice exactly?

Jim said...

Please indicate where you see a defense for incest in this post.

Paragraphs and paragraphs about hot sisters and MILFS. On and on and on.

And it was OK in the Bible, but then it wasn't OK? Wasn't homosexuality not OK because they needed to populate the tribes just as incest and polyamory were OK for the same reason?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

The issue of incest being approved prior to Moses is to demonstrate that there is nothing biologically wrong with incest, nothing intrinsically wrong with the relationships between brother and sister marrying, and nothing that is against the design of the human body or the purpose of human sexuality. Scripture does not say the reason for the ban, so we can only speculate that God recognized the genetic problems developing, or other moral reasons. But the fact that God put a ban on it is the reason society has done so.

Polygamy, again, has no biological problems associated with it, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a man having more than one wife, and it does not interfere with the design of the human body and the purpose of human sexuality. God never called it a sin, and in certain instances commanded it (levirate marriage), but civil societies have indeed seen the problems that arise from multiple women in a relationship. Our society, unlike many in the Islamic world and other 3rd world countries, have chosen to ban polygamy.

Homosexuality abuses the purpose of human sexuality, it abuses the design of the human body, and it debases society. There is no positive societal benefit from homosexual relations. From the very beginning homosexuality was condemned by God in the most stringent terms.

Explaining the issue of incest, as well as polygamy, does not defend either practice as positive for current society.

(by the way, the post by "The Piper's Wife" is actually mine - I didn't notice my wife had signed in to her blog when I posted the comment, and it posted to her account.)

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I see. You don't find Angelina Jolie to be hot. You don't believe that a child of such a woman wouldn't recognize her beauty. Or that the father or brother of such a woman wouldn't, either. Is that what you're trying to say?

And to recognize that such a realization might occur between family members registers in your peanut-sized mind as some kind of defense or positive opinion of incest? Is that really what you're saying? Are you that twisted that you would suggest such a thing?

As to the Bible, Glenn merely spoke the truth, that there must have been incestuous relations after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden as there was no talk of other peoples that comes to mind (though that doesn't mean there wasn't any). And that there must have been, or at least could have been, if we assume there was no other people on earth after the Great Flood but Noah and his family.

It doesn't take much for an honest and rational person to make some logical assumptions regarding the times of Genesis, that, for example, as Adam and Eve were created as perfect beings, the sin of the Fall led to corruption of earth, but not necessarily to the extent that initial generations could not safely reproduce even by siblings marrying. We know, those of us to actually read Scripture, that in Leviticus, God prohibits incest in the very same chapter that He forbids homosexual behavior. So while it occurred, or seems likely that it must have at one time, there was no prohibition of it until Leviticus, while there was indeed a description of why God created us male and female.

Try not to be an ass if you can't find something substantive upon which to argue.

Jim said...

Marshall:

OK, maybe I should have used the word "rationalize" instead of defend.

Of course Angelina is hot, but to invent this "scenario" and go on and on about why people might commit incest is just filling the internet with words. Who cares?

You go on and on and on about gays and the gay agenda. You are changing no one's mind.

You are losing the argument, except among yourselves.

If you are lucky (or maybe unlucky depending on your point of view) gay marriage will be legally recognized by the Federal Government and most all states before you die. So just lie back and relax.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Gay "marriage" will never be legal - homophile unions will be what will be legalized, but they will never be "marriage," because marriage is defined as a union of male and female - period.

Jim said...

Glenn:

there is nothing biologically wrong with incest

Polygamy, again, has no biological problems associated with it

What "biological problems" would we be talking about?

Homosexuality abuses the purpose of human sexuality

Really? How so?

it abuses the design of the human body

Ah, the old "plumbing" argument? Like, no heterosexual couple, married or not, has ever engaged in oral, anal or "digital" sex acts. Or must not.

it debases society

Only if you do it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, as I explained to you on my post, what is uglyass is the comparison of healthy adult relationships (gay or straight) with unhealthy, harmful, abusive relationships (as in comparisons to incest or bestiality). Incest, by and large, refers to the ABUSE of children by adults, or the abuse of mentally ill folk by other family members.

So, what you are comparing this to (consenting, loving ADULT relationships between a mother/son or father/daughter or brother sister) is not what I was comparing it to and calling uglyass.

So, before continuing, can we agree that it is despicable, ugly as sin, nasty to compare healthy adult relationships to abusive relationships that cause harm to minors and the mentally ill?

Before saying anything else, can we agree to THAT?

Assuming we can agree to that, I would just ask if this is a real world phenomena? ARE there actual real-world adult sons who are mentally sound who want to bed down their mothers (who are also rational adults)? If so, I'd ask you to cite some actual examples so we can see what you are referring to. I would guess that the circumstances to which you allude are so rare as to be an extremely rare example and not what people think of when someone mentions incest.

IF we can agree that it is ugly as hell to compare a healthy adult relationship to an abusive relationship that causes harm to minors or ill adults, then I'm not seeing that we have any real disagreement.

Beyond that, the only thing that I've seen that makes much sense here is Jim's comment...

You are losing the argument, except among yourselves.

The debate is mostly over. You lost. Sorry.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Biology 101. Sexual relations were designed for procreation. Homosexual sex cannot procreate. And, yes, "the plumbing." Common sense. But when you try to justify a bizarre and perverted behavior, it's easy to discount design.

Oral or "digital" acts do not affect the design. These are nothing more that acts which stimulate. But even in heterosexual relations, anal sex is against the design of the human body and can cause much damage to the body, let alone the diseases that result from such misuse. It is an orifice for excreting waste and death - not an orifice for the organ of life.

When humans behave in such base manner, it dehumanizes all of society.

Dan Trabue said...

When humans behave in such base manner, it dehumanizes all of society.

And coming full circle, this was exactly my point when someone compared healthy gay relationships to incestuous ones. Such vile behavior dehumanizes all of society.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond to Dan.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HEALTHY GAY RELATIONSHIP!!!! It has been empirically proven to be unhealthy physically and emotionally, and certainly spiritually since it is out of God's will. You can dismiss all the scriptures you want, but God did say unequivocally that homosexual behavior is an abomination, unnatural, perverse, etc. Only by twisted eisegesis can one ever come to any other conclusion from the text. Your defense of it is blasphemous.

There are many, many cases of good, healthy incestuous relations. No one was ever discussing abusive relations, which are not limited to any gender or relation. Your wanting to redefine incest to be "by and large" confined to abusive relations has no basis in reality. Incest has a definition of sexual relations between close relations - abusive or not. Just like marriage has a definition of between male and female only.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

Your defense of it is blasphemous.

That is a fine, if unsupported and ridiculous-on-the-face opinion, based on your own hunches, Glenn. My opinion is your going around calling Christians seeking God's will "blasphemers" is, itself, biblically blasphemous.

And I could make a much better case for that, biblically and logically, than you can for your baseless and uglyass charge, my brother.

Glenn...

There are many, many cases of good, healthy incestuous relations.

I repeat: Cite some examples to support your claim. Anyone can say anything they want. Support it.

Glenn...

Your wanting to redefine incest to be "by and large" confined to abusive relations has no basis in reality.

Not wanting to redefine anything. It's the real-world reality facing you. If you google, "incest" you find report after report of child abuse, not loving adult relationships.

Glenn...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HEALTHY GAY RELATIONSHIP!!!!

This is easily dismissed as false by showing even one instance of healthy gay relationships. I could show dozens and easily shoot down this falsehood.

Sorry, you lose that one, hands down.

Glenn...

It has been empirically proven to be unhealthy physically and emotionally

And you cite... oh, wait, you didn't cite ANYTHING. Falsehoods provided to support falsehoods, Brother Glenn, are not a very compelling arument and not sound loving Christian behavior.

Sorry, you lose again.

And before you cite studies that show that promiscuous gay behavior is harmful, I'll gladly concede that promiscuous behavior - gay OR straight - is harmful. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

Strike three (four, five, I lose count). You're out.

Parklife said...

"Biology 101. Sexual relations were designed for procreation. Homosexual sex cannot procreate. And, yes, "the plumbing." Common sense. But when you try to justify a bizarre and perverted behavior, it's easy to discount design."

I've taken Bio 101.. and thats not in the class. In fact, homosexuality was never discussed.

If procreation is the basis for sex, then what about people that have low sperm counts or other issues? Not to mention birth control? Please dont confuse a healthy relationship with marriage and having sex. We are better than that. It cheapens your relationship with your wife.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

You again resort to foulness and crudity (i.e. “uglyass”), demonstrating your lack of command of the English language and violating Scriptural commands.

It isn’t my “opinion” as to what Scripture says about homosexuality - it is a fact. It has been understood as said fact as long as the Bible as been in existence. It was only in recent time when liberals wanted to justify homosexual behavior that they twisted the text to mean something other than the author’s intent. We’ve been here before, and you will never convince any one that God is okay with homosexuality - except perhaps other homosexualists like yourself who want to justify the unjustifiable.

I don’t need to recite my proof of healthy incestuous relations, other than to point you to Scripture where it was practiced. Just recently there was a case in eastern USA where a father and daughter had been in a relationship for many, many years and there was nothing harmful about it except it violated the law.

“Real world” apparently is the internet to you. It matters not what the ‘net says about the definition of a word - “incest” has no intrinsic connotations of abuse. It is merely defined as sexual relations between close relatives. Period. If you want to make it out to be something different to suit your agenda, that’s your problem.

There cannot be a “healthy” homosexual relationship, if only for the spiritual aspect. Any “healthy” relationship found would be a rarity.

YOU are the loser.

If you are so ignorant as to not have researched the empirically-known health hazards of homosexual sex, I’m not doing your homework for you. INCLUDING non-promiscuous relations (again, rare with homophiles).

You are the one who has struck out. I’m done with this conversation with you - I have better things to do with my time than waste it with a fool who refuses any correction.

Parklife, design is still for procreation. Whether that takes place in a normal relationship is irrelevant to design. God is the designer and the first purpose of sexual relations was to become “one” - the unitive function - while the second purpose is procreation. But the design - the plumbing - is indeed biological, because the same design is used in animals. If your biology didn’t have that, then it was a worthless course (I’ll bet it had plenty of teaching on the lie of evolution).

Like Dan, you have proven yourself to be a fool on other blogs, and a waste of my time. Trolls like you get no respect from me.

Parklife said...

"Uglyass"

So much for the insult free new year.

Dan Trabue said...

It was not used as an insult, but as a descriptor, to describe the bearing of false witness and slanderous comparisons of healthy relationships to abusive ones.

That is, I find falsehoods (real, demonstrable falsehoods, that is, not empty claims of lies, unsupported by fact) - and especially those designed to demonize an entire group of people, to be ugly as hell. Since these folk generally shrug it off when I point out there falsehoods as simply "falsehoods," I upped the ante to describe how wrong FALSEHOODS are. They are, indeed, ugly-ass, ugly as sin, ugly as hell. I don't like 'em.

Which is not to demonize Glenn or Marshall, themselves, just the falsehoods that they perpetuate.

I see a difference, for what it's worth.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

It isn’t my “opinion” as to what Scripture says about homosexuality - it is a fact.

As has often been the case, you can't seem to differentiate between opinion and fact. Observe:

FACT: The Bible says in Leviticus, "Men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill them." (or words to that affect.

OPINION: THAT MEANS that God disapproves of healthy gay marriage relationships.

FACT: In ancient cultures, some religions practiced fertility rites, where sex orgies occurred in their temple to please their gods.

OPINION: God hates ALL gay behavior.

FACT: The Bible speaks of marriage in many different contexts, including polygamy and monogamy and forcing captive virgins to be wives against their will.

OPINION: The ONLY WAY God likes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Do you get the difference between pointing out what the Bible factually says and making a claim that YOUR OPINION about what God thinks on topics God hasn't told you about is equivalent to what God thinks?

One ought not conflate their opinions with God's opinion. That is a dangerous and hellish road, my friend.

Parklife said...

"I’ll bet it had plenty of teaching on the lie of evolution"

Yes. Because evolution is a farce? Feel free to dive into that.

From my seat, we are all different. We are all created differently and all act as individuals. Each "design" is different. Personally, I think you have a weak background in science and do not find you to be a credible source.

Glenn / Marshall,
It is unfortunate that you have decided to maintain an abrasive tone. Calling people "trolls", "losers" and "fools" dont score you any points. It simply is a reflection upon you making the inappropriate comment and manifesting in how you value and respect others.

Jim said...

the organ of life

That's hilarious. I like it. I thought the abusive priests called it "the key to heaven".

Any “healthy” relationship found would be a rarity.

So you concede that there is such a thing as a healthy homosexual relationship. Then who decides which are healthy and which are not?

empirically-known health hazards of homosexual sex

There are also "empirically-known" health hazards of heterosexual sex. These can be avoided in both cases. Next!

God is the designer and the first purpose of sexual relations was to become “one” - the unitive function - while the second purpose is procreation.

This is interesting, and I would say that it pretty much shoots down your argument about the plumbing, biology and all that.

Otherwise, married heterosexuals who are not able to procreate should not be allowed to remain married or get married or even have sex in the first place.

Unless of course they are opting for the first purpose and unconcerned with the second. And if that's the case, what's the difference between them and homosexual couples who engage in the "unitary" function without regard to the procreation function.

because the same design is used in animals

Fish and frogs?

Yea!!! Let's talk "evil-ution"!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you are as foolish as the other two the way you twist the intent of someone's statements, the way you promote homosexuality, the way you deny truth and the way you deny God's word.

For the complaints about my calling someone a fool, let's look at what Webster says:
Fool: “In Scripture, ‘fool’ is often used for a wicked or depraved person; one who acts contrary to sound wisdom in his moral deportment; one who follows his own inclination, who prefers trifling and temporary pleasures to the service of God and eternal happiness.”
“In common language:.. a person who acts absurdly; one who does not exercise his reason; one who pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom.”

For Dan's claim about the meaning of incest, let's again ask Wester:

Incest: “The crime of cohabitation or sexual commerce between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by the law of a country.”

Notice how it doesn't mention abuse - abuse is NOT a part of the definition.

Parklife said...

That was shocking.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Being bugged by all things homosexual is pretty evident on this page I'm reading. But, I guess I fall into that small percentage of people who don't care what a person does that isn't harmful to another.

Crazy. That's what it takes to champion a "no-contest" stance on something, anything, because there will always be someone who has a problem with something, anything, and simply cannot understand or abide a "no-contest" stance on it. Someone, hopefully everyone, must understand this person and agree or at least empathize/embrace him and his sensitivities. I don't do that. No thanks, I'll say, and simply allow him to be as when he found me - still no more empowered than by his own thoughts alone. It's a frustrating moment when passion finds no ear. That it precipitates such a core of energy is wholly remarkable in itself in that it has no useful purpose beyond fueling the ego. I get that but not the why part. It's the why that always falls down the stairs in full view of the captive judges.

As much as I would like to offer a position for, against or not at all, I can't. It won't make a bit of difference to me in my time or elevate to a certain measure my world as how I would have it. It just won't. Nor will it come up measurably by the poring of passions or the wielding of words commensurate with their intended affect or other displacement. I'm that way, though. Some call it stoic, apathetic, reclusive, unsocial or, by some other label, relieved that they can at least label it because, even if the battle is lost, the war is won in labels. Someone has to be the labeler, though, and no one I've ever met knows one they call "friend". These days we spend on this earth are about people, not things, and I won't treat people like things. I can't.

Yes, I can very easily allow myself to label, separate, judge, dispose of or keep, and then arrange who's left in my world. That doesn't take courage, though. It doesn't make a person better, either. It certainly causes harm and that, by the mere evidence of its presence, speaks of a certain conspiracy of ill intent. The perception of ill intent always begs cross-examination and that is, truly, the goal. The cross-examination is the end in itself. What of that, then? Why is this need to be cross-examined so insidiously born? It's an attention mechanism. Everyone has it to some lesser or greater extent. The class clown drips with it. Not so much the wall-flower at the party. Then there's the in-between. There's usually a price tag associated with it, though, in that someone is sacrificed or compromised in whole or in part for it to work. It's a very bad game. If it wasn't there'd be a board game for it already. (Mousetrap?)

So, without further adieu, I remain a faithful human being and leave you with your worldly passions. I don't mind giving a little compromise on this journey of involuntary life but give it to live it I will. I will say I am an atheist. That probably explains much to some here and maybe to their relief. LOL, I suppose being a believer would certainly pose a conundrum given the foregoing. But, no, I am without such notions and their doctrines. I hope that doesn't garner me too many labels. Anyway, be good and have a great new year.

Joe C.

Marshall Art said...

Joe, my friend,

I will not argue whether or not to engage in debates of ideology is right or wrong, or attempt to label anyone who refuses to do so. I will say that you are wrong to suspect that one's opinion has no effect on the world in which we live. Your opinion adds to the total of opinions like yours and it is the numbers of them that has the effect of which you speak as non-existent. In that sense, your decision to abstain from such discussions also adds to the total of those who do as well. The effect of apathy, self-isolation and other acts which contribute to a sense of "who the fuck cares as long as it doesn't impact me" (even if that doesn't accurately reflect your meaning) is that it allows for an anything goes environment, a form of moral anarchy that leads to that which could have been avoided had good men done something.

My humble little blog is not nationally known. It is a small voice crying in the wilderness, a grain of sand on the beach. But it is public and one never knows who might stumble across it (I've just received an email from someone who stumbled across a post from 2007 and seeks further info about what was said there---wild, huh?), and regardless of what one believes in terms of religion, I know you have a sense of right and wrong.

It appears you have a "live and let live" attitude about homosexual behavior. What my opponents don't want to believe is that so do I. However, there among them activists who want more than that and it is very clear that to support their agenda for legislative changes in their favor is an incredibly bad idea for our culture and the world in which our children and grandchildren will be forced to inhabit.

This then, is really the point of this particular post, as we see that some of these guys, if not all, pretend there is some distinction between those they support and those they have chosen toward whom they have taken a hateful and bigoted stance. They do not see that agenda they support allows for other groups they do not to demand the same considerations, that they would have to grant those considerations for anyone who does demand them, for there is no distinct difference between any of them, as there is between all of them and the only arrangement that qualifies under the definition of marriage, that being one man and one woman.

Marshall Art said...

Parklife,

It is obvious you have made a New Year's resolution to give up being an ass on blogs. This is a good thing and I applaud you for it. However, what you fail to realize is that everyone here knows you've been nothing but an ass from day one up until this resolution was supposedly taken. To now preach against how other people talk is to be a different kind of ass, especially since you are ranting against what was provoked where you were always being provocative. Put a lid on it. No one here made that resolution, nor is it required. All that is required is to abide my main rule of engagement: No name calling toward any visitor here. That rule is for every visitor. I'm not a visitor. I live here. That's why name calling in my direction or from me is allowed. I can take it, thus I will dish it out as I see fit.

So here's a tip, Parkie: Concern yourself with your own behavior.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You still fail in your defense of your "uglyass" comment. You fail by assuming John B was referring to something other than adult consensual incest. You fail by assuming anyone else would make the same assumption you did. You fail by assuming anyone who is honest would not understand your tactic of trying to frame the behavior in the worst possible light by which you can better defend the depravity you honor. "Liar" is a word that does not do justice to the level of dishonesty you display by this ploy. Let's look at some others:

It is dishonest of you to continually bring up Lev 20:13 instead of Lev 18: 22 just to be able to mention the penalty that goes with it. It is further dishonest to do so without adding the final bit of the verse "their blood will be on their own heads." which indicates that they invite the punishment themselves by engaging in the prohibited behavior.

It is dishonest to pretend that it is only an opinion of men that God disapproves of all homosexual behavior regardless of context or the good intentions of the participants. Such is NOT an opinion, it IS a fact, and you have never come close to proving otherwise.

If our continued defense of this position can be regarded as "opinion", it at least conforms with everything Scripture DOES say on the issue of homosexual behavior, human sexuality and marriage. YOUR opinion is contrary to all Scripture says and assumes God would be so illogical as to bless something like "homosexual marriages" that are based on prohibited behaviors. Again, "liar" is too weak a term.

Marshall Art said...

And here's another lie told also by Jim and most enablers and activists:

Hetersexual intercourse is harmful, too.

When we argue that homosexual sex is harmful, we assume healthy participants. We also assume the acts that typify each group. That is, as close a one-to-one comparison as possible, because we're honest in our approach to the topic. Our approach is driven by not only a concern for our culture, but for those who engage in the behavior themselves. Our concern goes beyond the superficial concern of the enablers. Thus, when we talk about the sexual practices of either group (homo or hetero), we are speaking of the acts themselves AS IF engaged in by healthy people. This is different than Dan who assumes the worst possible scenario about adult consensual in order to color the discussion in his favor.

So, with that in mind, I took it upon myself to go to the internet to find, first, "Health risks of anal sex", which also produced links to discussions of homosexual sex in general. (This search did remind me of the possibility that some homo-couples do not engage in anal sex. But these are a minority within the minority.) Then, I typed in the same for heterosexual intercourse, and the results were mostly the same links to homosexual sex. There was one site that discussed hazards of all types, but it seemed to focus on a lot of things involving that which is irrelevant, such as unhealthy participants.

All in all, we have the following:

-kissing, particularly "tongue-wrestling" can spread germs.

-oral sex, also spreads germs.

The above are done by both groups, so they're a wash. What we have left is hetero intercourse and homo intercourse. Pair up any man and woman for the purpose, and the likelihood of harm from the act is almost zero. Pair up any two men for the purpose and the likelihood of harm is far, far greater due to the improper use of the body parts involved. Lubricants and condoms only reduce the possibility of harm, they don't eliminate the possibility.

I never want to get graphic like this, especially since Geoffrey might be enticed to come by in order to type "butt sex" as much as he can. He likes that. But when proponents try to pretend there is no more harm in that behavior than in heterosexual behavior, they are not being honest in the least and the harm that is more than possible must be pointed out specifically in order to thwart their desperate attempts to justify their positions. Now that it is done, though, I doubt the lies will stop.

So now, we can look again at adult consensual incest and wonder where the harm is physically, as we have a man and woman engaging in the sexual act as their biology was designed to: with someone of the opposite sex.

continuing....

Marshall Art said...

This couple might not want children or are cautious enough to prevent the possibility. Heck, like that small minority of homosexuals who don't like anal sex, this couple might not engage in intercourse at all. Why should they not be allowed to marry?

Two healthy individuals who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together in a committed relationship? That's the argument for homosexuals, but somehow it isn't good enough for the incestuous? Or the polygamous? Or the 12 yr old who really wants to marry the 35 yr old woman who reciprocates his affections? We as a society have decided that these are all unworthy of public support, yet there can be cases where any of these arrangements can work out well for those involved. But society knows, or least used to know in greater majorities, just why each of these were unworthy of that support. And of these arrangements, the least worthy is the homosexual arrangement because it does not benefit society at all.

Dan likes to believe that we should encourage people to forsake sexual promiscuity and seek one person with whom each can live in a monogamous relationship. If he was speaking of a traditional marital relationship, I would agree. But he isn't. He thinks it is less sinful because the homosexuals don't mess around outside their union. He's wrong. What's even more wrong is the implication that if we don't legislate in their favor, then rampant homosexual promiscuity will result. Let's think this out. If I was not allowed to marry my wife, would I seek out whores and sluts, or would I steal away to be with the woman I loved? Hmmm. Tough one, isn't it? "Oh, what's the use of being monogamous? We can't get married anyway?" Is that the extent of homosexual love? Just what is being supported here?

The arguments meant to change the world on this are about the crappiest arguments one could imagine and the activists and enablers actually try to convince the rest of us that they are sincere about them. They're either incredibly stupid or think we are.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals DO have standards of sexual morality--obviously, sexual morality is important to them or else why would they, within the context of their own community, say things like, "You shouldn't sleep around on your partner" or "It's wrong to have sex with a minor".

In the 15 years I lived that lifestyle, I found within the gay community that moral standards are all over the place. From monogamy to multiple partners, it's "each to his own". And yet, if there is no consensus of what is moral or immoral within their own community, on what basis are they making a "morality comparison claim" regarding sexual behavior to begin with?

When we expand the question to include all sexual acts (and thus all sexual morals gay or straight) The question is not "What is moral" but "Who's morals are we going to believe: some version made up individually or a version that comes to us from a religious system which (as is commonly held by those who follow them) is of a divine nature. In short, are we going to follow God's morality or man's?

Where the Judeo-Christian model comes into play, those who twist the Bible to approve (or at least not condemn) homosexual unions, MUST demand its approval because it is the only way they can get around sexual prohibitions in a book that claims to explain what God says is moral and what isn't. Anyone who reads the Bible honestly knows that it clearly condemns adultery, homosexuality, and all other forms of fornication. But why turn to God's Word as a moral compass in the first place when you plan on doing what you want and justifying it anyway?

Michael Burdick, an ex-homosexual (Praise God!)

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall Art,

BRILLIANT responses!

Parklife said...

Marshall, first off… its Parklife. Second, I have always pleaded with you to stop with the name-calling. This has been an effort that has fallen on deaf ears. The reason I point out the negative behavior is that I hope to make this world a better place. Yes, that does include the internet. For the record, I vaguely recall asking you to tone things down in exchange for longer responses on my part. But, we seem to be trapped in this infinite loop.

I find it shocking that somebody claiming to have a strong devotion to Christ would continue making such outrageous comments. It is not your opinions, but the way you express them. I dont expect you to change or somehow gain respect for yourself. But, I will continue to be shocked by your over-the-top comments and will point them out.

In the end, write whatever you feel like, but dont be surprised when the discussion turns negative and dissolves into senseless attacks.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

Why be so formal?

I really like how you play the victim, insisting that your bad behavior was somehow the result of mine, when in reality it was as I've said and anyone could go back and find it true, that you began your visits here in the worst way. Your current reformation, assuming it's not a new game, is not yet convincing. What's more, unlike yourself, I do not call people names that are not descriptive of the actual tone and behavior those names represent. In addition, I more often than not, if indeed I don't now and then, provide an actual substantive reason why the label applies.

For example, if a visitor displayed nothing but kindness and civility, you'd not be adverse to my calling him a gentleman, would you? If someone risked his life to save another, would it not be appropriate to label that person a hero? Thus, if someone acts foolish, a fool is what they are. I'm merely speaking truthfully. The negative behavior that is truly noteworthy is that which provokes the appellation you find so disturbing. As I've often told you in the past, adjust your behavior positively and you'll find a more desirable reaction from others.

