I'm not sure that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation to begin with. Sure, there were colonies of Puritans here, but there were deists, atheists, etc. within the founding fathers of the country. I think that's why they tried to come up with a way to "agree to disagree" and let people hold onto their own beliefs and keep the government and religion seperated.
Most of the Christian stuff in the government (such as adding the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance) were done fairly recently. From what I can see, the Christian aspect of our country came about as a result of the cold war, where people wanted to differentiate themselves against the Communists. There's always been a majority that support Christianity here, but for the most part it doesn't sound like it played that big of a role in deciding laws until the past century.
The 14th amendment says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says nothing about "any two people." Nowhere does the Constitution mention "two people", "a couple", or any other small group of people as an entity having rights or powers. It mentions individual rights and rights and powers of "the people."
It seems to me that any argument that marriage laws violate equal protection provisions of the Constitution must rely on a notion not supported by the Constitution, the notion that "two people" and "person" are synonymous.
It's what flows from the amendment rather than the amendment itself. You would probably be hard pressed to find any definition of marriage, per se, in the Constitution. If there was there would be no movement for an amendment in the first place.
Whereas "two people" and "person" may not be synonymous, the fact remains that one kind of person may enter into marriage with another person, whereas another kind of person may not.
The amendment does not make reference to Master and Slave nor Black and White nor Men and Women either, yet the personhood and rights of the latter in each group have been abrogated in the past by the former.
Sometimes when laws are framed they are not watertight regarding how they stand with other legislation or with the Constitution. They may have been enacted many years before an emerging social revolution may lead to a challenge and landmark cases produce change. No change will be popular with everybody, especially at the beginning, but later on there will be people who wonder how it could once have been different.
I'm not sure that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation to begin with. Sure, there were colonies of Puritans here, but there were deists, atheists, etc. within the founding fathers of the country. I think that's why they tried to come up with a way to "agree to disagree" and let people hold onto their own beliefs and keep the government and religion seperated.
Most of the Christian stuff in the government (such as adding the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance) were done fairly recently. From what I can see, the Christian aspect of our country came about as a result of the cold war, where people wanted to differentiate themselves against the Communists. There's always been a majority that support Christianity here, but for the most part it doesn't sound like it played that big of a role in deciding laws until the past century.
TThis reference to God and Christianity in early American govenrment was not added very recently...It was definitely way before the Cold War
quote:
The Mayflower Compact
In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James by ye grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of ye faith, &c.
Haveing undertaken, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Christian faith, and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick; for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte, constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ye generall good of ye Colonie: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye .11. of November, in ye year of the raigne of our soveraigne lord King James of England, France, & Ireland ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom .1620.
The above is an exact transcription of the Mayflower Compact made by Caleb Johnson from a photo-scan of the original page of William Bradford's History Of Plymouth Plantation in his own handwriting.
IN The Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. In WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620
For the history of the Mayflower Compact and those that signed it, as well as extensive information on the Mayflower and her passengers visit Caleb Johnson's Mayflower Web Page.
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 26, 2004 at 12:41.]
Trefor, with respect, I'm looking for Mark's thoughts regarding specific implications of the 14th amendment, which he brought up. I tend to agree with you more than with him regarding the morality of homosexuality. I tend to agree with him more than with you regarding constitutional law. His take on the 14th amendment surprised me, so I asked him to explain his thinking.
I said nothing about any constitutional definition of marriage or any proposed amendment to the Constitution. The slavery, racial, and gender issues you raised are not relevant to my question to Mark or my point about the Constitution addressing individual rights. Changes in law regarding all of those issues are specifically founded on constitutional amendments, one of which abolished slavery, and three of which deal with rights of individuals.
I often find it difficult to state my position well. Well, I did find a Web site that covers many of the issues we discussed here, and while they are not my words, they do reflect many of the issues I believe in.
Find them on www.family.org under the heading of hot topics, homosexuality.
HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN HETEROSEXUAL ONES
Homosexual advocates want their relationships to be treated the same as heterosexual ones. But are homosexual relationships any different than heterosexual ones? You’d be surprised.