This is particularly important to remember when you label us hateful, bigots, racists, homophobes and other such epithets when in fact, none of them are accurate descriptions of our commentary. Inaccurate and never substantiated to boot.

What you, and some others, want, is to be able to say what you want in any manner you want and demand that it be received as you want, while demanding at the same time a tone and demeanor you do not demand of yourselves.

So I say again, concern yourself with your own behavior.

Marshall Art said...

Mr. Burdick,

Welcome and thanks for your insights. I believe you are the first to come here to so openly reveal such highly personal background info. Kudos to you for doing so, and I hope you feel free to weigh in on any issue at any time. Your perspective is especially relevant on this topic.

Marshall Art said...

Glenn,

Thanks. "Brilliant" might be overstating it. "Obvious" is probably better.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Often that which is brilliant IS obvious :oD

Parklife said...

"Why be so formal?"

Thats the handle I have chosen. Its not formal, just appropriate.

"For example.."

Marshall, all you have done is created a loophole for yourself to jump through. This may be the height of dishonesty. But, if you want this loophole, then be fully expected for others to do the same and call you a bigot, racist, homophobe.. ect ect. So.. for example, when you act as a bigot, then get called a bigot, don’t act like a victim. And, yes, In the past I have pointed out when you have been a bigot or a homophobe. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to act this way, but it is true. Feel free to go back to any number of posts to do the research.

This is a question for Dan, can a follower of Christ really act in this way? Can somebody be a bully and at the same time feel confident they are following Christ?

Parklife said...

"I demand, once again, that you at least act like the Christian you claim to be and stop referring to my visitors by anything other than the names under which they post their comments."

Dare to dream.

Dan Trabue said...

Parklife (it's really not that hard to use the correct spelling, seems to me)...

This is a question for Dan, can a follower of Christ really act in this way? Can somebody be a bully and at the same time feel confident they are following Christ?

Followers of Jesus are just plain, flawed humans. They can (and unfortunately, do) act as good and as bad as the rest of humanity, right? Can someone be a bully and at the same time feel confident they're following Christ? Well, again unfortunately, folk have always been very good at convincing themselves that their behavior IS good, no matter how awful it gets.

I'd hope that most of us - Christians, non-Christians, atheists, pagans, whoever - could learn to disagree disagreeably. Save your strong outrage for behavior that causes actual observable harm. On mere disagreements over behaviors that cause no observable harm, I'd hope we could all (myself included) learn to say, "Well, I disagree, I don't find your position very rational, or very humane..." and let it go at that. If we must criticize (and I'd posit that there is certainly a time for criticism), I'd hope we could learn to criticize THE BEHAVIOR, not the person.

Thus, I'd hope we could learn to say, "When you say X, I disagree strongly because I feel that X is a very immoral (irrational, whatever) position to take..." as opposed to "You are a fool for believing X. You lie when you say X. People who believe X are obviously not christians..." and on and on with the ad hom attacks.

My prayer/suggestion for all of us would be that we all could...

1. learn to separate out OUR opinions from God's opinion and
2. learn the difference between fact and opinion and
3. learn that just because WE can't imagine something, does not mean that it doesn't exist, and
4. learn to criticize the behavior, not the person.

I think it we could do those four things, we could put a huge dent in the bile-tinged disagreements that so often happen in the ethersphere and learn to disagree in a way that is rational and pleasing (I think) to the Prince of Peace.

Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day God visits us...

...Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor...

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.


~St Peter

Dan Trabue said...

As to this post, I'll just say again that I agree with Jim: You all are losing the argument in the minds of most Americans and probably most Christians. You are losing NOT because we want to "endorse sin," but because...

1. Your approach tends to be rude and bullying and arrogant,

2. You tend to be graceless in the way you disagree with others - even fellow Christians,

3. Your moral and logical reasoning seems to be full of holes and,

4. You don't answer questions when someone raises them, further illustrating the holes in your argument.

You can keep trying to bully your way into winning this argument (which is a losing approach) or, if you really are concerned about morality and making your case, you could consider to learn to converse, answer direct questions and communicate in a more respectful and gracious manner.

One man's opinion.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to share. I just don't usually follow blogs and wouldn't know of anything in the ethersphere were it not for Glenn. We've been Email buddies for years and he keeps me posted of such things.

As an ex-homosexual I would have much to say because we are particularly infuriating to the radical gay agenda. Usually, they refuse to believe what we say about our sexuality even though they demand we accept theirs. That we have "changed" lays upon them the proof that people aren't born that way. It DOES NOT disprove that (as with all sins) everybody is born with personality traits that may or may not lead them into a lifestyle of sin of any kind. We are all born sinners, so some pattern of sinful behavior is bound to develop based on choices, environment, and personality—call it “spiritual genetics” if you like—from thievery to fornication, nobody is perfect and we all have our fatal wounds. Thus, as has been said before, it's not that you're born but whether or not you're reborn that counts.

The most succinct way I can put it is "Jesus is the man I was looking for and the God I needed" I am now part of His body and bride. Nothing the gay lifestyle (or any lifestyle) has to offer can beat that. Because of the Love He has given me for Him, the idea of cheating on Him (in any way) is abhorrent. Homosexual desires have no more power over me now than a wisp of thought easily dismissed because He has met all my needs for love and the sexual issue is moot. After some years of healing, He then gave me a wife and we've been happily married for 10 years. He has also surrounded me with Godly males with whom I can relearn what it means to love another male God's way. (Sooo much more fulfilling than the gagging gay lifestyle.)

Those who insist on teaching and justifying sin, calling darkness light and light darkness are dealt with in Jude (among other places). For all their bluster and socio-political advances, the day will come when all they have built will be swept away, and whether or not they ever lived or died will mean exactly nothing in the Kingdom to come. Even so come quickly Lord.

Michael Burdick

Dan Trabue said...

This, unfortunately, sounds a bit like the graceless approach that I would suggest is not working well for you all.

Michael, when you say...

Those who insist on teaching and justifying sin, calling darkness light and light darkness are dealt with in Jude.

And reference Jude, which says,

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

You appear to make the mistake (correct me if I'm wrong) of conflating your opinions with God's Word. You know that there are born again Christians who desire nothing more than to follow in Jesus' steps and be a part of God's glorious kingdom of Love and Grace who disagree with your understanding on homosexuality, right?

In the case of Christians disagreeing with one another, I think it undermines the holy church and Jesus' teachings of grace to treat one another as "ungodly people" who "secretly slip in among" other Christians to deceive and disrupt. Oh, I'm sure that happens, but in the case of OUR OPINIONS about behaviors, it is factually the case that there are Christians who sincerely disagree with one another.

In the case of sincere disagreements, we ought not treat one another rudely and compare one another to "blemishes" who "reject authority." Rather, we are simply flawed followers of our Lord, Jesus Christ, entirely capable of being mistaken on this behavior or that behavior. I, for one, know I am entirely capable of being mistaken. Do you think that you are able to be wrong?

If so, I'd suggest that we call for grace and respect on matters of non-essentials. I and my fellow Christians who agree with me are not false teachers, as has been falsely charged, nor are we trying to deceive anyone. We merely strive to follow in God's ways and, in the process, sometimes we disagree with fellow Christians. That happens, and it's okay.

Disagreeing is okay. Calling those who are saved by God's grace names and suggesting they themselves are of the devil, that is not the Way in which we are to walk.

Does this not seem reasonable to you?

Anonymous said...

Sigh*  Son, the scripture you quoted is that with which you must debate, not me.  If you don't like the description God gives of your position, it is not for me to argue with or convince you otherwise.  It is a work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
Whether or not you are saved is not for me to say.  That you position yourself against 4000 years of Biblically proscribed morality is not an issue of my being insulting, it is but mere fact.  If you are insulted, that is your issue, not mine.  I do not approach these issues with the idea of insulting anyone--but I have found that those who speak against The Truth will use "you're insulting me" as a method of obfuscation where the issue of Absolute Incarnate Truth is concerned.  
 
The Truth is The Truth and He will remain The Truth whether it insults you or not, no matter who you are, no matter what you are doing. 
 
His grace you may have, even unto salvation--but if your are going to honestly claim to follow Him, then why try to make His Word say things it does not say? 
 
As those bought by His blood, it is our responsibility as His servants to hear what He teaches whether we like it or not and conform our belief's to His revelation; not start where we prefer to be on any given subject and then make what He says justify our position. 
 
You are doing what you are doing and believing what you are believing because you choose to do so.  Until you honestly seek Him with the heart felt consideration of the possibility that you are wrong, debating with you is pointless.  You will always find some way of skirting the issue to justify your behavior.  Meanwhile, scripture is clear that fornication is a sin and God (not you or me) is the only one who is in a position to declare what is or is not moral.  

Michael Burdick

Jim said...

What we have left is hetero intercourse and homo intercourse. Pair up any man and woman for the purpose, and the likelihood of harm from the act is almost zero. Pair up any two men for the purpose and the likelihood of harm is far, far greater

But this is an incorrect comparison. You are comparing vaginal sex to anal sex, completely ignoring the fact that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. The dangers of anal sex for healthy partners using similar precautions would be THE SAME, not "far, far greater".

On to incest. All your arguments in this area are moot, Angelina's "hotness" not withstanding. Incest is illegal in one way or another in every state and the District of Columbia. Homosexual sex acts aren't (thanks to the Rehnquist court, Lawrence v. Texas.

Furthermore, since Lawrence v. Texas, how a couple engages in sex and the dangers or lack of danger of specific acts are irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Dan Trabue said...

Michael...

Son, the scripture you quoted is that with which you must debate, not me. If you don't like the description God gives of your position, it is not for me to argue with or convince you otherwise.

I have no interest in "debating" with Scripture. YOUR understanding of Scripture, though, I am fine with talking about it as two rational adults and (assuming you're a Christian) two respectful Christians.

The problem is, it seems to me, brother, is that you seem to be conflating YOUR UNDERSTANDING of a passage with God's Word.

Can we agree that it is wrong to speak for God what God has not said?

Can we agree that it is wrong to call "NOT of God," those who ARE of God?

Can we agree that being mistaken about a behavior in no way equates to not being saved?

That is, you or I one or the other are mistaken about the notion of the sanctity of marriage between loving adults - gay or straight - but your being mistaken (or me) in no way signifies one of us is not saved, only that we are mistaken.

We are not saved by a perfect knowledge of sin, brother Michael, but by God's grace, can we agree?

And, if so, can we agree that your claims from Jude (which are NOT about saved people) are not of grace, but of judgmentalism and thus, not wise or rational?

Dan Trabue said...

Michael...

You are doing what you are doing and believing what you are believing because you choose to do so.

I would ask that you allow me to speak for myself, is that not a rational notion?

Speaking for myself, then, I believe what I believe because I have sought God's will earnestly and this is the position I have reached.

You perhaps don't know much or anything about me, so I will let you know I came from a conservative traditional background and came to believe what I believe through prayer and earnest seeking of God's will. You can guess that I may be wrong, but you would err in suggesting I do so for selfish reasons.

Perhaps we could agree that it is not wise to speak authoritatively of some strangers' opinions.

Michael...

Until you honestly seek Him...

I HAVE done so...

...with the heart felt consideration of the possibility that you are wrong...

I have done so...

debating with you is pointless.

It is my position that reasoning with grace and respect with others is rarely pointless. Even if they are presumptuous or speak out of turn. You are free to disagree, my brother, I'll stand by reason and grace.

You will always find some way of skirting the issue to justify your behavior.

Justify my behavior? What behavior is that, my brother? Standing up for marriage between two consenting adults, that behavior? I believe in love and grace and respect and Godly behavior. I just disagree with you that two people committing to fidelity and love is a bad thing. God has not offered us God's opinion, but I think it clear.

I would always counsel folk not to speak for God what God has not said, as this can be quite unwise at best and blasphemous at worst. I'd pray that you consider this counsel, my brother in Christ.

Marshall Art said...

One of the problems of my current employment situation is the unfortunate hours that allow so many comments to post before I can make any responses. Oh well. Such is my life at present.

Let us start with Park-a-lark-a-ding-dong:

I don't care what name you want used. You don't get to call the shots here. Your history here is as I've accurately described it: you began as a rude ass and continued so until I activated comment moderation and you stopped showing up. You never attempted to actually discuss any topic, but only to crack wise in a most non-entertaining fashion (a true crime it is to be a poor wise ass). You ridiculed most every comment of mine and those on my side of the ideological spectrum, beginning most every response with your constant in tiresome "LOL". That would never have been so bad had you once explained just what the hell was so damned funny about what was said. Now you play the victim as taught by Dan's example. Not a good idea.

Now, I have not created any "loopholes" (that's what Dan does with his biblical eisegesis). What I've done was create an example to illustrate the difference between what I do and mere name-calling. This is important, not to justify doing it from a moral standpoint, but to identify why the choice of name are justified. This is something you have never done, and frankly, neither have any of the other enablers of the bad behavior I oppose. For example, in spite of your statement to the contrary, you have NEVER shown where calling me a bigot, a homophobe, hateful, etc is justified or even slightly so. Indeed, this very post is about the unjustified use of the term "uglyass" to describe the paralleling of homosexual unions to adult consensual incestuous unions.

IF, for example, it is bigotry to oppose deviant sexual behavior, then I will cop to being a bigot. In that same way, I am opposed to many other sinful behaviors and would have to called a bigot toward the practitioners of those behaviors as well. I can deal.

But you guys don't use the term in that manner. You use it as if I was a racist (another charge leveled against me without the slightest justification) or that homosexuality was akin to skin color, which it most clearly is not.

To put it another way, without too fine a point, I am calling evil by its name, foolishness by its name, "asshole-ness" by its name. You simply make accusations. The difference is stark. The distinction gaping.

Thus, if you insist on calling ME the names you call me, fine. It would simply be nice if you could explain why they are appropriate. Saying you have indicated when I was bigoted isn't nearly enough. You need to explain what was bigoted about what I said. That isn't possible as nothing I've said has been.

Marshall Art said...

Now for Dan. So many restatements of nonsense so many times refuted, rebutted and proven foolish and wrong. But I'm always ready to go again if he insists on repeating them.

First of all, the bully question asked by the Parkster. The two of you like to try this lame scheme, but the fact of the matter is that decrying bad behavior is not bullying. If it were so, then every parent is a bully. So is every teacher, preacher, cop and judge. What you guys like to call bullying is merely the righteous anger of those so provoked by the continual use of cheap reasoning to justify that which is so clearly prohibited by God, compounded by accusations leveled against those who stand up for God's clearly revealed Will. (Some of that preceded by "LOL")

In my case, rarely, if ever, am I provoked to anger by any of you guys. I have the truth. Anger is unnecessary.

But the question is really silly. If someone can justify sinfulness like homosexual behavior and still claim to follow Christ, certainly an actual bully can. If someone can justify defending those who wish to retain the legal right to abort their babies while claiming to follow Christ, certainly an actual bully can make that claim as well. What's more, if someone like you and Dan can call someone a bully because you can't bear the truth of what he says, and yet you and/or Dan can still claim to be a Christian, then of course an actual bully can, too.

"Well, again unfortunately, folk have always been very good at convincing themselves that their behavior IS good, no matter how awful it gets."

Even if that behavior is called abominable or detestable by God Himself, like homosexual behavior. Even if that behavior involves the horrific killing of the unborn.

My prayer/suggestion for those like yourselves would be:

1) Stop pretending our accurate transmission of God's clearly revealed Will is just an opinion without solid grounds, because that's a lie.

2) Stop pretending we have a problem distinguishing fact from opinion when we support our facts directly from what Scripture actually says, instead of pretending what it doesn't say gives us room to insert our preferences.

3) Learn that just because you imagine something doesn't mean it exists, such as the imaginary possibility that God would bless a union based on prohibited behavior.

4) We already criticize the behaviors of those you defend as well as yourselves. Then, as you continue to perpetrate the behaviors, criticizing you is justified. Do you mean to say that you do not criticize one who steals or lies constantly? This is not an accurate understanding of the "love the sinner, hate the sin". It is another corruption. Indeed, to say "love the sinner" shows that you have identified and criticized the one who sins by calling him a sinner.

more coming...

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Your quote from Peter is another shameful use of Scripture to have things your way. You wish to quiet those who would shout the truth over your repetition of lies by appealing to some tone that you abuse with said repetition. What's more, you violate the spirit of that quote by engaging in the very crime against which it speaks as regards using freedom as a cover for evil.

As to your agreement with Jim, your four points:

1) At this point, after years of dealing with your corruptions and distortions, I admit I've long since given up on pretending there's a mutual respect present in our discussions. They certainly don't show up at YOUR blog, as the "uglyass" comment demonstrates. And I'll say again that standing up for God's Truth, as it is so clearly revealed to us, might feel rude, bullying and arrogant, but that's your problem.

2) Redundancy. My "lack of grace" matches yours evident in the graceless defense of bad behavior. Being nice while defending abomination isn't "grace". It's deceit and wickedness.

3) If there are any holes in my moral or logical reasoning, you've yet to find any. I'm always ready to show how you're wrong. It's easy for me since I have the truth on my side.

4) The only questions I've ever avoided are those that you formulate to be leading questions. Take for example your question about agreeing to speak against abusive incestuous situations. My purpose has been to separate that issue from the issue at hand and your point is to keep that issue to the fore so as to more easily dress up the sin you support as benign because you will only address one context in which it might take place. The point here is you ask deceitful questions almost as much as you make deceitful statements about bad behavior.

Yet I have answered some of these types of questions nonetheless, one of the most recent being about slavery.

But real, thoughtful and relevant questions don't scare me in the least and I've never run from them.

"...you could consider to learn to converse, answer direct questions and communicate in a more respectful and gracious manner."

this is only a little bit hypocritical. I see nothing respectful or gracious in continually putting forth corruptions and sinfulness as acceptable and even worthy of God's blessing. It's offensive yet I am respectful and gracious enough to continue the engagement.

So once again, if telling the truth seems like bullying to you, you'll have to learn to deal with it in a more adult manner.

Marshall Art said...

Little Jimmy,

"But this is an incorrect comparison."

Not so. The comparison is not the act itself, but a comparison of the health risks of the two couples based on the acts in which they are likely to engage, after common acts are accounted for. Most homosexual couples engage in that act. No hetero couple needs to. It is the only act that can be equated to hetero unions in any way. Of course the risks are the same for the hetero couple if they engage in the same act. That's the point. It is an act that is common among homosexuals, thus making their sexual lifestyles far more risky because they engage in an act that entails the improper use of their anatomies. This is so freakin' basic you must consciously avoid the obvious to maintain your position. Which means you're lying.

"On to incest. All your arguments in this area are moot, Angelina's "hotness" not withstanding. Incest is illegal in one way or another in every state and the District of Columbia."

So far. The same was said of homosexual behavior right before Lawrence v Texas. So far. The righteousness of the illegality of incest is what is being discussed here. All the arguments that were used for Lawrence are equally applicable for the incestuous. There is no reason why adult consensual homosexual behavior should be legalized that doesn't apply equally to incest or polygamy. THAT is the issue here. THAT and the fact that Dan has a hatefully bigoted and phobic attitude toward loving, committed and monogamous adult consensual incestuous couples that he doesn't have for homosexuals. He dismisses those who point to the promiscuity and infidelity of homosexual couples as not the point, but insists that all incest is abusive and won't consider any other possibility.

The funny part is that the excuses for problems with homosexuals isn't also reason to give slack to the incestuous. Polygamists are coming out of their closet as more support for granting them marital rights is being seen in Canada. How closed minded and bigoted for you guys to assume that the incestuous don't have their closets as well, more tightly sealed because of the hatred and bigotry of people like you and Dan.

What has been obvious to the moral for years is becoming commonplace today and you idiots think you're "winning"? Give me a break. You guys are so morally corrupt, but you have the hypocritical gall to draw a line right after the immorality with which you are personally comfortable, discriminating against others beyond that line for subjective reasons that aren't any stronger than the subjectivity you use to justify the wickedness you enable. The hubris you guys have to dare accuse us of wrongdoing in standing up for morality and values is beyond measure.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I see nothing respectful or gracious in continually putting forth corruptions and sinfulness as acceptable and even worthy of God's blessing. It's offensive yet I am respectful and gracious enough to continue the engagement.

The difference is, Marshall, that you do so NOT in a respectful, adult way, but in a way that is bullying and a bit childish. Really, calling people by silly variations of their name? That is respect?

In what sense is that being respectful?

The difference between what I do ("uglyass," for instance) and what you are doing, as I noted earlier, is that I am saying "THIS BEHAVIOR is uglyass," and usually ending it with a "Brother Marshall..." That is, I'm speaking of people's behaviors and saying, this behavior is wrong. You, on the other hand, call people silly names and denigrate the actual person, calling THEM fools, calling them other names, THEM, not the specific argument being made.

And that is the difference between respect and not.

The other difference can be seen here...

I see nothing respectful or gracious in continually putting forth corruptions and sinfulness as acceptable and even worthy of God's blessing.

You all continually conflate YOUR opinions with God's word. It's as if you're saying "If the ALMIGHTY I can't believe your argument, then it does not exist, therefore you are lying..." as if all of reason and morality existed in your little body.

You say...

Stop pretending our accurate transmission of God's clearly revealed Will is just an opinion without solid grounds, because that's a lie.

There. You make it sound as if your opinion is undoubtedly the same thing as God's voice. It's YOUR OPINION. Learn the difference, my man.

Dan Trabue said...

The point I was getting at, Marshall, is this:

1. With increasing numbers of people leaning in favor of marriage equity for all AND with the trend of young folk being largely in favor of this, it is I think a reasonable conclusion to state that the fact is, you are losing this argument with the US population at large. It is likely that in our lifetime (unless you die from a stroke brought on by sheer moral outrage), marriage equity will be the norm in this country. You're losing the argument.

2. It seems to me that you all are losing the argument for exactly what we see here: Your arguments are coming across as the ones who are irrational, emotionally-charged, and immoral and people are not being swayed by these arguments for these reasons.

3. You are free to think that you ARE being the most rational and moral, and that people are rejecting your opinions/arguments because we WANT to be immoral and reject God's ways, but that would fly in the face of evidence.

Three questions, Marshall:

Do you really think that Christian family guys like me, Geoffrey, Jim and others - folk who love their children and wives, who love their parents and communities, folk who go to church and desire to follow Christ in their life, to live Godly lives, who do good, teach Sunday School, serve as deacons, tend to the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, etc... do you think what we REALLY want to do is encourage immorality?

Or, can you concede that (from your position) we want to do the right thing and have just been swayed by bad arguments?

IF it's the case that you think we have just been swayed by bad ideas, do you really think your approach is a winning way to make your case?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Don't you just love the new buzz phrase, "marriage equity"? It is a nonsensical phrase.

Everyone has the equal right to marry, and marriage is between members of the opposite sex. It isn't "equity" to redefine a word and then demand to have the new definition accepted.

Same-sex unions are not, and never will be true marriage. God defined marriage between man and woman in Genesis. And that isn't my "opinion," it is fact.

By the way, anything Dan doesn't agree with is labeled "opinion."

And, yes, Dan, if your group of people who call themselves members of a church support homosexuality in any fashion, then they are indeed encouraging immorality. I know, I know - it is only MY opinion that homosexual behavior is immoral. Yeah, right.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

By the way, anything Dan doesn't agree with is labeled "opinion."

First of all, Brother Glenn, if you don't want to talk TO me, then I'd suggest not talking ABOUT me. One is conversation. The other is gossip. Conversation is a good thing, biblically and rationally speaking. Gossip is a sin, biblically and rationally.

Secondly, no, of course not. Anything that I don't agree with is not simply "opinion" just because I don't agree with it. BUT, anything that someone expresses that IS an opinion, is, in fact, an opinion.

So, stating "Leviticus has a line that says 'men who lay with men should be killed,'" that would be a factual statement.

Stating, "Therefore, I THINK God is opposed to marriage equity (ie, God doesn't want gay folk to marry one another)," THAT IS BY DEFINITION, AN OPINION.

Do you really think that anything that begins with "I THINK..." and is not provable is NOT an opinion?

Again, this is my point, you all really need to stop thinking "Well, because I THINK it must be God's will, then IT MUST BE God's will, because MY OPINIONS and God's Will are one in the same..."

This is exactly one of the reasons that you all are losing this argument. It's not rational, nor is it moral.

Glenn...

And, yes, Dan, if your group of people who call themselves members of a church support homosexuality in any fashion, then they are indeed encouraging immorality.

My question, Glenn, was "DO YOU REALLY THINK WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IMMORALITY?" As opposed to wanting to do the right thing and are simply mistaken on this point (from your viewpoint/opinion)?

What is your answer to the question I asked, Glenn?

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

Don't you just love the new buzz phrase, "marriage equity"? It is a nonsensical phrase.

Actually, it is a very logical phrase and I started using it because of conservative reasoning.

That is, a conservative balked at gay marriage, saying, "There isn't marriage and 'gay marriage,' there is only marriage..." And of course, he is right.

We're not asking for some special different thing called "gay marriage," we're asking for marriage equity. The equal opportunity for folk to wed regardless of sexual orientation.

It's quite reasonable, agreed?

Michael Burdick said...

Dan, I don't find discussing this subject with you to be either edifying or fruitful. You are confirmed in your delusion and refuse to acknowledge what scripture clearly says about fornication. When said scriptures are pointed out to you, you simply deny the meaning and say it is my opinion. So be it--but I have better things to do with my time. Conversation ended.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

There is increasing belief that sex outside marriage is no big deal. Should we now support that as Christians? And the trend with young folks is exploring their sexuality while still in middle and high school was begun at least twenty years ago and is still in play. Do you support that?

The fact is that the trend is a result of good men doing nothing, and less than good men acquiescing to carnal desires. It is not a result of logic or fact based criteria, as so easily pointed out here time and time again.

AS to your second point, our tone has nothing to do with "losing" the argument. If this were so, then the same tone loses the argument against all sin and civil lawbreaking, for it is the same tone exactly. Society need not concern itself with how it's outrage at bad behavior sounds to the perpetrators of that behavior. The sinners don't get to dictate terms.

If our arguments are coming across as you say, it is because you ignore the fact and logic we've tried to use to appeal to reason, which apparently you reject. (Not 'lack', but reject)

3) Most everything we say to support our arguments are fact based and the rest conclusions based on your actions and words.

As to your questions, the first thing I will say is that it is an example of what I was saying earlier in regards to your "questions". But as I usually do, I will now respond:

First question: yes. That is my answer and here is why it is "yes": You try to convince us of your sincerity that you are concerned only with pleasing God. I and others have shown the incredible flaws of your arguments from Scripture and you ignore them, do not resolve them in the least and pretend we respond only with opinion. This is absolute nonsense. I insist that I wish only the truth, would at least consider a change of heart if people like you could fill the gaping holes in your arguments. I've pushed you into those holes repeatedly and you merely climb out and pretend it never happened.

So, as homosexual behavior is clearly prohibited with NO allowance for any acceptable context, you are clearly encouraging immoral behavior. Indeed, you champion it.

Second question: you aren't merely swayed by bad arguments, you use them as if they are valid and solid, never, as I've said, fill the gaping holes so plainly evident within them. You cling to the bad arguments and depend upon them for validation of your corruption. And then you fend off defending them by calling your opponents bullies for calling the arguments lame and corrupt.

Third. Our approach is to continue with the truth and to call evil by its name, not to bully, but to clarify the situation. I will continue to do so. For such as yourself and the others you listed, my concern is less about any of you than any who might read your words. I wish to do what I can to give the other side, to expose the stupidity, arrogance, and corrupt nature of the arguments so that they are not likewise corrupted. I don't think it's too late for you and yours. It does seem as if you have no desire to repent of this obvious sin.

Gotta go.

Parklife said...

"Conversation ended."

I've never understood what makes some think they have the absolute correct and only interpretation of something.

Its also curious, from reading this thread and others, that homosexual intercourse is usually imagined as two men having sex.

For me the argument is lost by conservatives on something I actually agree with them about. The relatively small number of homosexuals, let alone those that wish to marry. Now compare that to the number of homeless or those living below the poverty line. Or even those living on death row (yes, a smaller number on death row. But it is "death" after all). It just seems that conservatives waste too much time and energy fighting against a small number of people.

Perhaps the bible isnt so clear on poverty?

Dan Trabue said...

Michael...

You are confirmed in your delusion and refuse to acknowledge what scripture clearly says about fornication.

Just a correction: I certainly do not refuse to acknowledge what Scripture says about fornication. Hasn't happened. If you think I have, you can point it out and I can deal with your misunderstanding, but it has not happened in the real world that I have disagreed with what Scripture says about anything.

You DO know, don't you, that bearing false witness IS clearly condemned in the Bible? Since you don't know me at all, I will assume you have made an innocent mistake.

Still, bearing false witness is a serious sin, brother. Making mistakes happen though, so you certainly have my forgiveness, but how about being a good fellow and offering an apology for the false statement? Or at least an acknowledgment that you have misspoke? Why not keep things on an adult and respectful level?

I extend my hand (figuratively) in good will, Brother Michael. Will you meet me half way?

Peace to you.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

There is increasing belief that sex outside marriage is no big deal. Should we now support that as Christians? And the trend with young folks is exploring their sexuality while still in middle and high school was begun at least twenty years ago and is still in play. Do you support that?

No, and no. Why would I?

Nonetheless, I WOULD oppose criminalizing any of that behavior. Not really gov't's business, is it?

Marshall...

AS to your second point, our tone has nothing to do with "losing" the argument.

It is, of course, your right to hold that guess. It is my guess that the lack of rational and respectful dialog from folk like you has a good bit to do with your losing the argument. It's simply not rational in any sense that I can think of, and it's a huge stretch and twisting of Scripture to say God opposes people committing in faithful marriage. God has not said that.

THAT, my friend, is a dependable, real world fact.

As to our guesses about the reasons why you're losing the argument, at this point, they're just guesses. I'm just offering my suggestion as to what I have seen and heard. IF you were concerned about actually effecting positive change (positive, as you view it), then you might want to consider the suggestion, it might have some merit.

Marshall...

First question: yes. That is my answer and here is why it is "yes": You try to convince us of your sincerity that you are concerned only with pleasing God. I and others have shown the incredible flaws of your arguments from Scripture and you ignore them...

Not ignore them. Listen, remember that I've already considered these arguments dozens or hundreds of times and realize that I find your case no more compelling now (actually less so) than at any of the times I've heard these same arguments before.

Just because you can't understand HOW we who hold this position, does not mean that we don't hold them in sincerity and good faith.

Just because you don't see the rationality and morality of our arguments and can't see how we DON'T see your arguments as either rational or moral, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Again, this seems to be one of your problems (and one of the reasons you're losing the argument): You all seem to conflate your opinions with God's will and anyone who doesn't see the "wisdom" of YOUR understanding is rejecting morality.

It just factually ain't the case, my brother.

So, you TRULY believe that WE truly WANT to encourage immorality? Then tell me this: WHY? Why would we possibly WANT to encourage immorality?

Are you thinking I would encourage my children to embrace immorality? To steal, lie and cheat? To be promiscuous? WHY? Who would do that in the real world, Marshall?

That is an irrational suggestion, brother. Feel free to try to explain that, but it SOUNDS as if you've lost touch with reality, it is so far removed from right-thinking (and again, a reason why you're losing the argument).

Or, maybe like Glenn, you misunderstood the question. You said...

So, as homosexual behavior is clearly prohibited with NO allowance for any acceptable context, you are clearly encouraging immoral behavior. Indeed, you champion it.

I'm not asking if you think I'm encouraging immoral behavior. I am asking if you think we WANT TO encourage immoral behavior? Do you think OUR DESIRE is to encourage immorality?

And, if so, why in the world would anyone want that?

Dan Trabue said...

I said this just a few words ago...

Listen, remember that I've already considered these arguments dozens or hundreds of times and realize that I find your case no more compelling now (actually less so) than at any of the times I've heard these same arguments before.

And it hit me how true this is. With each time I get into these sorts of discussions and see the lack of rationality or morality in your opinions, I am MORE convinced that you are mistaken. With each argument you all make, you undo your case EVEN MORE. And, add to that the hateful, disrespectful tone you all tend to take (not all of you, but many of you), and you further undo your own case.

Consider that I heard these arguments repeatedly most of my life and I believed them the first hundred times I heard them, but the more I looked into it myself, the more I prayed and read the Bible and sought God's will, AND the more I heard your-type of arguments (sometimes, coming from my own self, mind you!), the more I began to doubt the rationality and morality of your position. And then, once I began to doubt it, and heard the same old arguments even more, then EVEN MORE did it just not seem a sound rational or biblical position to take and I had to "change sides."

In a very real way, it was EXACTLY the arguments you all make (and I made) in opposition to marriage equity that pushed me AWAY from your position!

Given that, perhaps the thing that you could do to be MOST EFFECTIVE at making your case would be to quit making it altogether...

Just a thought.

Peace.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Poor baby - everything someone says to you or about you ends up - in your opinion - gossip, slander, lies, falsehoods, “ad homs” and so forth.

No Dan, telling the audience of these posts that you label as “opinion” everything you disagree with is not gossip - it is alerting them to your behavior. If I alerted people in my neighborhood to the fact that there is a person known as a house burglar, it would not be gossip. And besides which, gossip is usually behind another’s back, so to speak, and you are right here to claim your victim status.

The FACT that Scripture tells us that God condemns all homosexual behavior, just as he condemns bestiality and adultery, is not just an opinion. In fact, I demonstrated conclusively, exegetically on my blog that the lies you and your ilk tell about what the Bible says about homosexuality is just that - LIES!
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html

You don’t like what the Bible says because it is against your personal beliefs and therefore you say it is only an opinion as to how it is properly interpreted.

And “marriage equity” is a fraud, just as all your other teachings on the subject are fraudulent. It isn’t a mere OPINION that God doesn’t want a man to “marry” another man - it is a fact! Just like 2+2=4 is a fact.

Our argument IS the rational and moral one.

I am not mistaken about what God says about homosexuality, and you know the truth in your heart but deny it. YES, if you and your followers and fellow congregants are supporting homosexual behavior, and same-sex unions, then you must WANT to ENCOURAGE immorality. Homosexual behavior is immoral, and against God’s will. That is a fact. If you support it, then you encourage it by definition.

Supporting homosexual behavior is NEVER “the right thing.”

If you claim “marriage equity” means “The equal opportunity for folk to wed regardless of sexual orientation” then you cannot logically deny marriage to incestuous partners, to polygamists, to polyandrists, or even to zoophiliacs and necrophiliacs. After all, those are all just “sexual orientations.” And, no, I do not agree that your claim is reasonable. It is foolish, as are all your claims about homosexuality.

Craig said...

"With increasing numbers of people leaning in favor of marriage equity for all AND with the trend of young folk being largely in favor of this,..."

The question must be asked.

Dan, are you in favor of "marriage equity for all"?

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

Poor baby - everything someone says to you or about you ends up - in your opinion - gossip, slander, lies, falsehoods, “ad homs” and so forth.

My dear brother, this is not third grade...

Glenn...

No Dan, telling the audience of these posts that you label as “opinion” everything you disagree with is not gossip - it is alerting them to your behavior.

False witness.

Demonstrably so. Go ahead and say something that I disagree with that is a fact. For instance, I disagree with spending gov't money to send people to the moon. AND YET, even though I disagree with it, it remains a fact that it happens and I don't call it "opinion." I disagree with capital punishment, AND YET, it remains a fact, and I don't call it "opinion..."

That just demonstrates that your statement is false.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you HOLD AN OPINION and I disagree with your opinion, then that is not calling a "fact" an opinion.

Go ahead Glenn, name ONE "fact" that I call opinion.

Oh wait, you try it here...

The FACT that Scripture tells us that God condemns all homosexual behavior, just as he condemns bestiality and adultery, is not just an opinion.

Yes, it is, BY DEFINITION, an opinion, Glenn. YOU THINK, it is YOUR OPINION that God condemns all gay behavior. Where is your proof to support that as a fact? YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, Glenn. You factually don't have a single thing to prove that is a fact. It is YOUR HUNCH, YOUR opinion, YOUR interpretation, YOUR wild-as-a-loon guess. YOU, YOU, YOU. It's all your stuff in your head, God has not told you that, God has not told anyone that. It is all you, poor brother.

You truly just don't appear to understand the difference between fact and opinion, my friend. More's the pity.

Glenn...

You don’t like what the Bible says...

False witness. I DO like what the Bible says. I LOVE what the Bible says. It is false to suggest otherwise. I DISAGREE with YOUR interpretation of some passages. There is a world of difference.

Glenn...

because it is against your personal beliefs and therefore you say it is only an opinion as to how it is properly interpreted.

False witness.

The Bible is not "against my personal beliefs," rather, the Bible helps SHAPE my personal beliefs. I came to my positions THROUGH BIBLE STUDY.

Look, this is just beyond silly. If it is a fact that God condemns all homosexual behavior, just show your proof. Facts are easily discerned and proven. Step up and prove it or back down and admit you may have overspoke.

Here, I'll do it for you, since you've tried this multiple times.

Glenn: The Bible says "man shall not lie with man" therefore, I THINK THAT MEANS that God is opposed to all homosexual activity in all contexts in all times.

Did you see it? "Therefore, I THINK THAT MEANS..." THAT is where you fall into opinion. And that's okay, Glenn. It is okay for you to hold opinions. What is wrong is to conflate your opinions with God. I know God, my friend, and you ain't Him.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig asked...

are you in favor of "marriage equity for all"?

Yes, I am in favor of all rational, consenting adults being able to wed the persons of their choice and enjoy the benefits and societal support that comes with marriage. I'm not in favor of bestiality (not consensual), I'm not in favor of child-marriages (not adult) and we should be cautious about those with mental issues.

It is not really any of the gov't's business to say "These two people can marry the person of their choice, but THOSE can't because they're gay, or they're mixed race, or they're mixed religions..." It's not the gov't's business to impose religious limitations upon others. We have freedom of and freedom FROM religion in our great nation. And really, that is the only reason anyone ever offers for opposing marriage equity, because of their opinions about what God does and doesn't like.

Or, conversely, I'm also fine with gov't getting OUT of the marriage business and letting people decide for themselves what is and isn't a legitimate marriage and how to engage in it.

I'm opposed to the discrimination that comes with allowing straight folk to marry (and enjoy all the benefits of that gov't-sanctioned marriage) but not gay folk, as a matter of justice.

Craig said...

"I am in favor of all rational, consenting adults being able to wed the persons of their choice..."

Just to clarify further, you are in favor of ALL "rational, consenting adults" being able to marry whomever they want to, correct?

If your answer is yes, then who do you propose that would be able to determine the "rationality, or consemsualness" of any proposed "marriage"? On what grounds would you propose that someone make those decisions?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Just to clarify further, you are in favor of ALL "rational, consenting adults" being able to marry whomever they want to, correct?

Yes, with the caveats I provided (ie, rational consenting adults).

Craig...

If your answer is yes, then who do you propose that would be able to determine the "rationality, or consemsualness" of any proposed "marriage"?

The people involved. Who else?

On what grounds would you propose that someone make those decisions?

If I'm trying to marry someone, then I and that partner would be the most apt adults to make that decision. We have freedom to make these sorts of decisions in our culture.

The one area where consenting adults might rationally experience some outside intervention might be those with mental disabilities. For instance, if a young woman with an IQ of a third grader were being wooed by a fella, we might reasonably have some moral grounds for treading cautiously, there (ideally, her family would be involved). Or, if we have a father trying to marry his consenting adult daughter, we might rightly check for mental issues right there, because AS WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED already, there is a dearth of evidence to suggest that this is right-thinking and much evidence to warrant concern about emotional abuse.

Michael Burdick said...

Thank you Art. I was the primary caretaker for my third lover who died of AIDs. It is only by God's mercy that I did not contract it as I was heavily exposed. His death was so traumatic it led to a suicide attempt from which I believe I was angelically delivered. I remember the darkness of those 15 years as if they were but a bad dream. Even though I glutted myself with all the pleasures and "marriages" thereof, it was ultimately an empty experience filled with the bondage of the flesh. The lifestyle is full of guilt, disease, drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide and psychological and relational instability. Those who promote it (especially from a Biblical position) are as the Word describes them: Reprobate--meaning they have minds that don't work. . .can't think. . .are broken. Nobody can argue with me about it because I've been there and I know what it's really like. I know the difference between the Light of Christ and the darkness of depravity first hand. So I'm not the least bit shy to call it what it is nor do I concern myself with those who say I'm being judgmental or mean spirited. I only pray they find Christ as He is meant to be known. When that happens, they will see the difference too. Until then, arguing with them is pointless. As it says in Revelation "Let the filthy be filthy." and elsewhere says "Turn away from such" which is why I ended my conversation with Dan.

Craig said...

"...Or, if we have a father trying to marry his consenting adult daughter, we might rightly check for mental issues right there,..."

So, presuming that the couple in questions satisfies someone(you) as to their mental capabilities (also presuming there is a reasonable way to measure said mental abilities), would you object to this marriage? Or is it that you would consider anyone wishing to marry their daughter mentally unqualified no matter what?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

I am just getting to the end of this lengthy thread. I am interested in serious rational adult discussion and have a question on your last couple of answers.

Based on your responses to Craig, you listed you favor for all rational, consenting adults to be able to wed with all benefits and societal support that it brings. Would it be safe to assume then that you do not see marriage itself as being a moral issue? You have listed mental capacity, age, and choice (consent and non-coerced decision making - it was noted that your objection to bestiality was based on a lack of consent here assumed to mean the animal cannot agree to any interpersonal relationship) as determining factors in marriage.

Put in another form for clarity, since your caveats for legitimacy in marriage would it be accurate to say your view is that marriage is a morally neutral concept, not good or bad based solely on the framework (or makeup of the participants)?

Or possibly even more simply, would it be accurate to say your view is that with respect to marriage moral good or bad is only based on what people do as they interact with one another once they enter into a union, but has no bearing on whether they should come together in the first place?

I am very limited with time so I hope those questions made sense and are reasonable given the original content of the post.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

You say it is “false witness” that I am alerting people to your behavior. And then you take out of context what my statement was about. Have we EVER discussed gov’t spending, going to the moon, capital punishment, etc? The CONTEXT of my statement was all the various theological discussions we have had on blog, after blog, after blog. Theologically-speaking, you label everything that disagrees with your liberal, blasphemous and false interpretations of Scripture as merely “opinion.”

Your twisted eisegesis which disagrees with thousands of years of solid biblical scholarship doesn’t make what I said an opinion. My understanding of what the Scripture says about homosexuality is 100% fact of which you cannot disprove. No hunch, no guess, no opinion. It is as factual as 2+2=4. You only want it to be opinion so you can have your homosexualists ideas justified.

Nothing I have stated about you has ever been “false witness.” I cite your actions, your behaviors, your writings. The only reason for you to claim God has not condemned homosexuality is because you don’t want it to say that - that is a logical deduction. You claim it was from study, but it could not have been from studying the text. Only if you study liberals like yourself will you find twisted eisegesis making the Bible say what it doesn’t say.

You love what the Bible says only if you can make it agree with your muddleheaded eisegesis - if you have to face the facts that God condemns homosexual behavior, your worldview will fall apart.

Oh, and it isn’t MY interpretation - as noted many, many times, it is the interpretation of all Bible students and scholars for thousands of years up to the past half century when “new interpretations” were invented to try to justify sexual perversion.

I did prove my case - I even linked you to my article. It isn’t just one passage, and you left out a very important part of the one you did cite - “it is an abomination.”

The only “God” you know is the one of your own making; a false god who condones sin and perversion.

Now, you also have determined that in order for “marriage equity” to be in effect it has to be consenting adults. How can you limit it to people? What possible logic can you have for denying a man and his ewe or a woman and her mule? After all, it must be just an opinion that God condemns bestiality.

Dan Trabue said...

Michael...

Nobody can argue with me about it because I've been there and I know what it's really like. I know the difference between the Light of Christ and the darkness of depravity first hand.

By THAT line of reasoning, then no one can argue with me about MY position because I'VE BEEN there. I was caught up in the arrogance of my conservatism and now know the difference of the light of Jesus' grace.

Michael, my concern here is that you are describing a works-based heretical position. You say...

So I'm not the least bit shy to call it what it is nor do I concern myself with those who say I'm being judgmental or mean spirited. I only pray they find Christ as He is meant to be known.

I HAVE found Christ. I have been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and IF I am mistaken on the issue of marriage equity (I truly don't think so, but if I am), that is no more a sign of my being not saved than if YOU are mistaken on the issue.

We are saved by grace, not by perfect knowledge of sinful behavior.

Remember the love and forgiveness and grace by which you are saved and show it to those around you. Embrace grace, my brother.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

Put in another form for clarity, since your caveats for legitimacy in marriage would it be accurate to say your view is that marriage is a morally neutral concept, not good or bad based solely on the framework (or makeup of the participants)?

I'm not sure how to answer that question. I believe healthy marriages to be a wonderful, beautiful thing. I believe healthy marriages are a morally positive Good. Objectively speaking.

Of course, unhealthy marriages (where one or both spouses are abusive or oppressive, for instance) are NOT morally good. Objectively so.

The moral good of marriage does not make an abusive marriage good.

Does that answer that question?

Jeremy...

Or possibly even more simply, would it be accurate to say your view is that with respect to marriage moral good or bad is only based on what people do as they interact with one another once they enter into a union, but has no bearing on whether they should come together in the first place?

Again, this is a strangely phrased question. I think my answer above answers this question. I think the question of who should "come together" is best left to the individual rational adults involved, not the state.

Does that answer your questions?

Who do YOU (any of you) think should make the decision about who rational adults get to marry?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

presuming that the couple in questions satisfies someone(you) as to their mental capabilities (also presuming there is a reasonable way to measure said mental abilities), would you object to this marriage?

No, it's not really my business. (or are you here referring to a dad trying to marry his daughter?)

Love is a weird and wonderful thing and I generally support it, as long as it's mutual and healthy. Incest in nearly all cases of which I'm familiar is NOT healthy and for that reason, we have (rightly, I think) outlawed it.

Again, if any of you have even ONE example in support of your suggestion that incest can be a healthy thing, feel free to cite it.

Craig...

Or is it that you would consider anyone wishing to marry their daughter mentally unqualified no matter what?

I'm aware of no mentally well people who wish to bed down their daughters. Do you have ANY real world cases you'd like to cite to try to convince me that there are mentally healthy fathers who want to bed down their mentally healthy daughters and everyone is okay with it?

My more libertarian side might be convinced that IF such a thing existed, that it's not the state's business. As it stands now, I know of no such relationships that are mentally/physically sound.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

And then you take out of context what my statement was about.

Your statement was...

telling the audience of these posts that you label as “opinion” everything you disagree with

I assume when you say "everything," that you mean "everything." Thus, it is demonstrably false to make that statement. If you are revising it to mean "You label as "opinion" SOME THINGS you disagree with..." it would STILL be an unsupported statement. If you can list EVEN ONE FACT that I have called "opinion," THEN you will have not borne false witness.

As it is, it is false witness, clearly.

Feel free to apologize for the misstatement and correct it if you can.

Glenn...

Theologically-speaking, you label everything that disagrees with your liberal, blasphemous and false interpretations of Scripture as merely “opinion.”

It IS true that I label your OPINIONS that disagree with my interpretation of the Bible as AN OPINION. But that is obvious. What SHOULD I call YOUR OPINIONS? You aren't suggesting I should refer to YOUR OPINIONS as "facts," are you? That would be bearing a false witness, too, right?

Besides, this statement is true for you towards me, as well, right?

Theologically-speaking, you label everything that disagrees with your [CONSERVATIVE], blasphemous and false interpretations of Scripture as merely “opinion.”

Is that not true?

Are you criticizing me for doing the exact same thing as you? If so, what does that make you?

Think and pray about it...

Craig said...

Dan,

Are you proposing that anyone who might desire to marry a relative is by some definition "mentally ill"?

When you use the phrase "Incest in nearly all cases of which I'm familiar", could you elaborate a bit.

Since "nearly all" of the cases with which you are familiar are somehow unhealthy, obviously there are some with with your are familiar that are healthy. (One can logically reason this from your use of the term "nearly).

further, one would have to have some idea of the sample size which led you to this conclusion, in order for this conclusion to actually mean anything. Again, elaboration would be helpful?

One also is led to question if you really have enough detailed knowledge about these "cases with which you are familiar" to make an accurate assessment of the health of the relationship or the mental health of the participants.

If you could please provide some detail, it would be helpful.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

My understanding of what the Scripture says about homosexuality is 100% fact of which you cannot disprove.

I can easily disprove it as I have done many times.

Your position, according to you:

The FACT that Scripture tells us that God condemns all homosexual behavior.

The proof: GOD HAS NOT SAID THAT. It is NOT an objectively demonstrable fact. It is, in fact, an opinion. Where is your support?

If I say, "It is a fact that my legal first name is Daniel," I can easily prove it by pointing to my birth certificate or driver's license. If I say, "It is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4," I can demonstrate it with four apples. Facts are provable, demonstrable.

Your opinions, aren't.

The definition of fact (you keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means...)

1. A thing that is indisputably the case.
2. Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

It is NOT a fact because it IS disputable that God condemns all gay behavior.

It is NOT a fact, because there IS no evidence that you can present to prove it.

Your argument about this position, Glenn, by definition, is not demonstrably a fact.

Now, one day, when we see God face to face, THEN it will be provable and you will see (I feel sure) that you were wrong to speak for God what God has not said. OR, I will be wrong, although I don't think so.

In the meantime, OUR OPINIONS about God and gay behavior remains OUR OPINIONS until such time as God tells us definitively.

By definition.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

If you could please provide some detail, it would be helpful.

I've just answered a lot of questions. I'll let you take a turn if it's all the same to you.

I will say that I should have said "ALL cases" of incest of which I'm familiar are not between healthy adults. The ONLY cases of which I'm familiar are the ones that involve child abuse.

DO YOU KNOW OF ANY healthy consensual adult fathers wanting to bed down their daughters?

Your turn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

HELLO, the context of "everything" was the subjects in discussion. But you don't seem to understand context in anything.

No, it is not what disagrees with my "conservative" opinion which is wrong - it is what you claim the Bible says that is wrong. I pointed out the facts, NOT opinion.

And you wonder why I call you a fool. You meet the biblical description of a fool. End of conversation.

Parklife said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

A dictionary, Glenn, really. Make it your friend, learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Tell you what Glenn, answer this question:

The Bible says clearly (actually, JESUS states authoritatively), "Do not store up for yourselves treasures here on earth..." That sounds abundantly clear. I think the FACTS are that Jesus doesn't want us to have savings account.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

If THAT is an opinion (and truly, it is), then how is that DIFFERENT than YOUR interpretation?

The fact is, our INTERPRETATIONS are OUR OPINIONS. You stating you know God's position on it 1,000,000 more times won't make it any more true or any less arrogant (blasphemous??).

Dan Trabue said...

I notice, Glenn, that you did not produce one single bit of evidence in support of your "fact." So, how about this? Let's say that your position IS a fact, but it's one you can't prove and that is only a fact in your own head because it SEEMS like a fact to you and it is YOUR fact, but not a real-world fact?

Would that be fair?

It will have to do for now, bro, because there is a word for those sorts of "facts:" opinions.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Here is where I am seeking clarification with your position, and I hope I can better articulate it this time.

You gave a condition for marriage - "Yes, I am in favor of all rational, consenting adults being able to wed the persons of their choice and enjoy the benefits and societal support that comes with marriage." So, to be married the requirement is to be rational and to be consenting. Or, put another way, I am of sound mind and I choose another. These are not moral categories, no good or bad, just measures of intelligence and uncoerced decision making.

Your objection to bestiality, "I'm not in favor of bestiality (not consensual)" is based on the animals inability to agree with an interpersonal relationship - again not morally wrong just a function of ability (or lack thereof) in a certain measureable capacity.

Your objection to child marriage, "I'm not in favor of child-marriages (not adult)" is not that it is a moral wrong but simply a matter of age, again a measureable capacity.

And a caution for the mentally challenged, "we should be cautious about those with mental issues" based not on a moral wrong but a measureable capacity of cognition.

You see, it appears you view of marriage is that it is amoral (simply meaning not moral). Marriage has no designation as good or bad, right or wrong. Now if there is abuse, or if someone forces another to marry for fear of retribution - then a moral wrong has been done and we can then say with confidence that it is a "bad" marriage.

Does that better explain my question, and is that your position on marriage - that it is amoral in and of itself, but that the people involved can do moral wrong in the context of that amoral marriage?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy, my objection to "marrying" children is not a function of age, but of abuse. Children are not in a position to NOT be manipulated by folk who'd abuse/oppress them. Same for those with mental disability.

Mental age is the determining factor, but the concern is abuse, not merely consent. So, it is a matter of protection of the innocent, a moral guardianship of the at risk.

I don't think marriage is amoral. I think it IS a moral good, as long as the marriage is a respectful, adult, loving, healthy one. Given that, there is no rational reason to deny benefits (the blessed benefit of loving marriage) to one group that you allow for another group.

This, it seems to me, is one reason that the conservative side is losing the argument: There case seems punitive and unjust and irrational. IF committed loving monogamous relations are a good thing for straight folk, what reason is there that it wouldn't be good for gay folk?

The silence (or belligerence) in response to that question is undermining the traditional case and, it seems to me, WEAKENING the moral good that can come with marriage.

Jeremy, you DO agree that marriage where there is abuse is not a good thing, right? That's my point.

We protect innocents from abuse by not allowing some marriages, but beyond that, marriage is a good that ought to be available to all.

Jim said...

Marsha,

The comparison is not the act itself, but a comparison of the health risks of the two couples based on the acts in which they are likely to engage, after common acts are accounted for. Most homosexual couples engage in that act. No hetero couple needs to. It is the only act that can be equated to hetero unions in any way.

Wow! What a pretzel of tortured logic!

Likely engage?

As I think Dan mentioned, you are completely ignoring lesbians.

It is the only act that can be equated to hetero unions in any way.

Uh, I don't think so. Mutual masturbation, oral sex, and much much more! You are obsessed with the plumbing and the plumbing is irrelevant.

Since you are so willing to rationalize incest and polyamory, I'd have to say that I don't have any particular opinion one way or another regarding the acts of fully consenting adults in those circumstances. So let's legalize them all.

Sigh, this is another of those 100-post threads in the making. Round and round and round and round. And in the end....

You lose.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Feel free to sit it out, then.

I didn't forget lesbians. They are not relevant to the point regarding healthy relationships. Healthy relationships is what Dan says are not possible regarding incest and he says this ignoring the health risks of homosexual practices. Clinically or biologically speaking, heteros do not have to engage in anything homosexuals do before they are no longer having sex. There is still intercourse. Sexual intercourse between a male and female is not inherently risky due to the fact that they are designed for the purpose. No one is designed for oral sex, but because it occurs in both hetero and homo relationships, I eliminated it from the equation to gain some level of equal comparison. You want to ignore the point of this exercise and I've no doubt that it is because you can't score points within it. If the debate is that incest is unhealthy and thus not worthy of consideration, then we must look at just what is unhealthy about it and compare it to what Dan supports. The only way to do that is to compare healthy consensual adults. In doing so, the homosexual couple is riskier by virtue of the fact that all the acts involving sexual contact employed by them are risky, and that includes kissing, though not to a great extent (to be fair, because I have no need to be otherwise, there is one sexual act employed by homosexuals that is possibly less risky than even normal sexual intercourse. The question is how common it is as the ONLY practice.)

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

For now, I'm going to ignore the usual nonsense you have been blathering on about regarding what is or isn't opinion with Scripture. I'd rather get back to the point, as my time is limited.

That point is in regards to healthy relationships. You like to think that there exists no incestuous relationships that aren't marred by some level of mental disorder. This is extremely hilarious considering that not so very long ago, homosexual attraction was assumed to be a mental disorder by most everyone. Now, you carry on in exactly the same manner toward those with incestuous attractions. What a freaking hypocritical hateful bigot you are! It's so very ugly!

Here's the thing: As has been noted many times, and never proven to be wrong, homosexual attraction was VOTED off the list of mental disorders, not proven to be NOT a mental disorder by virtue of any scientific study. If there was some such study or research that proves it is not a dysfunction, it would surely be common knowledge by now, especially for enablers like yourself.

This is said to point out that you ASSUME mental health in homosexuals and ASSUME mental disorder amongst the incestuous. "Someone would have to be CRAZY to want to do his sister/daughter/mother!"

But there's really nothing crazy about a guy getting aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman regardless of who that woman is. Then, like homosexuals do, a guy will find a way to justify his attraction so that he can act upon it. But what would an incestuous man have to do in order to do that? He'd have to rationalize why the taboo is unjust, just like the homosexual does. "We're just two people who want to be left alone to live in love and harmony."

What he wouldn't have to rationalize is why he is attracted to a beautiful woman. He's supposed to be attracted to women because he's a guy. That's what God and nature intended. Same-sex attraction is counter to the intention of God and nature and thus cannot be mentally "ordered". It doesn't matter about anything else regarding how the homosexual behaves, but that particular aspect is absolutely disordered.

But the revulsion you have for incest is one of complete cultural conditioning alone. The attraction is as it should be biologically; male to female/female to male. The revulsion toward homosexuality is two-fold: cultural conditioning (which thanks to their activists and enablers is on the wane) as well as the blatant illogical nature of a member of one gender being attracted to and desiring sexual relations with a member of the same gender.

To parallel homosexual and incestuous attractions is only irrational or illogical because incestuous attractions aren't irrational or illogical and homosexual attractions are. But as far as pretending there is some worthy reason for preventing consenting adult siblings from marrying is rank bigotry for one so willing to champion homosexual unions. Absolutely every argument in favor of homosexual unions is absolutely equally legitimate for the incestuous.

Frankly, though I am strongly against both, if I were to be made to choose between legalizing only one of the two, I would choose the incestuous easily over the homosexual for the plain fact that kids adopted by the incestuous would have the benefits of a mother and a father.

more coming...

Marshall Art said...

I couldn't finish without addressing the desperate ploy Dan tried by demanding proof that some "normal" incest cases should be presented. This is totally inane in a discussion like this. Without definitive proof that homosexuals aren't mentally disordered, we don't need such data about the incestuous. The debate is solely about how the arguments used to justify granting licensing to homosexuals (not to mention allowing them to redefine the meaning of the word "marriage"), are absolutely applicable to any other arrangement of individuals including the incestuous and polygamous. Thus, one who supports homosexual marriage cannot whine when someone insists that granting that license will lead to other groups demanding the same consideration who must then be accommodated.

The fact is this: no other arrangement is suitable for civil support, as no other arrangement provides benefits to society in the unique manner as one man united with one woman.

One more thing: if Dan wants to continue running with his nonsensical Biblical corruptions to maintain his position, then he must grant the same consideration for the incestuous as there is even less said about incest in Scripture than there is against homosexual behavior, and it doesn't breech any of the other things the Bible does say about human sexuality and family structure. Biblically speaking, it is far more likely that God would bless the union of a loving and monogamous incestuous couple than He would a homosexual couple.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing for Jim that I meant to mention in my last to him. It's important so that he doesn't continue with this idiotic notion of his that I'm trying to rationalize incest or polygamy. I'm not. My point is exposing the hypocrisy of the homosexual activist and enablers when they bristle at the thought of someone saying their deviancy is analogous to incest. They are all forbidden, they are all sinful. But incest, polygamy and adultery have one thing going for them: they are between opposite genders meaning that the attractions are merely sinful. Not mentally disordered.

Just for the fun of imagining your heads exploding, let's look at it as which is the most disordered by virtue of the sexual attraction:

-Adultery-usually male/female, thus biologically logical
-Incest-usually male/female, thus biologically logical
-Polygamy-usually male/female, thus biologically logical
-Homosexuality-male/male or female/female, not at all logical
-Bestiality-human/animal, least logical of all

It's pretty darn clear that no matter how you look at it. The homosexual activists and enablers are not dealing in reality. They are dealing completely by emotion and self-centered prejudices.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

As has been noted many times, and never proven to be wrong, homosexual attraction was VOTED off the list of mental disorders, not proven to be NOT a mental disorder by virtue of any scientific study.

As has been noted many times: There never was ANY studies that "proved" homosexuality is a mental disorder. Feel free to produce that study and show me wrong. Homosexuality was considered a disorder because of prejudice in the first place and was voted off because they eventually realized there was NO REASON to consider it one.

It does not fit the definition of a mental disorder, Marshall. This oft-repeated canard is a losing gasp, let it go.

Marshall...

This is said to point out that you ASSUME mental health in homosexuals and ASSUME mental disorder amongst the incestuous.

I know of gay folk who have no evidence of mental disorder. I know of no incestuous folk who aren't ill.

As I said, if you can produce ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever of actual healthy incestuous relationships, you can produce some support and I can consider it. As it is, you have produced nothing.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

He's supposed to be attracted to women because he's a guy. That's what God and nature intended.

Those are fine hunches, my brother, but you have zero proof for either contention.

WHO SAYS guys are supposed to be attracted to gals as the only option? Where is that written down?

Who says God did not intend for some guys to find guys attractive?

Those are hunches pulled from out of nowhere, so far as I can see. Or rather, pulled from your prejudicial cultural preconceptions. The point is, they're nothing but unsupported opinions.

Marshall...

Without definitive proof that homosexuals aren't mentally disordered, we don't need such data about the incestuous.

Sounds a bit like guilty until proven innocent. Again, this is nothing but cultural prejudice. You have no rational, medical, psychological reason to hold this prejudice. There is NO evidence to support this suggestion. It is, if you'll beg my pardon, a bit delusional-sounding in itself...

Perhaps without definitive proof that this sort of prejudicial thinking isn't mentally disordered, we don't need such data about gay folk. How 'bout that?

That game is an easy, if silly, game to play. I could certainly make a much stronger case for this sort of obsession being unbalanced than you could for yours, I'd imagine.

Marshall...

To parallel homosexual and incestuous attractions is only irrational or illogical because incestuous attractions aren't irrational or illogical and homosexual attractions are.

This would be almost funny, if it weren't sick. You all are actually making a case for HEALTHY incest as a defense of your prejudicial thinking about homosexuality. Marshall, if you know someone who is finding their daughters sexually attractive and are considering bedding them down, get that family some help, I'd suggest there's a good chance of abuse/severe mental disorders.

Dan Trabue said...

Just in general (and to be the 100th commenter), Marshall, looking back over your last few comments, you make point after point which is wholly unsupported and unsupportable hunches. You're welcome to them, crazy as some of them sound to me, but you can't seriously make such statements and expect people to go along with them simply because you think them.

That would be irrational.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

I was not disagreeing with you just asking for clarification. You answered my question by answering that you see marriage as a moral good. Thank you.

You made a statement i'd like to take issue with. You wrote: "This, it seems to me, is one reason that the conservative side is losing the argument: There case seems punitive and unjust and irrational. IF committed loving monogamous relations are a good thing for straight folk, what reason is there that it wouldn't be good for gay folk?" And followed that up with "The silence (or belligerence) in response to that question is undermining the traditional case and, it seems to me, WEAKENING the moral good that can come with marriage." I would respond that marriage is a moral good for the single reason that God established it as a covenant relationship and as sacred, and that establishment is based on His prescription alone. Therefore my disagreement is with your assessment that if loving monogomous relationships are a good thing for straight folk then they are also a good thing for gay folk, and that a denial of recognition, celebration, extension of benefits is unjust and irrational.

Whether the state becomes involved in recognizing marriage for anyone is completely irrelavent to the legitimacy of a covenant relationship prescribed by God. Furthermore, the position is not unjust or irrational because it is based on the establishment of the One without which we would know nothing of good, justice, or rationality.

The unjust view, the irrational view would be to equivocate between what has been clearly established and prescribed for one and extrapolate it to another without positive support. The question for you is to provide Biblical support, i.e. the verses of scripture where you read that marriage is for all "loving monogomous relations", or "consentual adult non-abusive relations" equally.

My response here is not silence, nor is it belligerence. I can provide the scripture verses if you like of God calling a man and woman away from their family to come together as one, the bride-bridegroom pictures and the expectations of monogomous heterosexual marriage in elder and deacon qualifications in the New Testament and others that I have provided to you in previous discussions as support for my positive case of God's establishment of marriage between a man and a woman if needed. You are asserting all is equal between "straight folk" and "gay folk" but you need to provide biblical support for that assertion.

As to your question of abuse in marriage I would agree that abuse between a married man and woman is a bad thing because marriage is a sacred covenant relationship that no man should desecrate.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for answering my question.

Jeremy...

I would respond that marriage is a moral good for the single reason that God established it as a covenant relationship and as sacred, and that establishment is based on His prescription alone. Therefore my disagreement is with your assessment that if loving monogomous relationships are a good thing for straight folk then they are also a good thing for gay folk, and that a denial of recognition, celebration, extension of benefits is unjust and irrational.

And that is a fine opinion for you to hold if that is what you think is right. The thing is, it's a subjective personal opinion you are holding. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of Scripture or of Christianity's respect for Scripture as a source of Truth. That is, YOU BELIEVE marriage is good for the "single reason that God established it...," but not everyone would agree with that assessment. A few points/questions:

1. I believe marriage is good because it promotes healthy families and communities and, as a result, societies. I believe marriage is good because loving, healthy companionship is good. I believe marriage is good because it provides a healthy outlet for our natural desire for sexual activity.

2. And you know what, Jeremy? All of these are not only logical reasons, they are biblical reasons, I'd suggest. Perhaps we could agree that marriage is not good for a "single reason," but for many reasons, as I've just listed (as well as are other good reasons).

From a logical and biblical point of view, I don't think we can rightly say that marriage is good for a single reason, could we agree on that?

3. Further, where you believe God has a "prescription" for marriage, and that prescription is probably something along the lines of a traditional western cultural idea of marriage, not everyone who believes, respects and loves the Bible would agree with your opinion on that matter. Could we agree on that?

4. And beyond that, not everyone looks to the Bible for guidance on matters of truth. Given that, it would not be a reasonable position to base marriage in a civil society on your (or your church's or denomination's - or me or my church's) opinion on the matter. As far as our laws go, we don't have any rational basis to create laws based on a church's opinion. Can we agree on that?

That is, there is nothing you can point to other than your opinion that God wants marriage only to be between a man and a woman, and you can't really expect people to go along with your (or your church's) opinion as authoritative for our laws, lacking anything else, agreed?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy said...

The unjust view, the irrational view would be to equivocate between what has been clearly established and prescribed for one and extrapolate it to another without positive support.

A. "Clearly established" and "prescribed" are your ideas, not something that everyone agrees with. There is no rational reason for you to expect everyone to go along with you simply because your church states it is so. Agreed?

Jeremy...

The question for you is to provide Biblical support, i.e. the verses of scripture where you read that marriage is for all "loving monogomous relations", or "consentual adult non-abusive relations" equally.

You are asserting all is equal between "straight folk" and "gay folk" but you need to provide biblical support for that assertion.


B. Perhaps if this were a theocracy, you might make that argument. But we're speaking of a Democratic Republic. The church doesn't get to make that decision. Agreed?

C. Aside from that, as I have noted in the past, there is no biblical support for or against gay folk marrying. It does not exist in the Bible directly. None of us can point to a scripture or set of Scriptures and say, "There, God says gay folk can't marry one another." It does not exist in the Bible, agreed?

D. So, what we have are you all pointing to a handful of verses that appear to condemn some sort of homosexual behavior and you all interpret that to mean that God would be opposed to even loving, respectful, committed marriage arrangements between gay folk. That is your take on those handful of verses. On the other hand, I look at how good a healthy marriage can be, as described in the Bible and is logically evident, about how devastating licentiousness can be, as described in the Bible and as is logically evident, and I conclude that marriage is a good thing for gay folk and straight folk.

None of us are in a position to speak authoritatively for God, we all have our opinions.

My point is, that at least with my opinions, they have the additional weight of being rational, whereas your entire argument appears to be, "because I THINK God disapproves of it, we ought to not allow marriage equity." And I hope you can see how that comes down to Jeremy said/Dan said, but at least Dan also has a logically sound reason for supporting his position, and they don't really.

Does that make sense? DO you have any logical, real world reasons for opposing two adults committing to love and respect and be faithful to one another in marriage, or is it the case that your entire case is based on your interpretation of the Bible?

Dan Trabue said...

And just a bit more clarification on WHY we rightly ban incestuous behavior...

We have an obligation as a society to protect innocents from being harmed AND to protect liberty. Generally, we rightly fall on the side of protecting liberty when it comes to personal behaviors, BUT we strive to cut off that liberty at the point where it becomes harm to others (you have the right to swing your fist until it reaches someone's nose...).

The problem with a father "marrying" his adult and even consenting daughter (IF there was any evidence of this being a real world thing that is happening in healthy people, which remains doubtful), we rightly don't allow it because of the abuse of power/authority and the risk of manipulating a young person.

An older person in a position of authority has a good deal of sway over an impressionable young person. A parent (especially if they are on the manipulative side) even more so. This is what creeps us out about a teacher marrying or dating a student - even if the teacher were young (say 23) and the student a high school senior who is legally an adult (18). Or consider a 40 year old stepfather wanting to date his 20 year old stepdaughter. This creeps us out precisely because it is a very likely abuse of power and authority over an impressionable young person. It strikes most of us as wrong on the face of it because of the potential manipulation/abuse/taking advantage of a relative innocent.

The thing is, love is a tricky thing and most of us don't want to get down into micromanaging (by law) who can and can't date. And so, it is generally not illegal (as far as I know) for a 40 year old man to date a 19 year old young lady, although it remains creepy and a huge red flag.

However, we as a society HAVE decided it is reasonable to establish SOME guidelines to protect the most innocent from abuse. That is why we have made it statutory rape for an adult to have sex with a minor, even if it's consensual. It's a legal limit we have set. Similarly, we have incest laws to protect innocents from being manipulated - even if it's consensual.

It's an imperfect system, to be sure. There may well be a 19 year old male and 17 year old female who are truly in love and it's a love that will stand the test of time and be healthy. As to our incest laws, we have had to decide what relationships are "too close" and which ones are acceptably distant - a cousin or second cousin, for instance. But the point is, we have created these rules to protect innocents from abuse and manipulation.

I think - and I suspect most people agree - that this is reasonable. I have seen no real world evidence to support the notion that there is a healthy father who chastely wishes to marry his healthy adult daughter in a wholesome marriage arrangement. I think society has decided rightly on this point, even if it's a vague and undefinable line.

Dan Trabue said...

For THAT reason of abusive relationships, this is why I consider it "uglyass" to compare healthy, respectful, loving gay or straight relationships with incestuous ones. It is a comparison of good to evil and I consider that insidious.

I had no idea that you all considered incest to be a possbily healthy, moral option, and I don't imagine that I'm alone on that front.

Thus, I stand by my opposition to such behavior (comparing healthy and wholesome to wrong and evil) as abundantly wrong.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

And I thank you for your responses.

Good and bad only exist as categories because of God. Therefore, the single reason marriage is good is because God established it to be so. Now having been so established it can be treated well or poorly by others. This is really the overarching point I see in this post and the entire line of discussion - Sovereignty. Either God is Sovereign over all and determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy as He has established and as He is central to all moral categories, or man is sovereign and decides for himself.

You point out that we live in a Democratic Republic. That is irrelevant if God is Sovereign. Communist State, Democratic Republic, Theocracy, etc. take me neither here nor there as they are flawed, albeit necessary constructions of man. To press this point is to establish that what society agrees upon is right and just behavior. Surely this is not a Biblical or reasonable position to take.

You go on to state the following: "there is no biblical support for or against gay folk marrying. It does not exist in the Bible directly. None of us can point to a scripture or set of Scriptures and say, "There, God says gay folk can't marry one another." It does not exist in the Bible, agreed?" This is why your argument is one from silence and an equivocation. My stance on marriage is that the Bible does clearly state that God established marriage: a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Can we both agree those words clearly and explicitly appear in scripture? Therefore I will not make extensions that any other arrangement not explicitly stated is equivalent. I see nothing illogical in that position.

I have made the illustration before and will repeat it here. If one establishes the arrangement and rules for a game of chess, one does not have to list all alternate arrangements and rules that do not apply - it is granted that any other arrangement and set of rules are illegitimate. I could not bring out a Monopoly board and checkers and state, OK these two games are equivalent so let's play chess.

The logical position for you to take based on the clear and explicit statements in scripture regarding marriage between man and woman and the complete lack of writing regarding any other arrangement, would be that of agnosticism toward gay marriage. Not endorsing and celebrating it nor condemning it, but to have a position of no opinion.

Your position, however, is that you have no specific references against homosexual marriage in the Bible and the increasingly majority societal belief that non-abusive monogamous gay marriage is right and just and thereby extrapolate that the clearly established position in the Bible of marriage between man and woman and homosexual marriage are equivalent and therefore plump for celebration and equal blessing of gay marriage. This is an obviously illogical leap. You are using cultural opinion to go from clear Biblical marriage established by God to another arrangement.

I would appeal therefore to the lack of explicit support and the logical inconsistency of your position and strongly encourage you to adopt at least an agnostic stance toward gay marriage.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

One thing I see consistently in this whole string is that Dan calls everyone else's beliefs - no matter how much factual evidence is mustered - nothing more than "opinions" or "hunches," etc. And yet everything he claims is factual! He makes assertions and assumes that they are factual and yet has the audacity to tell everyone else they just have opinions and hunches.

DAN, you are such an arrogant hypocrite!

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Oh, I re-read your responses and there were two points I did not address. Many people deny that the Bible is the source of Truth, but typically Christians do not. We are told explicitly that the Word is Truth and so those who believe in Christ also typically believe that He is the Word and therefore He is Truth. Biblically speaking, I expect the numbers rejecting the Truth to increase as time goes on.

Secondly, Biblical Truth will by and large not be considered in passing laws. I am not dealing with the passage of laws here, rather the Biblical standard of marriage. Society will no doubt pass many laws that do not align with Biblical Truth, but those laws nor their passage effect Biblical Truth not at all. I do not deny that most likely the laws of this nation will soon make equal all recognition of hetero- and homosexual marriage. I will still recognize the Biblical legitimacy of marriage between man and woman and the Biblical illegitimacy of any other arrangement. Societal convention comes and goes and should take us neither here nor there as regards Biblical Truth. God is Sovereign, man is not.

I hope that covered all your points.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and I forgot -

Dan's statements and beliefs are "rational" and everyone else's are "irrational."

Sort of like the crazy guy in the insane asylum saying he is the only sane one and the rest of the world is nuts.

I have never seen such a total lack of logic except when dealing with evolutionists.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy,

Good and bad only exist as categories because of God.

First of all, let me thank you and praise you for the respectful tone of discourse. It is greatly appreciated and it is a pleasure to talk with you because of it, my good sir.

As to your comment above, that is certainly an opinion and you are welcome to it, but I'm not sure that it is the only possible logical or biblical way to consider.

For one thing, the Bible does not say this. I'm sure you might have some passages that lead you to think this, but it is not a direct comment from God to all of humanity that "good and bad only exist as categories because of God," rather, that is an extrapolation of yours. Agreed?

Jeremy...

Therefore, the single reason marriage is good is because God established it to be so.

Do you have any rational reason to think this, or is this position based purely on YOUR INTERPRETATION of some biblical passage(s)?

Jeremy...

Now having been so established it can be treated well or poorly by others. This is really the overarching point I see in this post and the entire line of discussion - Sovereignty. Either God is Sovereign over all and determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy as He has established and as He is central to all moral categories, or man is sovereign and decides for himself.

I don't see this post as being about God's sovereignty. All of us Christians agree that God is sovereign, that God is GOD, so there is no debate there.

Now, having said that, the state of affairs is that God does not step in to everybody's house each morning and tell them what to do. We humans have the right and responsibility to work out for ourselves what is right (and, for us Christians, what is God's Way) and what is not.

Agreed?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

You point out that we live in a Democratic Republic. That is irrelevant if God is Sovereign.

How so? God is not stepping in and telling our leaders or us out loud, "THIS is what you should do." We have to work that out ourselves. IF we have to figure that out ourselves, then we need the liberty to be able to do so. Agreed?

And, when we are talking about a state beyond the Personal, then we have to work out a way to mutually work out what is right and wrong, what is allowed and not.

Now SOME of us may take some Truths from the Bible as guidance (and some of us even try to take literal rules for an ancient people in a specific time and place as guidance), but not all of us 1. acknowledge the Bible as a source of guidance or, 2. acknowledge one group or the others' interpretations as reliable guidance.

Agreed?

Jeremy...

Communist State, Democratic Republic, Theocracy, etc. take me neither here nor there as they are flawed, albeit necessary constructions of man.

Agreed, they ARE flawed. Agreed, they ARE necessary.

Jeremy...

To press this point is to establish that what society agrees upon is right and just behavior. Surely this is not a Biblical or reasonable position to take.

What is our option? To say, "Jeremy and his church get to decide what is right, based upon THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible?"

I'd have to say, short of God speaking up and audibly telling us all exactly what to do, that this is INDEED both a biblical and reasonable position to take.

Again, what is more reasonable than that? What option are you speaking of if not us deciding for ourselves what rules to put in place in a civil society?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

You go on to state the following: "there is no biblical support for or against gay folk marrying. It does not exist in the Bible directly. None of us can point to a scripture or set of Scriptures and say, "There, God says gay folk can't marry one another." It does not exist in the Bible, agreed?" This is why your argument is one from silence and an equivocation.

Since the Bible does not and God HAS not taken a direct position on marriage equity, ALL of our arguments are from silence. But again, the difference between MY hunch on what the Bible has to say (and not) and YOUR hunch is that at least my hunch has the authority of being rational and self-evidently moral, whereas your hunch relies solely on your interpretation.

Jeremy...

My stance on marriage is that the Bible does clearly state that God established marriage: a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Can we both agree those words clearly and explicitly appear in scripture?

Yes, Jeremy, those words appear in Scripture. But what do they MEAN to us today? What did they MEAN at the time?

Was God establishing ONE APPROVED MODEL in making that statement? You think so, that is YOUR OPINION. I don't think so. That is MY opinion.

To cherry pick a verse out and apply a modernist interpretation of it and insist on that interpretation as the One True Interpretation is a bit presumptuous, it seems to me.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

One thing I see consistently in this whole string is that Dan calls everyone else's beliefs - no matter how much factual evidence is mustered - nothing more than "opinions" or "hunches," etc. And yet everything he claims is factual!

This is demonstrably false, brother Glenn. If you will look at my actual words, I have claimed my BELIEFS to be MY opinions, whereas facts, I have refered to as facts, since that is what they are.

If you have a particular fact that I have cited that you don't believe to be a fact, feel free to point it out. It's possible I've been mistaken.

But if you're just going to make false and unsupported claims, I'd suggest you pass, so as not to embarrass yourself.

Just a suggestion.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

I said, "Was God establishing ONE APPROVED MODEL in making that statement? You think so, that is YOUR OPINION. I don't think so. That is MY opinion."

In THAT case, I was citing my opinion and I called it my opinion. Was I wrong or arrogant for doing so?

I assume you're okay with making assertions that are my opinions.

Here, I said, "FACT: The Bible says in Leviticus, "Men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill them." (or words to that affect.)"

I cited a fact and called it a fact. What would you have me call it, brother Glenn?

Or here, I said, "it is factually the case that there are Christians who sincerely disagree with one another."

And, of course, that IS a fact.

Or HERE, I said, "it's a huge stretch and twisting of Scripture to say God opposes people committing in faithful marriage. God has not said that.

THAT, my friend, is a dependable, real world fact."

And, of course, it is factually so.

Can you find ANY place where I cited a fact that isn't factually so?

If not, perhaps an apology and retraction is in order. Surely you wouldn't want to make such an outrageous and serious charge, leave it unsupported only to find out that your claim is false?

I suspect you're a better man than that, Brother Glenn.

How about it? Support or retract?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Again, I will try to address all points, but let me know if I miss something.

On the first few i'll be very brief because they are important but ancillary points not directly related to the posted topic. If there is no God then there is no absolute moral code, law, direction that man ought to follow. In that case, "good" or "bad" have no meaning for all people, just capricious and arbitrary assignments. I'll appeal to the logical consistency of that statement not a direct explicit written scripture verse for support there. Although I would be quick to say that a pretty evident theme common throughout the Bible is that God is good and man is not. You may suggest that there would be a case aside from God where man decides for himself absolute morality, or to disagree that the Bible presents man as the progenitor of the good or that morality is just an brute fact of the universe or other if you wish.

If good and bad are only legitimate categories because God exists then it is logical to deduce that good things only come from God. That is an extrapolation based on the above.

You wrote: "I don't see this post as being about God's sovereignty. All of us Christians agree that God is sovereign, that God is GOD, so there is no debate there." If God is sovereign and only God is God, then by necessity everything is about God's sovereignty. As God created all things, is in all things and holds all things together we must either submit to His authority and sovereignty or go our own way. You are correct that there is no debate.

All references to government are meant to convey the following: any system man creates to govern himself does not alter the Word of Truth one iota. We must live among governmental systems, but they do not and ought not sway our thinking as it relates to Biblical Truth. See above, God is Sovereign we are not. That is the only point I was trying to make there.

That's all the ancillary items, I believe, following will address the topic of the post.

Craig said...

Dan,

I apologize if my questions tired you out. I thought seeking clarification was the way to more productive conversations.

In any case, you have made your position clear enough for me to state that you do not seek marriage equity for everyone. Thank you for your clarification

Dan Trabue said...

So, Craig, you do not intend to answer my questions? That suggests to me you're not interested in an actual conversation, just trying to make your points and ask questions, but not answer in return.

I do seek marriage equity for everyone, as long as it is a JUST equity (ie, I don't support oppressive, abusive marriages, as in incest cases). My position is pretty consistent. Yours?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This means a man will leave is father and mother and be united to his wife - enter into the same relationship with a woman that his father and mother are in. If the plain sense makes sense then seek no other sense. The only way we can interact with another is if we read what each other writes in the plain sense if it makes sense. You must agree with this because you comment often that those responding to you need to accurately reflect your written words. You do not leave complete discretion in interpretation of your writing to your readers, why would you open up scripture to a lower standard than you hold for yourself?

I will also add that I am not interacting with you demanding that you change your mind. You may choose to interpret any way you wish and live your life based on however you choose to view the authority, lack of authority, or degree of authority you wish to accept regarding the Bible. You have rightly said that each is responsible for himself. However, it seems a minimum standard would be consistency.

The point is that it is possible for a person to read plainly that a man and woman are called to come together in like manner to their father and mother. Male and female union begat by male and female union. Argue with that if you wish. This is a Biblical statement in positive support of male and female union - marriage. This is not an argument from silence regarding marriage being legitimate between man and woman, I hope we agree so far. No such presentation exists for any other arrangement. Therefore no other arrangement can be recognized as similar without assuming something else. This is my position - I recognize marriage as being legitimate for a man and woman as it is clearly established Biblically, I do not recognize any other arrangement. This is why an argument for another arrangement is one from silence and equivocation. Nothing provides for another arrangement outside some other assumption or non-Biblical factor. You provided this non-Biblical factor in plumping for equality in hetero- and homosexual marriage, namely the ever increasing social acceptance of same sex unions as equal to heterosexual marriage. All i'm pointing out is that you have no Biblical basis to do this, you must bring something else in - majority opinion of society. You may do this if you wish, many do and will continue to do so. However, to be consistent with what appears in scripture, again I must present the more accurate position of agnosticism. Neither endorsing nor condemning, no opinion.

I am fine remaining with my position that I have positive scriptural support for a male and female union and therefore recognize that position as Biblically legitimate and simply do not recognize any other arrangement.

I hope all that is clear and would only ask one question (a two-parter), since we are agreed that the Bible does clearly have words that express legitimacy in male and female unions and since we agree that the Bible says nothing about any other arrangement, how is it logically consistent to say the two should be taken as equivalent Biblically, and how is it more consistent for you to hold a position of endorsement and celebration over agnosticism?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

This means a man will leave is father and mother and be united to his wife - enter into the same relationship with a woman that his father and mother are in.

I agree with that. But, is that an all-inclusive statement? That is, is it saying, "This and ONLY THIS is what God approves..."? You think yes, I don't think so, NOT if you look at the Bible which included cultural traditions such as polygamy as acceptable.

You can't, from a biblical point of view, say ONLY ONE man and ONLY ONE woman is the ONLY acceptable marriage arrangement back in those times.

Further, you can't reasonably make the case that ONLY one man/one woman is the ONLY acceptable marriage arrangement according to God. God has not stated that, you have concluded it, but God has not stated it.

Jeremy...

If the plain sense makes sense then seek no other sense.

But you are reading BEYOND the plain sense and ADDING TO what is there. The literal plain sense of that passage is, "for this reason, a man and woman should join together, to form a marriage relationship..." But it goes BEYOND the plain sense to say, "AND no other options are moral or good..." That is AN ADDITION to the plain sense.

Can you see that?

Consider that I've been talking to my son about traveling abroad to better learn French and said, "For this reason, I want you to travel to France and spend a summer there..." Does that mean there are no other options? What if I had a second son who WASN'T interested in French, that reasoning would not apply to him.

That text, TAKEN LITERALLY, is not exclusive of all other options, not from a plain reading of the text.

Jeremy...

The only way we can interact with another is if we read what each other writes in the plain sense if it makes sense. You must agree with this because you comment often that those responding to you need to accurately reflect your written words.

You do not leave complete discretion in interpretation of your writing to your readers, why would you open up scripture to a lower standard than you hold for yourself?


The difference is that I AM HERE TO CORRECT the misunderstanding if someone misinterprets my words. God is not going around correcting anyone when they misspeak God's Words. It is a HIGHER standard, asking myself and others not to presume to speak for God what God has not said.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?

Thanks again for the very polite conversation, my brother.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Craig has made comments about your use of the term "self-evident". Your comments here show he was correct in cautioning you on its use. If man being intended for woman and woman for man isn't a case of something that is "self-evident", than "rational" is another term you should never apply to yourself. There is certainly nothing rational in claiming that what Scripture says about marriage can ever be applied to any other arrangement beside man/woman. NO mention of marriage in Scripture suggests any other possibility. And if you wish to go with "cultural biases" of Biblical authors, such can only be true due to Who set the bias in the first place by handing down His Law. His Law expresses His intention for human sexuality and marriage. It NEVER even slightly hints or provides any opening for a possibility other than man/woman.

These are among the FACTS, not opinions, that we use to make our case, and that you summarily and dishonestly dismiss as either opinion or irrelevance. IF they are NOT facts, then there must be something that counters them in Scripture. Find one and present it. We've asked this of you many times and you fail to provide anything. The idea that the use of the word "marriage" or "marry" in Scripture means anything other than man/woman is laughable and in your case, willfully dishonest.

As Jeremy suggests, we can only go by what is said, not what is not said. In that vein, what IS said cannot lead one to imagine that marriage can mean anything other than man/woman or that family can mean anything that does not involve (initially) father & mother.

Another thing that cannot be rationally stated is that God was speaking of only "some forms" of homosexual behavior when he forbade it in Leviticus. He makes no statement of any kind regarding how such behavior might take place, under what circumstances, etc. It is YOUR purposeful overlaying of information NEVER spoken or included in Scripture that adds to your deceitfulness. Leviticus does NOT speak of the behavior as being a part of any ritual, but only that it should not be done. It doesn't matter what your pastors of old have said, it only matters what the Bible says.

You then go on to extrapolate from verses that speak of "what is beautiful, kind, etc" to further perpetuate the lie. But God has already called the behavior an abomination, regardless of how consenting or loving the participants. Logic and rational thought would dictate that if an exception was possible, it would be stated in some manner. All we have is that the behavior is an abomination--THE BEHAVIOR---THE ACT OF LYING WITH A MAN AS WITH A WOMAN IS AN ABOMINATION. THAT is all we have regarding the behavior just as all we have is the act of incest. Thus, it doesn't matter how the participants came to engage in the act. And because of this, and because of all mentions of marriage and family assuming man/woman, father/mother, RATIONAL and LOGICAL conclusions can only state that God would never bless a homosexual union or look upon it as a good thing.

more coming...

Marshall Art said...

As if all that wasn't enough (and the truth never is for Dan on this subject), we have, again, the biological logic regarding male attraction to female (and vice versa) as opposed to male attraction to male. Somehow, inexplicably, you expect people to believe that there is some inherent, "self-evident" mental disorder that would drive an otherwise normal, red-blooded male from having sexual attractions to his hot looking mother or adult sister/daughter, and, if he is attractive to her, a reciprocal attraction. On what basis to you attempt to put forth this irrational thought? That they are blood? That your only personal experience dealt with mental issues in either or both the participants? And what exactly determined their mental disorder? If it was only the fact that the attraction existed and was acted upon, then you have nothing but rank prejudice and bigotry. It is what you accuse anti-homosexualists. Where's the difference?

The difference is that incest attractions are based on natural attractions of a man to a woman. Attractions of a man to a man are unnatural based on the biology of the participants. It is really as disordered as a dog wanting to mate with only a cat. Or for that matter a human to an animal. It is a matter of degrees of "disordered-ness" but disordered nonetheless. Is it to the degree that all homosexuals should be forced into therapy until such time as they are healed? No. No one suggests that except Fred Phelps.

But granting legal status to the desires of people who are disordered is not a good idea, as you suggest in your one-sided and totally biased position on incest.

As to the clinical arguments for homosexual attraction, a vote by a heavily influenced small quorum of possible voters does not mean no disorder exists. Some of those voters were homosexual themselves. It was not a landslide vote, either. These facts can be checked by looking at the archives of the APA to find how the vote went, how many members even voted and articles can be found that demonstrate the level of homosexual activism in the APA at the time. Basically, you had thieves voting that stealing was OK. Go look it up.

So what we have here is Dan arguing "healthy" homosexuals versus "unhealthy" incestuals. Not one-to-one. He insists that we must find examples of "healthy" incest couples in order to make the case. What he forgets is that mature, rational and logical people consider the long haul, the consequences. Dan has not been doing this. He speaks of promiscuity being a problem if licensing isn't granted. That doesn't speak well for the homosexual community if that's the case. We can encourage proper behavior without having to bribe people with what they don't deserve, can't we? And the reason they don't deserve licensing is because it is reserved for people who get married. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. They have this right already.

Now, perhaps Dan, you can find the flaw in any of what I've said in the last two posts. Don't speak of opinions unless you have facts that counter them. I have used facts, logic and rational thought based on what is and what is written in Scripture. You have not. You have used what isn't written as loopholes to force forms of forbidden acts into acceptance. That is, unless you expect us to believe that all "good" homosexual couples do not engage in anything sexually.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

My position, as I wrote it, was as such: "I am fine remaining with my position that I have positive scriptural support for a male and female union and therefore recognize that position as Biblically legitimate and simply do not recognize any other arrangement." I have not gotten as far as numbers yet, just trying to establish the legitimacy of man and woman based on explicit Biblical language. This also answers your second comment. Because the text of scripture does not present anything else as legitimate I do not assume anything further. I will go back to my chess illustration again. After giving the arrangement and rules for chess I don't have to then say - Chutes and Ladders boards and tennis balls cannot be viewed as equivalent to the chess board and pieces; The Game of Life board and grapefruits cannot be viewed as equivalent to the chess board and pieces; and on and on to infinity. It is assumed unless additional information is given that the arrangement and rules as established are the only legitimate usage for chess. I don't see how infer my position to assume something else. My position is the Bible doesn't recognize anything else as legitimate so I don't recognize anything else as legitimate.

Also, you did not answer my question to you. I list it again below:

"I hope all that is clear and would only ask one question (a two-parter), since we are agreed that the Bible does clearly have words that express legitimacy in male and female unions and since we agree that the Bible says nothing about any other arrangement, how is it logically consistent to say the two should be taken as equivalent Biblically, and how is it more consistent for you to hold a position of endorsement and celebration over agnosticism?"

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You speak of what God meant. Jeremy speaks of the plain sense of what He said.

""This and ONLY THIS is what God approves..."?"

...is equivalent to the childish argument that potato chips before dinner is not a dessert forbidden by the parent. No matter how we plead for anything that suggests God approves of anything else, we get nothing. You try to use the polygamy gambit, but you improperly use "acceptable" instead of "tolerate". Just as with homosexual unions, there is no indication of any kind that polygamous unions were His intent.

So like the child who won't preserve his appetite for dinner, Dan won't conform his understanding of God's Will and intention, which are clear and plain to honest people, in order to advance his agenda.

Here's another analogy. Mom tells Dan not to hit his sister, and Dan says, "But I slapped her, I didn't hit her" or "But I pushed her, I didn't hit her." or "But I tripped her, I didn't hit her." or "You didn't say I couldn't spray her with the hose". Dan needs a picture painted for him like a child.

One more thing. Dan gives kudos to Jeremy for his tone. It is the same tone Dan meets with most people for the first time. How long Jeremy is able to keep it up is another story. In some ways, some of his more recent comments indicate a growing frustration. I could be wrong, no one who's dealt with Dan over time would blame Jeremy at all. He has yet to wade through the tripe Dan has in store for him.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Dan won't conform his understanding of God's Will and intention, which are clear and plain to honest people, in order to advance his agenda.

That doesn't really make sense, my man. I was a conservative. What was my agenda that caused me to move away from the conservative position opposed to marriage equity? Do you suspect that all conservatives have agendas that they're advancing that are simultaneously undermining that self-same agenda??

I was a literalist, traditional conservative and I was opposed to marriage equity because that is what I THOUGHT the Bible taught. I had no desire to change my position, but it was arguments such as the one you're making here (which increasingly struck me as NOT in keeping with a plain reading of the text), in addition to just what factually is and isn't in the text of the Bible, that led me away from my old position - contrary to my own agenda (which was to stay opposed to marriage equity)...

Your reasoning is lacking, Brother Marshall, at least on that point.

Parklife said...

"How long Jeremy is able to keep it up is another story."

So, its on Jeremy to maintain continue acting like an adult? It seems to me that Dan will always (or at least nearly always) respond in this manor.

My experience has been that Marshall disagrees with somebody and replies with insults. Usually, the conversation disintegrates from there. Or, the original post from the opposing view is something littered with sarcasm. This, apparently, grants Marshall the right to then reply with insults and demeaning comments.

But, that is just one persons view.

Dan Trabue said...

For what it's worth, I've known Jeremy for some time, now - probably over a year. And he has I think always maintained a gracious response, in spite of the fact that we sometimes disagree.

Weird, huh?

Dan Trabue said...

Following up on some loose ends (and I may well be missing some, there's been a lot said. Doing the best I can...)

Jeremy...

Many people deny that the Bible is the source of Truth, but typically Christians do not.

And this Christian is certainly not denying the Truthiness of the Bible. I DO question the validity of some people's interpretations, just as they question mine, but that is okay and certainly not the same as denying the Bible's Truth.

Agreed?

Jeremy asked...

I hope all that is clear and would only ask one question (a two-parter), since we are agreed that the Bible does clearly have words that express legitimacy in male and female unions and since we agree that the Bible says nothing about any other arrangement, how is it logically consistent to say the two should be taken as equivalent Biblically...

I have not said that "the two should be taken as equivalent Biblically.

The Bible clearly has God endorsing marriage.

The Bible clearly shows men and women being married (one man and one woman; one man and many women; one man and a woman, along with some concubines, one man and an orphan girl whose family has been slaughtered by the man's army, etc).

I think we can safely say that the Bible suggest man/woman marriages are a good thing, in one form or the other.

I think we can safely say that the Bible teaches consistently the wisdom of monogamy.

I think we can safely say that the Bible teaches against pagan sex rituals and temple prostitution.

I think we can safely say that the Bible does not mention healthy marriages between gay men or women, not at all.

The bible does not state that God has any position on marriage equity, but clearly, marriage appears to be a good thing in God's eyes and licentiousness appears to be a bad thing in God's eyes.

That is what I have said. If you have some quote you'd like to reference about my position, that'd be fine.

Jeremy, continuing...

...and how is it more consistent for you to hold a position of endorsement and celebration over agnosticism?"

Because I believe that logically and biblically, marriage is a good thing, that licentiousness and "corking up" your sexuality is a bad thing and, given what the Bible DOES say, I find the position logically and biblically sound that God would approve two people committing in love and fidelity. I can't prove it, the Bible doesn't say it, but it seems rationally and biblically sound to me.

It is similar to my position on bombing people with nukes: The Bible doesn't give us God's opinion on it, and yet, given what the Bible does say (about killing innocents, for instance) I find it reasonable to believe God would oppose it. If I think it is reasonable, why would I take a position of agnosticism?

Dan Trabue said...

Some questions of mine that have gone not quite answered (not directly answered, anyway):

How so? God is not stepping in and telling our leaders or us out loud, "THIS is what you should do." We have to work that out ourselves. IF we have to figure that out ourselves, then we need the liberty to be able to do so. Agreed?

1. I believe marriage is good because it promotes healthy families and communities and, as a result, societies. I believe marriage is good because loving, healthy companionship is good. I believe marriage is good because it provides a healthy outlet for our natural desire for sexual activity.

2. And you know what, Jeremy? All of these are not only logical reasons, they are biblical reasons, I'd suggest. Perhaps we could agree that marriage is not good for a "single reason," but for many reasons, as I've just listed (as well as are other good reasons).

From a logical and biblical point of view, I don't think we can rightly say that marriage is good for a single reason, could we agree on that?

3. not everyone who believes, respects and loves the Bible would agree with your opinion on that matter. Could we agree on that?

4. As far as our laws go, we don't have any rational basis to create laws based on a church's opinion. Can we agree on that?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

My position is the Bible doesn't recognize anything else as legitimate so I don't recognize anything else as legitimate.

Well, there is a good deal of ideas that the Bible does not specifically recognize as legitimate. For instance...

Democracy
Capitalism
Torture
Opposition to torture
Sustainability

for instance. You and I can probably both agree that the Bible does not address every possible contingency, but that does not mean we can't reasonably hold a position on it, right? We certainly ought not speak for God on things God has not told us, but we can form our own opinions and express them as such, wouldn't you agree?

This seems to me to be what we've done with marriage between gay folk. You have an opinion of God's opinon and so do I.

And I still fall back to the difference in my position and yours is that, in addition to my opinion, I have rational, observable moral values to support my position, in addition to my hunch about what God thinks, whereas you all seem to only have what you think God thinks.

I don't find that compelling.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Let me try to answer your specific loose ends directly.

Non-numbered first item. I would say God has given instructions for personal living and interaction with others in the form of His Word. So, no not in audible voice, but in Truth. He has also written the Truth on the heart of man. Another quality of human nature, we know what is right - we don't do it. And you are quite right that we have liberty for belivers in Christ insofar as they keep in mind the central focus of glorifying God in all things. I'm thinking of Paul writing that all things are permissible but not all things are profitable. In other words, we have liberty to behave in all ways for the sake of the Gospel. That said just to make a distinction between liberty and autonomy.

Your point 1. I would see your list as benefits of marriage, which is good because God established it to be so. I would also be careful to add that marriage again be limited to that which is explicitly legitimate. I know we disagree on that point, but I want to cut off the inference that since some good comes from marriage then any relationship deemed "marriage" also generates these good things.

Your point 2. I would agree to the extent that my answer to your point 1 limits marriage to that which is explicitly legitimate. And again, the "good"s that come from marriage as it is legitimate are a result of the covenant relationship God established as good. I would reiterate that all good things come from God. I asked before but you never replied: if you disagree then what would you propose is the basis of "good" and "bad", human determination, a brute fact of the universe, other?

Your point 3. I realize there are those who do not agree with me, nor do I demand that they must.

Your point 4. This depends on how you mean church's opinion. Based on our previous discussions you would say any interpretation of any kind is nothing more than opinion and so it would seem you are suggesting the church has nothing to say to government regarding Biblical standards of behavior. I guess the simplest response would be, if the Church is not allowed to speak regarding Biblical standards of behavior then who will? Laws are impositions of morality and it seems to me the Church is the only group that can possibly speak for the Biblical position of morality. Other than believers (the Church) who else takes the Biblical position of morality to be absolute and binding on all men? So if the former is your meaning we do not agree, if the latter is your intent then we do agree.

I hope those addressed everything sufficiently. More later as I am out of time for now.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

You wrote: "Because I believe that logically and biblically, marriage is a good thing, that licentiousness and "corking up" your sexuality is a bad thing and, given what the Bible DOES say, I find the position logically and biblically sound that God would approve two people committing in love and fidelity. I can't prove it, the Bible doesn't say it, but it seems rationally and biblically sound to me."

I believe that does pretty well sum up our difference. You take what the bible does say, marriage is explicitly established between man and woman, look at the world around you at what is most largely held and accepted at the time which the Bible doesn't say and then determine that the position is sound biblically.

You see the difference? I look at things in the world - like government since it has been mentioned - and look for IF it aligns with what the Bible does say. If the governmental system does not align with what the Bible does say the governmental system is wrong and the Church should say so because they are the ones looking at the world through the lens of scripture. You, on the other hand, seem to look at the Bible through the lens of culture - look at what the Bible does say and then make what you deem to be logical extensions based on the current cultural climate and then call those extensions biblical.

This does make things much more clear. You see the Bible describing God's establishment of marriage between man and woman. You see that marriage is good. Culture seems to be largely in favor of looking at all homosexual marriage as equitable and so you extrapolate that homosexual marriage is biblically sound. However, I would argue that this is only logically sound if the assumption that looking at the Bible through the lens of culture is legitmate. I contend that it is not and therefore disagree with your assertion that your reasoning is either logically or biblically sound.

More to follow.

Craig said...

Dan,

Once again, thank you for your clarifications, I appreciate the time and effort on your part. I apologize if I have missed any questions directed at me and will be happy to answer any you have.

As far as I am concerned you have clarified your position quite well.

You started with "I support marriage equity for ALL."

You then changed that to "I support marriage equity for rational and consenting adults" (with rational and consenting undefined)

Then you added an exclusion based on what you seem to be calling mental illness or defect of some sort.

Given that, it is obvious that you do not in fact (as you originally stated and confirmed) "support marriage equity for all"

That's what I thought, I just wanted to get you to actually say it.

BTW, the only question that I see you asked is, "Again, if any of you have even ONE example in support of your suggestion that incest can be a healthy thing, feel free to cite it."

Since I have never suggested that incest is a healthy thing, you could understand why didn't respond. In this conversation you are the only one to suggest that you were aware of some sort of healthy incest relation (your most comment), since I have not suggested thus why would I provide support for a suggestion I didn't make?

Craig said...

"Do you have ANY real world cases you'd like to cite to try to convince me that there are mentally healthy fathers who want to bed down their mentally healthy daughters and everyone is okay with it?"

I guess I missed this one as well. However since I am not trying to convince you that incest is healthy, there is no reason why I would cite instances to support something I never said.

I would be interested in some evidence to support your contention that anyone who engages in incest is mentally ill (or defective or whatever term you prefer).

Perhaps you might find the time to provide some.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

You wrote:
"This seems to me to be what we've done with marriage between gay folk. You have an opinion of God's opinon and so do I.

And I still fall back to the difference in my position and yours is that, in addition to my opinion, I have rational, observable moral values to support my position, in addition to my hunch about what God thinks, whereas you all seem to only have what you think God thinks.

I don't find that compelling."

You have not accurately stated my position. I will copy it again directly from before. ""I am fine remaining with my position that I have positive scriptural support for a male and female union and therefore recognize that position as Biblically legitimate and simply do not recognize any other arrangement." I am not forming an opinion of God's opinion. I am repeating what is explicitly written, accepting that as legitimate and making no further biblically unsubstantiated extensions. It is of course your option to regard what is explicitly written in scripture to be God's opinion and form your own opinions based on what you feel to be opinions if you wish.

I would better articulate our difference as I wrote previously. I look at culture through the lens of scripture while you look at scripture through the lens of culture. This is why you can write things like "Yes, Jeremy, those words appear in Scripture. But what do they MEAN to us today? What did they MEAN at the time?" You see the meaning of scripture changing with time and culture. I would say that scripture always means the same thing, culture sometimes understands it correctly and their behavior aligns with scripture and at other times they misunderstand and their behavior does not align and needs to change (if the culture cares to understand or recognize scripture as authoritative in the first place).

Lastly, I don't believe your answer to my question regarding celebration and acceptance versus agnosticism to be logically consistent. You say in one sentence, "I find the position logically and biblically sound that God would approve two people committing in love and fidelity." And in the next sentence, "I can't prove it, the Bible doesn't say it, but it seems rationally and biblically sound to me." Firstly, you can prove it - for man and woman - because it is explicitly stated for that arrangement. Second, if you can't prove something and have no written record of it, then biblically the position would be agnostic - I don't know because the bible doesn't say. You can make the assumption that non-biblical sources, namely that culture should be considered to make biblical extensions and that would be logically consistent (although I would reject the assumption). However, it would not be biblically sound. That is what I am pressing, not the logical celebration based on sound logic (albeit based on a bad assumption), but an assertion of biblical soundness based on no information in the affirmative. Logical soundness in terms of argumentation (albeit based on a bad assumption) but biblical agnosticism. I hope that is more clear and that you would accept saying from now on that you are making assumptions logically and making a logical argument and speaking only of biblical agnosticism. I would implore you to stop combining the two: logical and biblical soundness of two people committing in love and fidelity if there is any arrangement other than man and woman. I hope that makes sense.

Jim said...

the homosexual couple is riskier by virtue of the fact that all the acts involving sexual contact employed by them are risky, and that includes kissing,

Leaving out anal sex for the moment, how could any act by a homosexual couple involving sexual contact be risky?

the attractions are merely sinful. Not mentally disordered.


Thank you again, Dr. Freud! It doesn't matter if the APA or whoever voted or drew straws to decide that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disorder. They have after decades of research come to that conclusion. From American Psychology Association:

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Ha ha, I LOVE your order of biological logic. Hilarious.

The homosexual activists and enablers are not dealing in reality.

Who is not dealing in REALITY?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

if you can't prove something and have no written record of it, then biblically the position would be agnostic - I don't know because the bible doesn't say.

1. As I've (nor anyone else) said for certain, I don't know for certain what God's opinion is on marriage between gay folk, on nuclear weapons, on capitalism and any other topic in the Bible. None of us know God's opinion on topics God has not told us an opinion. I've been quite clear on that.

Are we agreed on that?

2. That being said, I believe it is okay for us to hold opinions (our own) about what is reasonably moral, given general Biblical truths and our own God-given reasoning. This is what I'm doing.

Do you agree we can hold our own opinions on topics God has not given us God's opinion on?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy, a question for you: One reason I think that people go astray on this topic is because of the tendency to try to treat the Bible (especially the OT) like a rule book, as opposed to it being a book of truths. It is a book of Truth that contains SOME rules that were given to ancient Israel in an ancient context, but just because a rule appears in that context, we can't assume it is a universal rule. NONE of the rules in the OT apply directly to us. The OT is NOT a rulebook in that sense at all.

Thus, just because there are rules about...

How to cut the hair on the side of your head
How to cut your beard
Not having sex during menstruation
Not eating shrimp
Nor working on Saturday
How rapists must marry their victim
How conquering Israelis can marry the orphaned virgins of the families they just killed
How Israel was to kill "men who laid with men,"
How to divorce your wife or let your concubines go

etc, Just because those rules are there in no way suggests that these are universal rules for all times and all people.

Can you agree to that? That the OT is NOT a rule book, but a book of truth for us?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

I would implore you to stop combining the two: logical and biblical soundness of two people committing in love and fidelity if there is any arrangement other than man and woman. I hope that makes sense.

No, unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to me. Do you hold no positions that, while dealing with non-biblical topics, you feel to be biblically sound based on reasoning? Abortion is not discussed in the Bible, does that mean you believe you should be an agnostic on abortion views? That is, since the Bible does not discuss the medical procedure of abortion, you believe it is not appropriate to state that your view of abortion is biblically sound?

Marshall Art said...

Jim, you ignorant slut (let Parkie know why it's OK with you that I said that),

This was the easiest for me to find on the subject on such short notice and with such limited time (another 14 hr day for me today at work). You'll note that I pursued more info from the blog hostess and she did email the sources. I don't recall in detail how much she sent me, but I do recall that she directed me to the APA archives where one can see her numbers are exactly as she listed them. The other points you'll have to find on your own, but the main one involved activism within the association playing a major role in the vote being taken in the first place. With that understood, it is impossible to take your excerpt with more than a grain of salt considering that when homosexuals are doing the research, more than a little bias will enter into it.

But you'll note by your piece that they do not mention the main point: that in a species consisting of two genders the obvious mental disorder of one desiring to "mate" with another of the same gender. The disorder is obvious. They don't have to be dressing as Napoleon to be regarded as mental. And it seems they are looking for symptoms when the attraction itself is the symptom indicating disorder.

As to the silly question that began your last, even kissing exchanges germs. Any doctor will tell you this. Is it enough to concern ourselves over? Well, most couples don't kiss as often when one has the cold or flu, so it must mean something. Like ease of infection.

Worse is oral sex of the other varieties. Putting one's mouth right where the other person relieves him/herself of bodily waste is seriously risky. Of course, I might be talking to one of those guys who never washes his hands after using the toilet.

The point being made by all this was that even though normal hetero sexual intercourse might also carry the risk of spreading germs, it is the a normal function of those body parts, unlike any of the other methods of sexual contact. The homosexual, or lesbian for that matter, do not engage in anything that is not risky due to the improper use of the body parts in question. Unless they have no sexual contact at all, their relationships are automatically riskier than hetero relationships by virtue of those improper uses.

Keep in mind, that these comparisons are as one-to-one as one can get on this issue. As incestuous couplings are simply male/female couplings, they cannot be less healthy than homosexual couplings. It's impossible.

Dan Trabue said...

Jim is right, of course. Marshall is ignoring the evidence and, thus, appears to be making stuff up to prop up his cultural views.

Which leads us back to one of Marshall's initial points...

The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.

After over 100 comments and many requests, there has yet to be even ONE bit of evidence of a healthy incestuous relationship.

We believe that gay and straight relationships can both be healthy, Marshall, because of the evidence of our own eyes and in the real world. We don't (I don't, anyway) believe in "healthy incest," because the ONLY cased I see of incest are the abusive, sick, horrifying ones.

It's all about going where the real-world evidence leads, fellas. There is nothing to suggest a healthy incest relationship, there are plenty of healthy gay and straight relationships. Poof! Your argument is wholly destroyed, based on the evidence.

The comparison remains insidious and "uglyass" because of the complete and absolute dearth of evidence for your position.

And Jeremy, this gets to one of your questions: IF YOUR (generic "you") interpretation of the Bible contradicts with real world evidence, it is likely that your interpretation is wrong. IF you understand the Bible to teach that the earth is flat, created about 6000 years ago and the sun revolves around it, and the evidence is plenty clear that this is not the real world situation, then you probably have a bad understanding of the Bible. The Bible should comport with reality, at least when it comes to real world phenomena and if it doesn't, you're probably reading it wrongly.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

My answer to your question regarding God's "opinion" on anything is what do you believe the Bible is, exactly? Men's writings that express as closely as possible what they believed at the time to be their closest approximation of what God's opinion might be or something else? It seems from your questioning that you are willing to stipulate there are words written down to comprise a document we call the Bible, but there is no way for anyone to know to any degree of certainty what any of those words might possibly mean, thus the oft stated position that we all have "hunches" and "opinions".

You wrote: "It is a book of Truth that contains SOME rules that were given to ancient Israel in an ancient context, but just because a rule appears in that context, we can't assume it is a universal rule." I agree with that assessment.

You then wrote: "NONE of the rules in the OT apply directly to us." I do not agree with that assessment. One of the rules in the Old Testament is that we are to have no other Gods before the One True God. This is affirmed in the New Testament by Christ Himself when asked about the greatest commandment. So I believe "NONE" to be inaccurate, but your general assessment of universal applicability to be appropriate.

You asked: "Can you agree to that? That the OT is NOT a rule book, but a book of truth for us?" Based on the above I would say that the Old Testament is the Truth and not solely a rule book although some of the commands remain binding universally. I think that confirms what you are stating with the caveat of some universal applicability.

More in a moment.

"

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I would be interested in some evidence to support your contention that anyone who engages in incest is mentally ill (or defective or whatever term you prefer).

I'm calling it "Unhealthy," and "abusive," (SERIOUSLY so), because in EVERY INSTANCE of which I am aware, it is self-evidently sick and abusive. In ALL cases I have heard about, there is an abusive and unhealthy set of circumstances.

Are you aware of ANY HEALTHY and NON-ABUSIVE incest stories? I'd entertain the notion, but given ALL THE REAL WORLD EVIDENCE of which I'm aware, I'm doubtful of the notion.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Your example on abortion perfectly illustrates my point on the differences between our position. To wit, abortion is a term used to describe the killing of a unique unborn human life. So it is a culturally acceptable practice with the 38th anniversary of the decision to legalize the practice only a little more than a week away. Does the Bible have anything to say about killing innocent human life? Yes, human life is sacred - we are created in the image of God, God is Sovereign over His creation, no person has the authority to decide whether another human lives or dies. Now, we take what is clear from scripture and look at contemporary culture through its lens - since abortion is killing a unique human life, even though it is currently a legal practice in this nation it is Biblically wrong.

That is the long version, but to draw a direct correlation to our discussion on homosexual unions I could rephrase it in short form as such: The Bible explicitly states that God is Sovereign over human life as all humans are created in His image, therefore that arrangement is legitimate and I do not recognize any other arrangement as being legitimate.

Now, another could look the same verses in the Bible and say that the Bible does in fact confirm everything I just said, but then look at culture and see that killing the unborn is legal and assume that popular cultural beliefs are a part of Biblical interpretation and deduce therefore that abortion is logically and biblically sound because there is observable cultural evidence for the appropriate nature of intelligent consenting females that are not being coerced into a decision to kill the unique human life she carries for any reason because it is her body and she has the right to choose. Such a position is not biblically sound, however, because the assumption that popular cultural conditions should dictate how we interpret the Bible. As an exercise in logic, the person has made an assertion, stated assumptions and formed a conclusion - logically sound. However, the assumption is bad so the conclusion does not follow and therefore is false. Moreover the position is not Biblically sound because there is no positive Biblical support for the position and so the person is making an argument from silence Biblically.

So, logically sound but false and biblically unsound as an argument from silence. The person may continue to be determined in their position that their assumption that popular culture dictates interpretation and believe their position to be logically correct, but they would also have to hold to Biblical agnosticism because they cannot know the Bible is for abortion since it only provides positive support for preserving human life as sacred and says nothing in positive support for abortion.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

It seems from your questioning that you are willing to stipulate there are words written down to comprise a document we call the Bible, but there is no way for anyone to know to any degree of certainty what any of those words might possibly mean, thus the oft stated position that we all have "hunches" and "opinions".

I am saying, unless we have heard from God authoritatively (and we have not) we can not authoritatively speak for God.

Why do I say that? Because we are FLAWED and imperfect human beings, with flawed and imperfect reasoning.

One person reads that God commands ISRAEL (in the OT) to destroy their enemies, capture the enemy's virgin daughters, shave their heads, trim their nails and allow them to mourn for a month, then they can "wed" that virgin girl. This person who reads this DIRECT COMMAND FROM GOD TO ISRAEL and who then decides that "what was moral for Israel is moral for all of us, because God does not change and morality does not change," and decides it's okay for HIM (say he's a soldier in Iraq) to kill a family in the "enemy" state and kidnap the virgin daughter to make her his "wife."

The person who INTERPRETS the bible that way is EXACTLY taking it literally AND applying that rule to a modern context.

I believe you and I would be horrified that someone would take that ancient rule to be a guideline for him. The context and time is different. And besides, it is self-evidently wrong to force an orphaned virgin (whose family you just killed) to be your "wife."

Agreed?

The point is, just because someone INTERPRETS a passage fairly literally and tries to stay true to "God's morality, which does not change," does NOT mean that they have understood correctly. We are a flawed people, prone to error and bad reasoning.

For that reason, for MY part, other than the most blatant and obvious TRUTHS (we are to LOVE our enemies, God is love, we are not to shed innocent blood, we should stand up for and assist those in need, etc), I do not speak for God. I am a flawed human with imperfect reasoning. I may THINK it abundantly obvious and clear biblical teaching that Christians ought not participate in the military, I may THINK it abundantly obvious that the Bible teaches us not to invest (store up treasures), etc, but I won't say "Thus saith the Lord" about most things, because I am not in a position to speak for God.

Is it the case that you believe you are not capable of misinterpreting Scripture, Jeremy? Especially on points that aren't directly stated?

Now, having said that, I do NOT find the Bible to be that hard to understand. I think its teachings are consistent, reasonable, understandable and pretty danged obvious, for the most part (if challenging and hard to live up to, short of God's grace). I don't find the Bible to be a puzzle in the least.

But that is true, probably, for most people who disagree with me, too.

I'm just suggesting that it would be a bit arrogant to say that I (and those who agree with me) am the One with the ONE TRUE understanding of God's Will.

Do you think this is reasonable?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

I just picked up your comment directed to me within your response to another.

You wrote: "IF YOUR (generic "you") interpretation of the Bible contradicts with real world evidence, it is likely that your interpretation is wrong." Well it seems that hinges on what one considers evidence, doesn't it. We have agreed the Bible is Truth and so by definition it is in conformance with reality. But I am sure you would have to agree that majority cultural opinion does not qualify as "real world evidence." We can easily imagine, for example, that there could possibly come a time when the majority in a nation could decide that termination all "non-productive" members of society would be legal and beneficial to society. This would obviously not be taken to be real world evidence that we should then revise our position Biblically, say that we have been misunderstanding scripture all this time and go along celebrating and endorsing the practice.

"IF you understand the Bible to teach that the earth is flat, created about 6000 years ago and the sun revolves around it, and the evidence is plenty clear that this is not the real world situation, then you probably have a bad understanding of the Bible." Now this is an example of real world evidence and fortunately the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat or that it revolves around the sun, so if there were those who held to that position then you are correct, they were not interpreting the associated passages correctly.

But please be aware of the difference here. Real world evidence should not be confused with everything I experience. See again the example above relative to cultural opinion that we experience daily.

Again, the idea is to see cultural issues through the lens of Biblical Truth. We do not look at scripture through the lens of contemporary culture.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

the idea is to see cultural issues through the lens of Biblical Truth. We do not look at scripture through the lens of contemporary culture.

And I guess my response would be, we need to prayerfully, carefully, rationally strive to see God's Way through the lens of Jesus' teachings and a correct understanding of the Bible, but the caution would be that OUR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible does not conflate with God's Way.

I'm not trying to discern cultural issues through MY INTERPRETATION of the Bible, rather, I'm striving to discern cultural issues through God's Will, which is my goal. The Bible (which I have to reason my way through), my reason, real world evidence, God's Spirit, God's Word writ upon my heart... these ALL can contribute to my better understanding God's will, but they ALL depend on our own good reasoning, and that includes OUR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible.

My concern is that people read a passage, find a verse they like and say, "The Bible says it and I believe it, that settles it..." without taking into consideration that it is THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible that they are referencing, not "the Bible" magically telling them what to believe.

After all, I read Genesis 1 and can easily easily say, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" and mean it entirely. The Bible DOES contain a creation story and I DO believe God is the Creator, but that does not mean that I should take what appears to be written in clearly mythic language as a literal history, any more than I should take passages written in clearly poetic language as literal commands.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Dan Trabue said...

I've posted some thoughts on this on my own blog, for what it's worth.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

You asked: "Is it the case that you believe you are not capable of misinterpreting Scripture, Jeremy? Especially on points that aren't directly stated?" I think i've made plain that anyone is capable of misinterpretation. I am certainly included in that number. However, I would not conclude then that because anyone is capable of misinterpretation that no one can ever know for sure what the Bible says.

You wrote: "For that reason, for MY part, other than the most blatant and obvious TRUTHS (we are to LOVE our enemies, God is love, we are not to shed innocent blood, we should stand up for and assist those in need, etc), I do not speak for God." I would hasten to say that you should not presume to speak for God on those things you feel to be obvious truths either. Don't speak for God, period. If you are admittedly flawed, then you could not trust your idea of what is obvious any more than you could trust your ability to interpret anything else. You are still admittedly speaking for God. And this is the point, God doesn't need any of us to speak for Him, He has already spoken. All scripture is God-breathed and useful for rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness. That is what we are to do, it seems clear. Take what God has already spoken, the scriptures and use it for its intended purpose - to train us in righteousness. You are correct to say its not a puzzle, God clearly revealed Himself so we may know Him and be confident.

I would say don't speak for Him at all, just read His revelation of Himself. This just goes to strengthen my previous point. Just read His revelation, do not add on popular cultural opinion as an additional determining factor in what He might have meant beyond what is written.

Finally, you wrote and asked: "I'm just suggesting that it would be a bit arrogant to say that I (and those who agree with me) am the One with the ONE TRUE understanding of God's Will.

Do you think this is reasonable?"

I do think that is reasonable. I also think it is reasonable that there is only one true understanding of God's will, that He has revealed it in scripture and that it is not a puzzle. So, if we read it then it is possible to understand God's will. I would even say God intended for us to understand His will, otherwise He would never have revealed it in the first place.

We have gone pretty far afield of the original post, as is bound to happen. Out of respect for the blog Owner, and as the comment string is nearing 150 I will be fine with my responses, give you the last word and sign off. I believe I have answered all your questions and made all the point as clearly as I can. If you have more questions for me, i'll be glad to respond if Marshall is fine with going further down the rabbit trail in his space, otherwise you can email me personally to continue. I'll wait for Marshall's OK to post further material as again the discussion has ranged fairly well off the original trail.

Thanks as always for the discussion.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

So, if we read it then it is possible to understand God's will. I would even say God intended for us to understand His will, otherwise He would never have revealed it in the first place.

I agree, it's probably time to wind down. I do have a question about this comment of yours, though...

We are agreed that we are fallible, capable of being mistaken.

Yet, you go on to say it is possible to "know" God's will. I'm curious as to what you mean by this.

"Know," in what sense?

If, for instance, you are certain that you "know" the Bible rationally teaches that abortions should not be legalized, should not be done, and thus, you "know" God's will on that issue, how do you also know that you aren't mistaken on that issue?

Are you saying there are SOME issues not covered in the Bible on which you can certainly know withOUT fear of being mistaken on that issue what God's opinion is?

If so, what are those? What is your criteria for including them in the "know-without-risk-of-being-mistaken" category?

As for me, I listed a very few, and those are things that are, I would say, self-evident and taught consistently throughout the Bible.

1. God is love. A direct teaching of Christ. Taught consistently in the Bible and few would dispute it.
2. Don't shed innocent blood. Taught consistently in the Bible and few would dispute it. It is self-evident.
3. Love our enemies. A direct teaching of Christ, who is our Teacher, clear to all.
4. Help the least of these. A direct teaching of Christ, clear to all.

In short, as a follower of Christ, I tend to take his direct teachings pretty literally, difficult as they may seem. Beyond that, I think we need the wisdom to interpret aright and the humility to recognize our ability to be wrong. Beyond the direct teachings of Christ, I would tend to give grace to others' interpretations and insist upon personal humility for my interpretations.

So, for me, CHRIST is the criteria: If it is a direct and clear teaching of Christ, let's take it pretty literally and be pretty confident in the teaching, if not it's application (ie, Jesus clearly taught to love our enemies, but what does that look like? I think that is open to interpretation and grace).

IF you are saying there are some things we can "know" and others not, what is your criteria and dividing line? Is it consistent?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I was looking for the recent case exposed last year of a long-time father-daughter relationship on the east coast, but found these two instead:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347368,00.html
I suggest these are examples of "healthy" relationships. My proof they exist.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn, from your first story...

With their secret [incestuous marriage] still safe, McMahan filed to divorce his fifth wife, and Linda moved out of the home she shared with her husband...

Linda moved into a nearby condo, leaving behind her career as a psychologist.

Linda enjoyed the trappings of life with one of America's richest money managers, racking up a $74,000 bill at Barney's New York.

What followed was a breakup on an even grander scale than their wedding and a legal battle every bit as obsessive as each has been about the other.

For more than a year, attorneys have been kept busy in Miami, New York, Mississippi, and San Diego with the fallout over the breakup of McMahan and Linda in five lawsuits involving not only father and daughter but also their legal spouses, as well as Linda's current boyfriend and soon-to-be father of her child...


This is a story of deception, lies, cheating, multiple divorces, multiple affairs, extravagant expenditures and a family self-destructing. If this is your "proof" of "healthy," maybe that says something about why you are having a problem seeing the MOUNTAIN of difference between a healthy loving respectful marriage between two gay folk and THAT.

The second story sounds questionable to me, with not enough details to say that these people (daughter leaving her husband to begin an affair with her father) are in a great state of mental or physical health.

Sorry, thanks for at least trying, but I'd have to say, you are only helping to strengthen the rational case that "healthy incest" doesn't exist.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Firstly, the APA is a fraudulent organization with a fraudulent unscientific theory. They are nothing more than a religion unto themselves. Their teachings are pure psychobabble, so it doesn't really matter how long they've been around, their philosophy is a religious belief and not science.
I did a 7-part series about the subject, and you can review the first part here:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/11/psychological-method-vs-christianity.html

I'm sure you are smart enough to find the other six from my labels

Parklife said...

"Jim, you ignorant slut"

Umm.. ok.. So you prefer to be called Marsha?

Looking back through previous posts, most of mine have called for Ma to grow up and act like an adult. That theme has never changed. I found myself laughing at his outrageous claims and extreme right wing beliefs. I'm not really sure why this upset him so much, and most of my comments seem rather tame. Today, I openly wonder if Ma is the lovechild of Dwight Schrute and Stephen Colbert.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Something about you Dan is consistent with your whole world view:

YOU are the final arbiter as to what is good and what is unhealthy. Must be nice to by your own god.

4simpsons said...

Whoa -- 152 comments! I see Dan is up to his typical games. Hopefully Marshall will forgive my shortcut, but here is my response to Dan's usual tricks -- http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/false-teacher-profile/ .

Same old stuff: Pretends to say the Bible is the word of God -- except when he says it isn't! -- dismisses all your views as opinions but insists his are facts and lives inconsistently with them (i.e., abortion sheds innocent blood, but Dan just isn't sure about abortion! Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman and offered no alternatives so who's to say He isn't on board with SSM? One could play Dan's game and say that Jesus said to love our enemies but didn't say we couldn't hate them at the same time, or that Jesus was being sarcastic, etc.).

Watch out for the wolves in sheep's clothing. Dan is their poster boy.

Awaiting Dan's accusation of gossip in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . (although I won't read or respond to it).

Parklife said...

Glenn, just for the record.. Dan is expressing his opinion. Never has he said or claimed that his opinion is fact. Rather quite the opposite, which makes your last comment more strange and suggests that you do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. If you like I can copy and paste the definitions of these two words onto your website? But as we both know, you only accept definitions based on your previous understanding (or mis-understanding) of the word.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parklife you need to read more thoroughly the trash Dan posts. He makes many assertions without qualifying them as opinion. Even his last post he mad a judgement as to the health of a relationship, which he has consistently done. Claims there are healthy homophile relationships - not as opinion but as fact.

NO, there are too many assertions he makes as facts, and the main one is he claims as a fact that we our interpretations are mere opinions!

4simpsons said...

Just one other thought after seeing a reference to the "direct teachings of Christ," as if the red letters somehow trump the black letters.

1. Jesus quoted the black letters a lot (roughly 10%).

2. Jesus is God, God is the author of scripture ==> Jesus is the author of scripture.

3. The Gospels are accounts of what Jesus wanted us to know, and so are the rest of the books in the NT.

Some "red letter" people are innocent, but I've found that their alleged love of those passages is usually very selective and ultimately mischievous.

Parklife said...

I really think you are missing the point. In Dans previous post he explains his reasoning, but never claims his opinion as fact. My guess is that you are projecting your thoughts and beliefs onto him. But, that is just a wild guess. I dont think anybody would have a problem with you coming to a different conclusion (and it seems you have) on the articles you recently mentioned. Yes, it is possible to have the same set of facts and come to a different opinion.

The Simp, I applaud you for your excessive punctuation! You have a wonderful sense of excitement for trashing somebody. As a follower of Jesus, you must be very proud. Not to mention the shameless plug for your own blog. I say.. congratulations.

It is appalling to see / read comments like The Simp. What he doesnt seem to realize is that he appears to be acting as the one-true-interpreter of the bible / morality / ect. While this is fine if we were all his sheep, I dont see this as a practical way for having a reasonable and rational discussion. I suppose this is why he drops a provocative comment and dances away.

Neil said...

Parklife, the link tells all about Dan. I just didn't bother to re-hash it here.

You utter the same error that he does, namely that by being confident in my views that I am bad, even though you and he are obviously confident in your views.

BTW, many of the "red letters" (and the black ones) warned of false teachers. Jesus was right, as usual.

Your personal attacks on me prove nothing. Criticizing punctuation is as petty as it is pointless.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn...

NO, there are too many assertions he makes as facts, and the main one is he claims as a fact that we our interpretations are mere opinions!

Feel entirely free to cite EVEN JUST ONE EXAMPLE of me doing this and then you can enjoy my having to apologize for doing so.

I've asked you to do this multiple times so as to prove yourself not a gossip and slanderer, but you never have (so far as I can recall).

As it stands, the burden of proof is on you: You can support your claim or be exposed as a petty gossip and bearer of false witness.

Here, you appear to at least attempt to do this...

Claims there are healthy homophile relationships - not as opinion but as fact.

But you do so without a citation. To be clear: I've pointed to THE EVIDENCE of real world people I know and who have, by all appearances and testimony, a healthy relationship. In the real world, I see nothing to support the notion that their relationship isn't healthy.

They are church-goers.
There aren't lies or affairs going on.
There are no manipulations or abuse going on.
They do acts of good together and individually.
They are part of a wholesome, God-loving, well-behaved community.
They are, in some cases, the parents of lovely, beautiful, well-raised children.
They spend copious amounts of time caring for, tending to, teaching and providing for these children (who, in some cases, were adopted out of unstable, abusive homes - in I believe all cases, from HETEROSEXUAL homes).

In short, by all evidence, there is nothing unhealthy about their relationships from someone who spends a good deal of time with them and knows them very well.

Again, this is about the EVIDENCE. I am operating by what it evident. You appear to be operating on false witness and innuendo (witness your repeated unsupported, false claims). Who is behaving as a Christian and moral person in this scenario, brother Glenn?

And, as always, that goes for brother Neil, as well.

If you have a claim to make, quote me and support it with actual evidence. If you have NOTHING to support a claim, that is a clue that you should not speak it out loud.

Gossip and slander are two of those things that are clearly of a sinful nature, if you take the Bible seriously.

4simpsons said...

D'oh! I read this from the bottom up thinking it was Parklife's. I'll indulge myself one comment then ignore them both:

"In short, by all evidence, there is nothing unhealthy about their relationships from someone who spends a good deal of time with them and knows them very well."

Uh, other than shaking their fists at God in rebellion to his created order and his clear word in Romans 1 and elsewhere, not to mention twisting his word to their own desires. Just because they have the blessing of a false teacher doesn't mean their behavior isn't sinful.

"And, as always, that goes for brother Neil, as well."

LOL. Dan thinks that if you claim someone is a brother that it makes Dan a Christian. That is the logical fallacy of begging the question. I recognize brothers by the fruit they bear.

"If you have a claim to make, quote me and support it with actual evidence."

Done and done! http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/false-teacher-profile/

"Gossip and slander are two of those things that are clearly of a sinful nature, if you take the Bible seriously."

Huh? Sounds like Dan thinks those are facts. But he also thinks that "don't lie with a man like you do with a woman" means that it is OK to lie with a man like you do with a woman as long as Dan thinks the rest of your behavior meets his standards (I could give 50 more examples, but that will suffice).

If Dan responds to me, here is my (p)rebuttal -- http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/false-teacher-profile/ Feel free to copy and paste.

Have nice weekends, folks!

Marshall Art said...

"Looking back through previous posts, most of mine have called for Ma to grow up and act like an adult. That theme has never changed."

Cut the the crap, Parkie. You're revising history.

Dan Trabue said...

Neil...

other than shaking their fists at God in rebellion to his created order and his clear word in Romans 1 and elsewhere, not to mention twisting his word to their own desires.

And yet, factually, this is NOT what they've done. They've sought God's Will, wanting to follow in God's steps, do as God sees best and they, being Christians saved by God's grace and a part of the blessed priesthood of believers, have NOT shook their fist at God, but rather, they simply have disagreed with Neil, who factually, is NOT God.

Could they be mistaken? Sure, JUST LIKE NEIL could be mistaken. But IF they are mistaken, it is a sincere mistake done in seeking God's will and simply erroring in their judgment. Thankfully, we are not saved by our perfect knowledge, but by God's grace.

Even Neil.

Neil...

Dan thinks that if you claim someone is a brother that it makes Dan a Christian

No, FACTUALLY, Dan thinks that being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus the Christ is what makes one a Christian. Even one such as myself, poor sinner though I be, can be saved by God's grace and THAT makes me a brother to Neil who, giving him the benefit of the doubt and a bit of grace that he does not extend my way, is ALSO saved by grace.

We are part of the family of God, brother Neil, no matter if we like it or not.

I'd suggest we strive to like it.

Peace.

Parklife said...

"I could give 50 more examples, but that will suffice"

Are any of these the same examples that people used to justify slavery?

Neil, unfortunately I'm not saying if you are right or wrong when it comes to matters of the bible and interpretation. That is the point. You (Glenn and Ma) are the one telling all of us that Dan is wrong. You are making yourself the arbitrator of what is right and wrong. Dan has simply expressed his option and answered a lot of questions. Neil, you are not bad. Only unable to hear a different point of view without following with personal attacks. I suppose this makes you feel as if you have some authority on the subject, but in the end it just makes you sound like a false profit.

But, thanks for the second hit and run. Have a great weekend.

"Cut the the crap, Parkie. You're revising history."

Marsha, I think you mean revisiting history. Try it some time. You have an archive button that is very helpful.

ps...
"Gossip and slander are two of those things that are clearly of a sinful nature, if you take the Bible seriously."

Yes.. it is Dans opinion that the bible says this. At the same time, Im guessing you agree with his interpretation?

Jim said...

Keep in mind, that these comparisons are as one-to-one as one can get on this issue.

So, the gist of this is that since heterosexual couples CAN engage in vaginal intercourse, they don't need to, and therefore most like won't, engage in other types of sexual acts, thereby making sex safer for them than homosexuals.

But this is simply silly. Most heterosexual couples DO engage in sex acts other that vaginal intercourse. And you completely ignore the possibility that homosexual couples may be very fastidious in the preparations for sex. Lastly, are we to believe that germs from the sexual organs can be passed to a partner from oral or anal sex but NOT from vaginal sex?

Just pointing out the silliness of this continued rationalization for your righteousness as the Sex Nazi.

No sex for you!

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I have to believe your stupidity is purposeful. You are going out of your way to restate my position as far from what my words could possibly mean. To put it more plainly, you're lying like a rug. Is this like a mandatory thing in order to be a leftist?

The gist, you idiot, is that, and you know this to be what I meant, if all acts not making improper use of body parts are denied them, the heterosexual couple can still engage in some form of sex and not be at risk for health issues (to any significant degree assuming healthy participants).

The homosexual couple, unless committed to no contact whatsoever, has only those acts that misuse body parts from which to choose. This simple fact means that their lifestyle is automatically a greater health risk than any heterosexual couple, including and incestuous one. Is it dramatically greater? That would depend on the specific act and the frequency of events. For example, since you brought it up, an otherwise healthy homosexual couple who engages in anal sex every day is far more likely to develop health issues than any otherwise healthy hetero couple who engages in vaginal intercourse at even greater frequencies.

That's about all the time I'm going to put in with the graphic stuff, Jim. But it obviously needs to be spelled out for you that the point has nothing to do with whether or not heteros engage in some or any of the same sexual practices as homosexuals. THAT is NOT relevant to the point regarding comparing health risks for each group. Homosexuals cannot derive sexual pleasure without misusing body parts. Heterosexuals don't have to yet can still procure sexual pleasure.

If you want to do any more twisting to pretend that homosexuality is simply the cats, go elsewhere. I'm being far more objective and clinical about this issue than either you or Dan and you are trying to draw inferences that do not exist.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You continue to engage in hypocrisy in your attempts to demonize a lifestyle choice of which you do not approve. "Hold it! I'm Dan Trabue of the Fred Phelps Organization; Incest Division. Back away from that sister, you sick bastard!"

You certainly put forth as fact that incest must be a mental disorder. Just the mere attraction to a family member, the pursuit of a family member or the actual sexual intercourse between family members?

Imagine this scenario: A man sees his sister or daughter when she's a young teen. The girl is dressed for Saturday night; short skirt, plunging neckline, make-up, the works. For a split instant, he notices how hot she looks, because she does. He immediately catches himself, realizing he just had a momentary hard-on for his own sister/daughter and yells at her to change her clothes while inside he wants to slam his member in a car door.

OR, a guy is at a party with his high school mates and they realize his older sister is there as well. His buddies are making cracks because she's totally babe-alicious and he tells them to shut the f**k up. They tell him to chill out because she's a total babe and he'd be saying the same things if they weren't related. He has to admit to himself that this is the case because as they've pointed out, and as she's proven by her appearance, and as he knows with the booze weakening his inhibitions, it truly is the case.

A girl seeks a mate for marriage and she knows she wants someone just like here father because he's a good man, an obviously good husband, has been a great dad, and is handsome to boot.

By your standards based on all you've said thus far, these three all require counseling.

There comes a point for many people when they have no choice but to acknowledge the looks of a family member. Once that point arrives, and they've faced it objectively, and they've acknowledged that their parent, sibling or child is attractive, it is hard to imagine that, even for but a moment, a desire is present. For some, I have no doubt the desire remains for as long as the family member remains physically attractive to them. I have no doubt that many would admit, yeah, if it wasn't taboo, I'd do 'er. I've known a few who've said this very thing. None of them are what I would call in need of therapy. It is the taboo that prevents any serious consideration of approaching the family member. The taboo is strong and for those who are Christians, insurmountable.

Yet Biblically, all the same lame arguments you put up for homosexuals would work to provide the very same loopholes into which they could squeeze themselves. What they have that homosexuals don't is an attraction that is compatible with their gender and biological function, not counter to it. The homosexual absolutely cannot say the same.

more...

Marshall Art said...

So now we have those who actually indulge their desires. They find a reciprocal desire from their family member and one thing leads to another. They feel shame at first, but can't shake the fact that they've never felt so alive, that no other affair with anyone thus far ever felt so right (or any of the other self-serving crap we hear from homosexuals). But to YOU Dan, they are now certifiable. All because they're related.

But what of first cousins? They are obviously just a bit less disordered. And second cousins? Even less so. Is that how it works?

You bring up this crap about all the cases YOU'VE seen, as if that number comprises a sampling large enough upon which to base your hateful and prejudicial opinion. If these people are mental cases of some kind, I would wager that their incestuous affairs are not only not the deciding factor that determines their mental condition, but not the most serious as far as their psychologists are concerned. I would wager it is incidental in the bigger picture. YOU try to portray it as some kind of sign of mental illness in and of itself, as if you are the least bit qualified to make such a judgement.

And you want and need it to be because of the "self-evident" truth that their male/female attraction to each other in and of itself is far more "natural" and "normal" than any same gender attraction could ever be.

So then you demand that we present some examples of "normal" people living an incestuous affair. (I haven't read Glenn's offering yet, but obviously you haven't studied yourself, based on what I've seen here.) But that is not in the least bit required for the point to stand. If you're going to support the bullshit "equity" ploy, you MUST consider the ramifications of doing so. Canada is seeing more of a push for polygamous marriages based on all the same arguments you and the activists you enable have been using to push your abomination on our culture and worse, on a new generation of kids. It is only prudent to consider that whatever incestuous couplings are happening under the radar will "come out" and demand their day in the sun. When that happens, you won't have any choice but to give in because your arguments are hypocritical copies of better and more logical versions we have to oppose the homosexual agenda that doesn't exist.

more still...

Marshall Art said...

And speaking of lies of the agenda, check this out:

"This is a story of deception, lies, cheating, multiple divorces, multiple affairs, extravagant expenditures and a family self-destructing. If this is your "proof" of "healthy," maybe that says something about why you are having a problem seeing the MOUNTAIN of difference between a healthy loving respectful marriage between two gay folk and THAT."

Does the name "V. Gene Robinson" mean anything to you? This jerk, like so many homosexuals, married, had kids and then proclaimed that he was lying to himself as his affairs with other men came to light. There was New Jersey governor who had a similar bullshit story. There were stories of black men "on the down low" cheating on their wives with homosexual lovers. These kinds of stories are so typical of the homosexual population that your words regarding Glenn's example demonstrate even more hypocrisy, while also further demonstrating how strong the parallel truly is between the two groups.

What could be more uglyass than to pretend that there is some stark difference between these two groups that would be grounds to deny the incestuous the "equity" Dan demands for the sinful and mentally abnormal homosexual? It is simply the sin of choice for Dan and his friends. The sin to celebrate.

yet more...

Marshall Art said...

Let's look at some "evidence" from Dan:

"They are church-goers."

So are some Mafia members, and adulterers and tax cheats and a host of other sinners. Big deal. Too bad they don't go to church to find strength to resist temptation.

"There aren't lies or affairs going on."

As far as you know. Or are they aware that you spy on them and follow them around to confirm their holiness?

"There are no manipulations or abuse going on."

As far as you know. You do realize, I would hope, that manipulation comes in varying degrees and types and manifestations? And they've certainly manipulated themselves and each other into believing they can live together as man and wife and that God would bless what He called an abomination. That's abusive for sure.

"They do acts of good together and individually."

Al Capone ran soup kitchens and was known for a variety of charitable works. Big deal. Good works does not provide cover for open rebellion against God in other areas.

"They are part of a wholesome, God-loving, well-behaved community."

That openly supports sexual immorality. Wonderful.

"They are, in some cases, the parents of lovely, beautiful, well-raised children."

Except for raising them to believe homosexuality if just fine by God.

"They spend copious amounts of time caring for, tending to, teaching and providing for these children (who, in some cases, were adopted out of unstable, abusive homes - in I believe all cases, from HETEROSEXUAL homes)."

Nice touch there at the end, as if that justifies putting the kids in another abusive situation. Yes, denying them a mother and a father is abusive. Yes, placing them in an environment that supports sexual immorality is abusive.

All of what you say assumes things about homosexuality that you've never proven or for which you've never provided solid evidence or argument, arguments for which you've never filled gaping holes easily uncovered by me and others.

not done yet...

Marshall Art said...

Dan's "facts":

"1. God is love. A direct teaching of Christ. Taught consistently in the Bible and few would dispute it."

What we dispute is what that love looks like, how it applies to this topic and you understanding of pretty much everything you believe about Scripture.

What we also know from Scripture, is that God is just and His wrath is terrible. Another teaching of Christ as He warns us to choose life for this very reason. It is also taught consistently throughout the Bible but you reject those parts as "epic storytelling".

"2. Don't shed innocent blood. Taught consistently in the Bible and few would dispute it. It is self-evident."

Yet you support a "woman's right to choose". Abortion is killing a person who is far more innocent than any "born" person could be. Though the Bible doesn't speak of abortion, it also doesn't speak of hatchet killing, or blowing people up or bleeding people out until dead or any of a hundred other ways to murder people. Getting them before they've exited the womb is merely one more way of shedding innocent blood. What is evident is the very selective manner in which you apply Scripture.

"3. Love our enemies. A direct teaching of Christ, who is our Teacher, clear to all."

But poorly understood and applied by you as explained exhaustively in past posts. Won't go into it here.

"4. Help the least of these. A direct teaching of Christ, clear to all."

Unless they're unborn OR engaging in sexual practices of which Dan disapproves. Then, all bets are off.

These are a hint of how Dan interprets showing very little that supports his claim of serious study as the average person would understand the term.

and one more for tonight, or this morning...

Marshall Art said...

"And I still fall back to the difference in my position and yours is that, in addition to my opinion, I have rational, observable moral values to support my position, in addition to my hunch about what God thinks, whereas you all seem to only have what you think God thinks."

What you're falling back on are the same old thoroughly rebutted arguments for which you've not returned volley. You keep bringing up the same nonsense, have objections to them leveled without response, and then rehash them again.

What we "think God thinks" is based on what Scripture actually says about the subjects of human sexuality, marriage, family and morality.

Where in the Bible does it provide any hint that human sexuality outside the marriage of a man and woman is acceptable to and/or intended by God? You've never provided anything to that effect and we've begun with the Genesis verse to which Jeremy referred explaining why we were created male and female. Regardless of practices that God tolerated for a time, His intention is made quite clear there. To suggest that it isn't comprehensive as it is, that there are possibilities He merely didn't state is childishness of the type I described several comments ago. If there is some legitimate way to show it allows for anything other, you have yet to provide evidence from Scripture and have only provided the weakest of conjecture.

Of all the mentions of marriage throughout Scripture, which one allows for the possibility of something other than male/female unions? Even the polygamous marriages were a series of male/female groupings. Never male/male or female/female. I don't believe there is anything about any polygamous marriage in Scripture that suggests that, for example, all of Solomon's wives were each wife to each other, but each only wife to Solomon. Everything in Scripture is male/female. Every bit of imagery that describes Christ's relationship to His Church as a marriage suggests a bride and a groom, not two brides or two grooms. Male/female.

Every mention of family suggests or implies a father and a mother as components. Never two fathers or two mothers. Find an example if this is not so.

Every mention of sexual immorality is that which is outside the sex between a man and his wife. That would preclude ANY homosexual acts regardless of context.

What have YOU got? "Whatever is beautiful, kind, loving, etc." as if what YOU believe is a manifestation of those things is anything with which God would agree.

You want to run with "the Bible says marriage is good, so..." But because marriage is always described in Scripture as male/female unions, in order to maintain the defense that you take the Bible seriously and that you study it seriously, you MUST say "the Bible says marriage between a man and a woman is good" because according to the way the term is always used in Scripture, the term "marriage" means only "the union of a man and woman in matrimony" and nothing else.

So what we have is not merely what we think God thinks, but rather, the only thing an honest person can conclude about what God thinks considering what Scripture ACTUALLY says about ANY of those subjects. We base our conclusions regarding what God thinks on FACTS taken directly from Scripture. YOU take Scripture and impose meaning upon them that the words themselves do not in any way intend or CAN intend.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, this all seems to be your entire position on all these points...

"IF I think something, it must be so. I THINK I know the 'proper use' of somebody's body parts and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I have no logical support or evidence beyond what I think, but it is wrong, so you ought to just acknowledge it.

If I THINK something is mentally ill, it is, because I have THOUGHT it and it seems reasonable TO ME. It doesn't matter if the experts disagree, they are fake organizations because they disagree WITH ME.

If I think my daughter and mother are hot looking and I get aroused thinking of them, then incest must be normal, because it seems normal TO ME. I have no evidence to support it, there's not even one non-abusive case I can point to, but I don't need to because it seems obvious TO ME.

If I THINK an interpretation of a bible verse that makes sense to someone else is not reasonable, then NO ONE ELSE can reasonably hold that position. We can safely know that they are liars who want to shake their fist at God because that is how it seems TO ME. I don't know them and have ZERO evidence to support these claims, but it must be so, because it is what I THINK..."

And on and on it goes. Your reasoning appears to revolve very little around evidence or ration, but more about subjective, emotional, narcissism. "IF I THINK it, it must be true..." is NOT a compelling argument.

I'm sorry but you sound wholly irrational in nearly all your arguments here.

Pray on it. Think on it. Reason about it. Seek God's will further and pray humbly for understanding and I hope you will realize that, IF you want to hold these positions and you truly think they are legitimate, that at the least, you wouldn't try to repeat these sorts of arguments and instead, you find something a bit more rational, because you're only hurting your cause/case.

With each non-argument that revolves around your own personal opinion, you drive me further and further away from your unsupported hunches.

Peace.

Dan Trabue said...

Imagine the conversation an objective outsider might have about this...

So, you think the Bible teaches that any and all gay behavior is wrong for all time?

Yes, that's what the Bible says.

It says that directly?

No, not in those words, but it infers it so obviously that no one could reach any other conclusion.

But, aren't there others who HAVE reached other conclusions?

Yes, but they haven't really. You can't reach any other conclusion than the interpretation I have reached.

Do you consider yourself the sole arbiter of Right Interpretation of the Bible?

Of course not, don't be stupid. Not just MY interpretation, but the interpretation of ALL THOSE who have agreed with me throughout the years. This has been the understanding of millions of Christians throughout history.

And yet, some Christians today disagree with your understanding. How do you explain that?

They're being dishonest.

Wow. That's a pretty serious charge. Are you saying that all people who disagree with you on this interpretation are doing it being DELIBERATELY dishonest?

No, not all. There are the fools and simpletons. But all reasonable people who look at these related passages and say they disagree with me are being dishonest.

Do you know any of these people personally? Do you have any evidence of their being dishonest?

The evidence is that they disagree with MY understanding and no honest person can do that! Duh!

But, to look at the lives of some of these people, there is nothing to suggest any dishonesty on their part, is there? I mean, by all appearances, they are moral, Godly people who merely disagree with your opinion on this topic, and from what they say, they honestly have another understanding of the texts in question....

It's all a show. They're putting on a front to APPEAR Godly. They go to church, do good acts, read the Bible, pray, assist the poor, love their kids and family, "act" honest in all their transactions, but all of that is an act, so they can shake their fist at God and do whatever they please. That is the only reasonable conclusion one can reach.

So, they're spending their entire lives PRETENDING to be good (well, actually, BEING good, honest, moral people, by all evidence) as part of an elaborate ruse, just so they can sneak in a disagreement with your opinion on this topic?

Amazing, isn't it?

Yeah, almost hard to believe...

And yet the evidence is right there!

...what evidence is that?

That they disagree with my opinion, simp! Aren't you listening?

And on it would go...

Think about these things, my man.

Jim said...

And you have confirmed exactly what I said that your are saying:

The only healthy sex is vaginal sex because vaginal sex uses the "proper body parts". All other types of sex are risky because they use the wrong body parts. All the wrong body parts are unclean and will pass disease from one partner to the other. Wrong body parts cannot be cleaned or have condoms on them.

Therefore, heterosexual couples are the only couples who can engage in healthy sex.

Since only hetero sexual couples have the ability to have healthy sex, ONLY healthy couples should have sex. Anyone else is taking a health risk.

(And they have a mental disorder.)

Since only vaginal sex is safe, healthy sex, heterosexuals should only engage in vaginal sex. Anything else is too risky. This makes heterosexuals lucky because only they can have healthy sex. No one else can clean their body parts or protect them.

So for them, "No sex for YOU!"

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

For goodness' sake, Jim. Can't you have at least a little integrity?

"And you have confirmed exactly what I said that your are saying:"

Not even close as you insist on imposing meanings my words do not possess. To wit:

"The only healthy sex is vaginal sex because vaginal sex uses the "proper body parts"."

The improper use of sexual organs and other body parts in sexual behaviors result in greater risks to health. This is a fact and the point of my previous comments. These risks do not exist or do not exist to any significant degree by proper use of the sexual organs. Again, a fact. This means that with regards to otherwise healthy consenting adults, homosexual sex involves a greater risk to health than incestuous couplings.

"All other types of sex are risky because they use the wrong body parts."

This is the closest thing you've said that resembles the truth yet. But I would clarify my position more narrowly by saying that all other types of sex are risky-er because of the improper use of body parts. Dan is trying to make the case that incest presents greater health risks, but comparing on a one-to-one basis of the sex acts themselves, this is clearly untrue.

"All the wrong body parts are unclean and will pass disease from one partner to the other. Wrong body parts cannot be cleaned or have condoms on them."

Then we go back to twisting the intention of my words. Cleaning the body parts and wearing rubbers do not make the anus more structurally capable of tolerating anything repeatedly inserted as it is not designed for such. Again, try some research. The best one can hope for is to reduce the possibility or put off the inevitable.

"Therefore, heterosexual couples are the only couples who can engage in healthy sex."

Males and females are designed for sex with each other, their bodies being compatible and complementary biologically.

"Since only hetero sexual couples have the ability to have healthy sex, ONLY healthy couples should have sex. Anyone else is taking a health risk.

(And they have a mental disorder.)"


Since the bodies of men and women are biologically designed for uniting with each other, it is plainly disordered for either to, not only desire sexual contact, but to want to live together in a marital fashion. It is not ever mentally disordered for men and women simply because they are related to each other.

"Since only vaginal sex is safe, healthy sex, heterosexuals...yadda, yadda, spittle, drool..."

None of this post deals with who can have sex with whom, Jim. You and your pot-bellied pig are quite safe. This post deals with the inane notion that incestuous sex is somehow inherently more harmful than homosexual sex and thus not worthy of the same legal considerations demanded by homosexuals. Try to pay attention.

Jim said...

This post deals with the inane notion that incestuous sex is somehow inherently more harmful than homosexual sex

OK, this makes the whole argument even MORE STUPID.

I don't believe that anybody here ever suggested that incest was inherently physically risky or unhealthy. So what relevance does the method of sex have in the conversation?

Sex is sex. Incest should not be illegal or legal because of the method of intercourse (or what body parts participate). Why in the world would anybody make an argument that if same-sex marriage is legal then incest should definitely be legal because supposedly incest is safer?

Marshall Art said...

Nonsense, Jim. Dan's whole point is based on an assumption regarding incestuous relationships as likely unhealthy or disordered. With that in mind, I am showing how that is not accurate. If one wishes to suppose that there is no legitimacy in comparing one with the other, one needs to do so on equal terms. It was he who first attempted to compare "healthy" homosexual relationships with "unhealthy" incestuous relationships assuming no other could legitimately be made in a discussion of the rationale for homosexual marriage. One must objectively look at the situation in a one-to-one manner, apples to apples and not assume goodness and holiness of the favored group and evil and sickness of the unfavored group.

In this vein, I have looked at the physical aspects of the relationships of both and in doing so it is plain that one, the homosexual one, poses greater health risks when all other aspects are equal.

We can also plainly see that due to the biological compatibility of the male to female, it is even more plain that any disorder is must be attributed to the one who wants to connect with one who has not designed manner of reciprocation.

In response you provided emotion and an appeal to a very questionable vote by a small portion of the APA membership compelled by homosexual activism. And then, for good measure, you impose meanings on comments of mine where they do not belong.

Jim said...

It was he who first attempted to compare "healthy" homosexual relationships with "unhealthy" incestuous relationships assuming no other could legitimately be made in a discussion of the rationale for homosexual marriage.

But he wasn't talking about disease or injury. He was talking about healthy relationships in terms of is there abuse or corruption, is it a truly consensual relationship.

That has nothing to do with body parts or sexual methodology.

You are trying to get to a 1 to 1, apples to apples comparison (for whatever reason) by narrowing the discussion down simply to body parts and whether or not they are apt to pass on disease or cause injury.

So back to the logic:

If we allow gay marriage, we must allow incestual marriage.

Because incestual marriage is comparable to gay marriage. In fact, if we were going to allow one or the other, incest would be preferable because sisters are hot, it's natural for a young man to think his sister is hot, if they consummate their supposedly mutual attraction, unlike gays, they have the opportunity to have vaginal sex, don't need to use any other form of sex (thank goodness), and so incest is less bad than gay sex.

Oh yeah, and millions of brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters and mothers and sons are demanding the right to marry.

Right?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"But he wasn't talking about disease or injury."

I didn't say he was.

"He was talking about healthy relationships in terms of is there abuse or corruption, is it a truly consensual relationship."

And I've been going further to in terms of "healthy" on various levels to better compare each group. If one is going to speak of comparing, one must deal apples-to-apples. He isn't doing that.

But for that matter, he ignores the statistics that show a higher rate of abuse among homosexuals than heterosexuals (and greater among homosexual men than among lesbians), though none of you would dream of holding that against them. Yet he focuses only on abusive relationships among the incestuous of whom he is aware and arrogantly proclaims it is typical and reason enough to bar their potential desire to have marriage laws include them as well. (I say "potential" because none of us has any idea of the extent to which this desire even exists.)

This is a clear case of anti-incest bigotry by pro-homosexualists. Stats also show a higher degree of emotional/mental issues among the homosexual population compared to the general population. The defense is that this is a result of anti-homo bigotry, yet the percentages don't change in states and countries with the greatest tolerance and legal recognition of same-sex unions. But we're to believe that what Dan says about the few cases of which he is aware says something about the incestuous that isn't true of the homosexuals. Or it could be that Dan is trying to perpetuate the stereotype of inbreeding amongst the poor hill people of Kentucky.

"If we allow gay marriage, we must allow incestual marriage.

Because incestual marriage is comparable to gay marriage."


There you go lying about my position yet again. My position could not be more clear:

1. Neither qualify under the definition of the term "marriage",

2. The arguments used by homosexuals are equally applicable to any incestuous couples who wish to marry,

3. Therefor homosexuals and their enablers have no legitimate argument for denying marital rights to the incestuous if they are going to demand them for themselves.

"In fact, if we were going to allow one or the other..."

A prospect never proposed in this post by me or anyone on my side of the debate. I support only marriage as it has been: one man united with one woman who is not a close relative, both of whom are of legal age.

"Oh yeah, and millions of brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters and mothers and sons are demanding the right to marry.

Right?"


I have no idea of knowing how many such situations exist, if any. Nor does it matter. That's but another childish tactic employed by leftist enablers of bad behavior. As part of the debate regarding the granting of licensing for marriage between member of the same sex, thoughtful, mature and serious citizens who care about their country and culture consider the likely potential ramifications of proposed legislation. Lefties don't. They can't see or refuse to see beyond their own selfish desires.

As to that, the question had been raised as soon as the push for all things homo first began. What will that do to our culture and country? The lefties assured us nothing of concern, yet we can plainly see that the concerns left unanswered are not asserting themselves, not the least of which is the beginnings of the push for polygamy. As that prediction has come true, on what basis do you insist that the same won't or can't happen for any other agenda such as incest? No basis whatsoever.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"Marshall, this all seems to be your entire position on all these points..."

Only because you wish it to seem that way.

"IF I think something, it must be so."

You continue to words this backwards. What I think regarding this debate is because of what IS so, not what I imagine. That's YOUR job.

"I THINK I know the 'proper use' of somebody's body parts and anyone who disagrees is wrong."

If you can provide some biological source to show that the purpose of the penis is not to excrete waste and impregnate females, then by all means, let's have a look. I'll wait here. If you want to use yours as a bookmark, go right ahead, but you'll be hard pressed to find any science text book that will define its purpose in that way. Likewise, if you can find any that puts the purpose of the anus as anything but the exit for eliminating waste, provide a link. I'm willing to wager that no biology book will describe the purpose of the tongue as having anything to do with anything beyond tasting food. I haven't focused on the ways people use any of these, but only of what their purpose, thus their proper use is. These are facts. Now, you were saying something about "logical support and evidence"? Where's yours to refute any of this?

"If I THINK something is mentally ill, it is, because I have THOUGHT it and it seems reasonable TO ME."

It's called "common sense, logic and reason", traits upon which you claim to rely while never manifesting much evidence of it. In what other case would you call "normal" an activity or behavior that runs counter to the design?

"It doesn't matter if the experts disagree, they are fake organizations because they disagree WITH ME."

Like Jim, you purposely ignore what I say to lie about me. You constantly speak against slander and here you are doing it where my actual position is so easy to find. You speak of experts and I provided a link that would have led you to those "experts" who voted the condition off the list of mental disorders. Of those who voted, 42% of the "experts" agree it is a mental disorder. For whatever reason, almost 80% of the total amount of "experts" didn't vote and we have no idea what the majority would have been. Now, since this condition has been "voted" (not scientifically proven) to be not a condition of concern, no new "experts" begin their careers considering it as worthy of concern, so they really can't be counted, can they? Not unless any of them specialize in homosexuality. But why would they if the parent organization has ruled it normal?

YOU, however, and the other activists and enablers WON'T consider it now that the vote was taken. It's enough for you that "experts" have voted, regardless of the actual circumstances of the vote and how few voted your way. You can now stand confidently that the "experts" are with you. You don't need proof because you have "experts". Indeed, what you THINK is true is true because of what a small percentage of "experts" THINK is true, not because of anything resembling FACTS or TRUTH.

more...

Marshall Art said...

"If I think my daughter and mother are hot looking and I get aroused thinking of them, then incest must be normal, because it seems normal TO ME."

Can you say "irony"? That's a word you like to use to dismiss the views of your opponents at times and here it is in spades! The above is exactly the argument of the homosexuals. Because their desires are their desires then it must be normal. (Indeed, its the argument of every sinner who resists changing their behaviors.) You are such a hypocrite.

And again, I do not need to produce any case studies in favor of something I do not support. YOU need to demonstrate a legitimate reason to deny what you grant to others. And you must do it with the expectation that there might exist "loving, committed monogamous incestuous couples who love God, go to church, love puppies and daffodils, yadda, yadda, yadda," otherwise you are displaying the same bigotry of the Fred Phelps of the world.

"If I THINK an interpretation of a bible..."

Childish nonsense. I don't "think" the Bible says what I say it does, it says it. It doesn't even hint at what YOU think it does and you are incapable of any rational explanation to show it even might. I don't deal in what Scripture MIGHT be saying on these issues. As I've shown above, and as Neil has pointed out so many times, and as even a lesbian Biblical scholar has admitted, there is nothing upon which you can rationally hold your position. My position is more than adequately supported.

Thus, to continue to hold positions for which their is no Biblical justification, accusations of lying and rebellion are not close to being out of the realm of possibility. "Serious, prayerful study" is not likely to be within it, not as it has been defended thus far. THAT is an opinion, admittedly. But it is far more reasoned than your position on "equity" will ever be.

Thus, your claim that my position is baseless has not been shown to be true in the least by anything you've presented thus far. It is merely a childish tantrum in the face of that which you are unable to counter. To be sure, you have not countered even the notion that our positions AREN'T based on Scripture as you've not produced any of the evidence I've requested that would show me wrong and show that you DO have something substantive upon which to base your position.

"I'm sorry but you sound wholly irrational in nearly all your arguments here."

And yet after all these years you have yet to list or explain the flaws in my arguments. Not a one. For that you should be sorry, but clearly you are not. It's enough for you to pretend that I'm the irrational one. I have provided all I need to support my position against yours, because you have based yours on emotion and unequal comparisons between two sinful behaviors. I've provided proof what the Bible says about human sexuality, marriage, family and sexual immorality. I've provided proof that the APA voted off the condition from the list of mental disorders and by a less than landslide majority of only 22% of the total membership of "experts", compelled by activist pressure as opposed to scientific proofs. I've provided one-to-one comparisons between the two groups that shows no justification for denying one what is granted the other. You've provided nothing but personal bias for one and against the other with no links to definitive support for your position on anything one way or the other. If anyone's basing a position on intangibles and personal feelings, it is you.

Pray on that.

more...

Marshall Art said...

For the hypothetical outsider, Dan, he would have to be your clone for the conversation to taken that way. A rational honest person would see that I have brought more substance to the debate than you. So I'll show you how a real interview would go:


So, you think the Bible teaches that any and all gay behavior is wrong for all time?

Yes, that's what the Bible says.

It says that directly?

Yes. It says lying with a man as a man would with a woman is not to be done because that behavior is "an abomination" or "detestable", depending on the Bible version in hand. It makes no allowance of any kind for any possible exception.

But, aren't there others who HAVE reached other conclusions?

People see all kinds of things in Scripture, but not all of them can justify what they see without twisting and distorting the intent of passages or the definitions of words. It's less that they've reached other conclusions, but instead have chosen to believe what suits them.

Do you consider yourself the sole arbiter of Right Interpretation of the Bible?

What kind of a fool question is that? Do I have to be the sole arbiter of Right Interpretation of the Rules of the Road to understand that "STOP" means "STOP, and do not allow your forward motion to continue until after a moment of no forward motion whatsoever"? Of those Biblical mandates of which I am certain, none of them equivocates. Only the people that want them to mean something more favorable to them do.

And yet, some Christians today disagree with your understanding. How do you explain that?

They're being dishonest.

Wow. That's a pretty serious charge. Are you saying that all people who disagree with you on this interpretation are doing it being DELIBERATELY dishonest?

Not necessarily. But look at the passages upon which we disagree and YOU tell me I'm wrong and show me why. THEY can't seem to do that and haven't yet. It's all I've ever asked of them. THEY like to believe I'm demanding they change because I say so. I'm merely open to legitimately persuasive evidence they never produce. On certain issues, I do believe they are being dishonest, and mostly to themselves. To what degree that is I won't hazard a guess. But the result is not just a poor interpretation, but a clear contradictory one. That's what is clearly dishonest.

Do you know any of these people personally? Do you have any evidence of their being dishonest?

One in particular I've debated for several years. The number and severity of inconsistencies and gaping holes in his arguments have gone unresolved in all this time, the extent of which makes the notion of true sincerity of belief extremely difficult to imagine. Whether he is consciously dishonest or now putting forth blatant falsehoods due to conditioning after years of negative influence I will not endeavor to say. At least one of his opponents gives him the benefit of the doubt that he is not dishonest but just severely wrong. The real issue for me is the everlasting souls that might be jeopardized by the influence of this corruption. Only God can say what might become of them.

continued...

Marshall Art said...

But, to look at the lives of some of these people, there is nothing to suggest any dishonesty on their part, is there? I mean, by all appearances, they are moral, Godly people who merely disagree with your opinion on this topic, and from what they say, they honestly have another understanding of the texts in question....

Of what appearances are you making reference? All I know of these people is what they say on the blogs in which we engage in debate. I have absolutely no idea of their personal lives beyond what they say and while I generally might assume they are speaking truthfully about themselves, how can I know with certainty? The one in particular of whom I was just speaking often claims devotion to God but clearly defends the commission of some people of clearly defined sinful behaviors. He doesn't possess the courage of conviction on the sin he defends by giving himself wiggle room by conceding he could be wrong being just another imperfect human being. He either believes what he says he believes about what the Bible says or he doesn't. That doesn't suggest honesty, especially about devotion to God. With such lack of conviction, I would err toward, as Jeremy suggested, agnosticism on the subject and not support or advocate against it for His sake. He prefers to defend the practice for the sake of the practitioners. From these discussions, I can't assume I'm dealing with a completely honest person. But again, the main thing is the souls of those who might be influenced.

So, they're spending their entire lives PRETENDING to be good (well, actually, BEING good, honest, moral people, by all evidence) as part of an elaborate ruse, just so they can sneak in a disagreement with your opinion on this topic?

And the above is where this hypothetical discussion truly becomes just another case of Dan insulting his opponents. It is not an objective hypothetical anymore. But I'll respond to this deceitful rewording of a previous question by this "outsider":

I see you've spoken to Dan first. And what evidence do you have about how honest a life he leads by the words he publishes on a blog? You're free to take him at his word on that, but don't then pretend I'm saying something I'm not about the ramifications of his words and the conclusions they force by their presence. But one cannot be "good, honest and moral people" by defending immorality and inferring meaning from Scripture that he cannot prove or defend that Scripture Itself implies. Honest people do not default to "your arguments simply aren't compelling" without showing the flaws in those arguments, or "I'm not convinced by your arguments" without explaining why their arguments make more sense. And since I've never suggested "an elaborate ruse", on that you can go pound sand.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, almost hard to believe...

Really, considering all the evidence I constantly provide without any counter evidence from him. And there is plenty of evidence as you have seen by reading all my comments here, the comments of my like minded visitors and the many comments over the years, compared to the incredible dearth of evidence from him that does not go without a counter that demonstrates its lack of value, logic or truth.

"...what evidence is that?"

Oh, Dan didn't tell you? Not surprising. He likes to pretend it doesn't exist. But without getting into the details once again, the Scriptural evidence that describes God's intention for human sexuality, His displeasure with anyone engaging in homosexual behavior, the fact that every reference to marriage in Scripture always involves a male/female union and never anything else, that all references to family at the very least assume a father & mother included and never two fathers or two mothers, and that never is there any indication that sexual relations should ever take place except between a man and his female wife. These are among the abundantly clear and unequivocal truths that comprise the evidence we use to support our position, which is only our position because as this evidence proves, it is God's position. Dan just makes crap up. So he and other aren't wrong because they merely disagree with me, and that is also quite plain to any honest person who follows our discussions. But I can see how this all might be confusing to you, since you're really Dan.

Jim said...

one must deal apples-to-apples. He isn't doing that.

You are forcing apples to apples where apples are not relevant. That's like comparing hand/eye coordination between bees and humans because both have two eyes.

This is a clear case of anti-incest bigotry WTF?

pro-homosexualists WTF?

I'm not talking about your position. I'm talking about your logic.

homosexuals and their enablers have no legitimate argument for denying marital rights to the incestuous if they are going to demand them for themselves.

Which I interpret as:

"If we allow gay marriage, we must allow incestual marriage."

They can't see or refuse to see beyond their own selfish desires.

My desires have nothing to do with this.

not the least of which is the beginnings of the push for polygamy.

What push? The only "push" I know of comes from Rick Santorum.

Marshall Art said...

"What push? The only "push" I know of comes from Rick Santorum."

Read this and this and this. One need only pay attention to the world around him to know what's going on. While the subject of the first claims not to be seeking legalization, polygamy is illegal where he lives and he wants to be left alone. Legalize or de-criminalize. It's part of the same push or agenda. And while the last speaks of Canada, one need only remember that foreign countries that had already legalized homosexual marriages were cited in arguments to legalize it here.

"You are forcing apples to apples where apples are not relevant."

I never said it was a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but only as close as could be made considering the topic. Try to be more honest.

"Which I interpret as:

"If we allow gay marriage, we must allow incestual marriage.""


Which only gives more evidence that libs see what they want to see. You can interpret anything anyway you want, but when your interpretation doesn't match the words, you're lying, not interpreting. If you're not going to engage with honesty, don't waste my time.

"My desires have nothing to do with this.'

You don't have to match the sentiment perfectly for the sentiment to be true. But it's just like you to take a generality and use it deceitfully.

Michael Burdick said...

Yawn)) Are you all still going on about this? Marshall, you are never going to convince Dan that homosexuality is a sin with any amount of logic or scriptural interpretation--let him go his way way as Jesus said. Our job is to make disciples. Let us then seek those who want to know The Truth and let the blind lead the blind unto that which is the choice of free will. . .into the pit they have dug, so shall they fall.

There was a time when I felt the need to wrestle in such battles as these. Maybe it was my way of confirming my own faith or perhaps doing what I thought I could to speak the truth into darkness.

If this is where you are, Marshall, then work it out. There will, however, come a time when you realize that light is light and darkness is darkness and battling one with another gets you no-where. Seek, therefore, those who need you, knowing that they are there and hungry for The Truth--leave off, however, casting your pearls before swine. As we have seen, they only turn again and trample us.

Marshall Art said...

Michael,

I totally understand your point. You aren't the first to suggest to me this course of action. Interestingly enough, Dan also has someone on his side of the divide suggesting the same to him at his blog. He may even share some of the reasons that compel me to carry on. Here are some:

1. It's fun.

2. It's something to do when there is little time or opportunity for more productive endeavors in my personal life.

3. It's a cheap form of distraction that was of great value to me when I was unemployed and is no more expensive for me now that I'm earning again.

4. I actually learn things; not usually from people like Dan, but it's possible.

5. It's good training for my mind as I am better at this debate thing here than face to face. However, due to the training, I'm better face to face than I used to be. I am more able to have an answer in face to face situations for having covered the same arguments for so long.

6. Most importantly, I believe it is extremely important to never allow bad arguments and falsehoods to stand alone without good arguments and truth standing with them. The unfortunate moral decline of our culture is a result of few good people speaking out for the truth and constantly confronting the bad arguments and falsehoods of sixty or so years ago. I don't think I have a great audience for my humble little blog, but one never knows who might be reading along. Blogger shows some level of international looks that I'm sure most blogs receive, if even by accident. I did have one person recently contact me after stumbling upon my blog due to a post that included a discussion on a topic they were researching. Thus, if I my words, or the words of someone like yourself that also comments here, can keep someone from risking his everlasting soul, then I'm grateful God gave me the opportunity to be His instrument.

7. I've made an offer that anyone can try to make a case for either their argument/position or to expose any flaws in mine, if they think they can. I've stated that I'm here to persuade OR be persuaded. It seems only right that respond to incoming comments seeking to do either.

# 6 is the most important. Dan and the rest on his side of the divide may indeed have been given over to their sin by God at this point. Seems likely considering how lame their defense of the indefensible has been. After all these years, there does seem to be a pointlessness about it as regards debating with them. But one never knows when God will put the right words in my head or the head of another that will appear in these comment sections and the light will finally go on in one of theirs.

Craig said...

"I'm calling it "Unhealthy," and "abusive," (SERIOUSLY so), because in EVERY INSTANCE of which I am aware, it is self-evidently sick and abusive. In ALL cases I have heard about, there is an abusive and unhealthy set of circumstances."

Which would explain my earlier request for support for your position. The term "Every Instance" is meaningless in this context as you refuse to quantify it.

It seems as though your position is "since I have never personally heard of an incestuous relationship that was not"sick and abusive", all incestual relationships must therefore be "sick and abusive". Again, if you's like to clarify and quantify it would be helpful.

I will correct your misunderstanding of my position though. I have not indicated that I personally believe that incest is right. Since I have not I see no reason to provide evidence for a position I do not hold. My point is that using your criteria, it is possible to justify and even bless incestuous relationships. As long as you define the goodness of marriage in terms soley of love and justice etc. it leaves the door open.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed, Craig. How many is "EVERY INSTANCE of which I am aware"? Two? Seventeen? And just how does the incestuous aspect of the abusive relationships play a role in Dan's diagnosis? Could it be that the abused victim is merely the closest, safest and easiest choice for the abuser as opposed to the victim's biological relationship being the primary factor? That is to say, if the victim was NOT related, but merely present and available and vulnerable to attack, would the victim NOT being a relative have spared her/him? Dan seems to view the incestuous aspect as THE deciding factor in judging the attraction as a disorder as opposed to, perhaps, the abuser's lack of concern for the victim's well being regardless of familial ties.

He speaks of manipulation, but what defines manipulation as opposed to mutual desire? If we show our true selves to our desired mate, are we not hoping that it is enough to draw a reciprocal desire and is that not also a form of manipulation? So how, then, would "manipulation" be defined so as to use the word negatively as regards an incestuous relationship, and why is that never the case in homosexual relationships where both parties agree to regard their desires as in a manner that ignores the cultural taboo?

It is clear that Dan is playing favorites here, assuming based on his undefined knowledge of incest cases that they are indicative of ALL cases of incest, assuming because he claims to be unaware of cases of "healthy" adult consensual incest that therefor none exist, assuming also they must not exist if we, who do not approve of such unions in any case, cannot or will not provide any examples of "healthy" adult consensual incest.

I point again to the homosexual I knew best, who lived in a part of the city known to be a "gay neighborhood" that claimed he never met another homosexual who didn't need psychological help. This guy's own "orientation" was driven more by the feeling that he didn't fit in anywhere and after failed hetero relationships thought that perhaps he "might" be a homosexual. That feeling is certainly a level of disorder. I say this to demonstrate a "chicken or egg" dilemma of whether the higher rate of depression and other psychological symptoms among homosexuals leads to homosexual behaviors or are a result. It needs to be said again that these symptoms are equally prevalent in areas with the most tolerance.

So to wind this whole thing up, it is apparent that what is indeed "uglyass" is the assumptions Dan makes regarding a behavior he doesn't favor when it is grouped with one he does, as well as the assumption that the person doing the comparing is suggesting anything more than what he did, that the arguments for allowing one are applicable for allowing the other. It is "uglyass" to assume that family members being attracted to each other and acting on that attraction is a sign of mental disorder while being consistent with their biology, while two members of the same gender attracted to each is not though it is not consistent with their biological makeup.

Dan Trabue said...

It seems as though your position is "since I have never personally heard of an incestuous relationship that was not"sick and abusive", all incestual relationships must therefore be "sick and abusive". Again, if you's like to clarify and quantify it would be helpful.

I'm not sure that it matters on the numbers. The point is, there are tens of thousands (millions?) of instances of abusive incest in the world and I am unaware of a single healthy instance. You all yourselves have not produced a single instance.

But, to give some personal context and anecdotal numbers to my position, I have worked at a mental health agency dealing with children and families; I've worked in public schools dealing with children and families; my family and close friends work at many social service, school, church and mental health organizations dealing with children and families. In ALL of these groups, I'm aware of probably hundreds of instances of incest and every single one of them has involved abusive situations.

If you all are truly defending incest (and trust me, guys, that sounds batshit nuts), you'd think you could produce SOME evidence to support your position. If I - just one person in the whole world - am aware of dozens of instances of this insidious form of abuse.

If you move beyond the personal anecdotes, here is what the Nat'l Center for Victims of Crime says...

Incest has been cited as the most common form of child abuse. Studies conclude that 43 percent (43%) of the children who are abused are abused by family members...

One of the nation's leading researchers on child sexual abuse, David Finkelhor, estimates that 1,000,000 Americans are victims of father-daughter incest, and 16,000 new cases occur annually (Finkelhor, 1983). However, Finkelhor's statistics may be significantly LOW because they are based primarily on accounts of white, middle-class women and may not adequately represent low-income and minority women...


source

The point remains: The evidence indicates that incest, as it is most often cited and heard of, is ABUSIVE and harmful, primarily towards children. The evidence has NOT been provided to indicate that there is a groundswell of men wanting to bed down their daughters in a HEALTHY manner (really, men, this is just sickening that you all are trying to defend this and I've had enough of this nonsense).

My points stand without even anything CLOSE to an actual rational challenge.

Craig, I'll just deal with this bit of nonsense...

My point is that using your criteria, it is possible to justify and even bless incestuous relationships. As long as you define the goodness of marriage in terms soley of love and justice etc. it leaves the door open.

No, it does not compare. As shown, incest is generally a problem with ABUSE. Therefore, comparing UNHEALTHY, sick-as-HELL, abusive incest with healthy gay relationships is NO comparison at all. IF YOU HAD ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of a healthy adult incestuous relationship, THEN - and not before then - could you even begin to try to justify its legalization.

But all the evidence is on my side of the argument, and literally NO evidence has produced to support this claim (with the caveat that Glenn at least tried once with two examples - in the WHOLE WORLD - but one of his examples actually undermined your arguments and the other was inconclusive and dubious).

Marshall, Glenn, just as a caution as to how you all are coming across, your defense of "healthy incest" makes it sound, at least to some people, that you all might be dealing with this in your own lives. Words to wise.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Discussing the FACT that incest between male and female family members is not as unnatural and perverse as is homosexuality, does not thereby mean that the people discussing the subject have issues of incest in their own lives. THAT is what is called a non sequitur. Only a perverse mind would make such an association.

Believe it or not, it is possible to discuss a subject without a personal involvement in it.

The point we are making is that while homosexual behavior is against design and nature, incest is not. Yet you are adamant in preaching against incest between consenting adults while at the same time supporting the abomination of homosexual behavior.

And your stats about incest don't prove anything. As has been said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics! Statistics are very often biased.

Parklife said...

"The point we are making is that while homosexual behavior is against design and nature, incest is not. Yet you are adamant in preaching against incest between consenting adults while at the same time supporting the abomination of homosexual behavior."

Umm.. Glenn.. you have not come close to proving that your point is even partially reasonable. We have spent 190+ comments to come full circle to Jim's first comment "This place is REALLY getting WEIRD."

The only parallel that seems at all reasonable, given your claim of nature and design, is that incest is most similar to heterosexual intercourse. Reading your comments, you are more "okay" with this than homosexual intercourse. Which is a little more than messed up.

For your next trick will you be defending sex with minors?

"And your stats about incest don't prove anything. As has been said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics! Statistics are very often biased."

Dont like stats? Thats all your comment proves. Shocking that the evil-lution guy doesnt like stats or science or economics or insurance.. or.. god forbid.. baseball. If you have a problem with what Dan has said, then offer some of rebuttal rather than the company line, "I think two men having sex is gross." Please.. we are all waiting patiently..190+ posts later... have a response with substance.

Michael Burdick said...

Well, I can't argue with the points you have made. But I do seem to remember a verse somewhere in the OT that speaks of "there is a generation that remains silent" and I think that refers to such things as this getting so out of hand that "the wicked spring up like grass on the rooftop only to be burned" I'm paraphrasing here but after having been through all this debating I wonder if maybe it isn't time for Believers to step back and let the world burn--if we are not in the age of those who "will not accept sound doctrine" and "heap teachers to their itching ears" I would be surprised. There are those who are seeking the truth and you will know them when you see them. Perhaps what you are doing prepares you for them but do your best to remain balanced. Darkness has a way of zapping time and energy without gaining the results you may think you are going to gain. Meanwhile my prayers are with you Brother.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

You would have more credibility in insisting on substance if there was ever any in your own comments. Just sayin'.

Marshall Art said...

Michael,

Your points are sincerely noted, but as you can see, there is yet another comment that cannot go without response.

Parklife said...

Ahh.. dear sweet marsha... I have offered you sources in the past and you have dismissed these mainstream.. and rather ordinary comments. You respond with American Thinker and believe that to be reasonable. Now, you cry about those having a different opinion than yourself. Then you whine about wanting open dialog and state that your opinion can be changed... Talk about hollow.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You continue to make arguments that do not support your position. What's more, you felt the need to add an "uglyass" suggestion that our comments reflect some incest in our own lives, as if we haven't continually stated we oppose both incestuous and homosexual behaviors. It is you who defends one of them for reasons that can also be applied for the other with equal legitimacy, if "legitimate" can ever be applied to illegitimate behaviors.

You also fail to realize that the first response to YOUR experiences would be that it isn't surprising that you wouldn't encounter "healthy" relationships in a context where the unhealthy seek assistance. Said another way, do healthy people seek medical attention? Thus, by your logic, any doctor or nurse can suggest that all human beings are unhealthy since they is what they see at their practices. (I know Jim. Healthy people visit doctors to insure they are still healthy. That's not the point.)

What's more, your position is that because you have had contact with abusive situations involving incest, and that you aren't satisfied with Glenn's link, and that no one else bothers to find any evidence of "healthy" adult consensual incest, that none can possibly exist. OR, that because you have not perceived anything that to you looks unhealthy abusive about the homosexual relationships of which you are familiar, that it doesn't exist in those relationships. You are basing your position on assumptions that are only grounded in what you have been associate with and your personal perceptions of them.

You acknowledge that there was a time when "healthy" homosexual relationships were generally unknown as those people lived their lives in secret, but you somehow can't conceive of the possibility that such is true of adult consensual incestuous relationships.

But regardless of your perceptions and the level of accuracy of your perceptions, you still cannot maintain that there can never be such healthy relationships and therefor you do not have to account for that possibility as you support "equity" for a group whose arguments also apply for the benefit of groups you might not personally approve.

In addition, you have yet to show how the incestuous attractions of those you have encountered are the sole reason their relationships can legitimately be called "unhealthy". I wager that there is more going on that proves disorder than the merely that attraction.

If abuse or manipulation exists in those relationships, it would be abuse or manipulation regardless of the familial relationship of the people involved, not because of it. Thus, your experiences do not detract in anyway from the fact that arguments from the agenda that does not exist are equally valid for the incestuous.

The only truth of note here is that your support for the homosexual agenda is not based on reason, but emotion and what is worldly. And your dishonesty and bigotry in this discussion is apparent as you continue to refer only to those men who would "bed down their daughters" exclusively, when that is only one form of incest.

4simpsons said...

Good points, Michael, especially about the darkness and light. I banned Dan long ago for those reasons. He can't do much damage here, as Marshall always takes the time to refute him. But he trolls at other sites, especially those we link to, and poses as a bible-believing Christian there. It is satanic, but it does serve to confuse non-believers sometimes. That's why I did that once-for-all-time post on him as a quick reference. I trust that God can lead people to the truth from there.

I like to say that Job had the patience of Marshall, so in a way he does a great public service in tying Dan up at a site where he can mislead fewer people.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 290   Newer› Newest»