FACT: HOMOSEXUAL MALE RELATIONSHIPS ARE RARELY MONOGAMOUS AND THOSE INVOLVED ARE MORE AT RISK FOR LIFE-THREATENING ILLNESSES
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals.15 A study on the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals, published in the Journal of Sex Research, found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only.16 Research has also found that few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”17
Check out these findings:
* 24 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
* 43 percent of gay men had over 500 partners
* 28 percent of gay men had over 1000 partners18
Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.20
AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 26 to 44, and 60 percent of new cases are contracted by men who have sex with men.21 Despite the twenty-year “safe-sex” campaign, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices resulting in various diseases is on the rise.22 An estimated 30 percent of all 20-year-old homosexual men will be HIV positive or dead by the age of 30.23
Studies have also found that while homosexuals may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is acceptable, they have serious doubts in their hearts. A Columbia University study on “internalized homophobia” among homosexual persons found that a significant percentage of homosexuals surveyed held negative attitudes toward their own homosexuality and toward other homosexuals.24
While there are some who would promote the myth that homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones as pure fact, there are also those from the gay community who admit it to be a false statement. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent conservative gay author, says that gay couples adhere to a very different moral standard than straight couples do. He says their moral standard is one in which “a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets” exists.25 Also, two researchers who professed themselves to be a gay couple came to the conclusion that gay relationships between men rarely survive if they are not open to outside sexual contacts.26
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
God created the unique relationship between a man and a woman. Yet He is equally unhappy with pre-marital sexual relationships as He is with homosexual relationships. Both are not what He intended. To say that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones is to make a mockery of God’s divine act of creation and His ordination of marriage. He made man and woman for each other and called it “good” (Genesis 1:26-28,31). To say otherwise is to lead people astray.
Issue 2: HOMOSEXUALS ARE NORMAL, HEALTHY, EVERDAY PEOPLE
While the American culture promotes “having it all,” it is likely that most individuals just want to be accepted and appreciated. Homosexuals are no different. They have been wounded by rejection and, in general, seem to say whatever it takes to be considered “normal.” Ironically though, society’s intolerance doesn’t seem to be what’s driving homosexuals into more risky and dangerous behavior. In fact, such conduct tends to exist most intensely in places where homosexuals face the least amount of disapproval—such as large cities like New York and San Francisco or on college campuses with concentrated gay communities.
FACT: CONTRARY TO CLAIMS MADE BY GAY ACTIVISTS, HOMOSEXUALLY ACTIVE PERSONS AS A GROUP APPEAR TO BE LESS PSYCHOLOGICALLY HEALTHY THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION
There are several areas where the average homosexual differs from the average, normal, "everyday” heterosexual. Research has shown that men and women living homosexually are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder and nicotine dependence.31 For instance, one twin-study found that men with same-sex partners are 6.5 times as likely as their co-twins to attempt suicide.32 Another study found that a substantial percentage of gay males and lesbians report some participation in illegal drug use.33
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
Paul states in the book of Romans that homosexuality is “unnatural.” But some homosexuals will tell you they’ve been attracted to people of the same sex for as long as they can remember—in other words, it just feels natural to them. Unfortunately, their feelings do not justify their actions. “Sin” is any behavior that is displeasing to God. We live in a fallen world and sin has distorted our perception of truth—so, what someone may consider as natural or normal still cannot change the truth of God’s moral laws found in the Bible.
Homosexuality is only one symptom of fallen humanity. In our brokenness of human nature, we have an undeniable inner craving to be whole. And yet, maybe it’s because of our sinful nature that we (homosexuals and heterosexuals) seek wholeness in the wrong areas. Whether we’re struggling with same-sex attractions, pornography, envy or lying, it’s easy to want to slap a label of “normal” or “healthy” on ourselves to try to justify our sinful behaviors. But a label will never cover the deep wounds of people entangled in a life that is displeasing to God. The only place a person can find healing and wholeness is at the foot of the cross.
Issue 3
THE BIBLE DOESN’T CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY—ONLY PROMISCUITY
In recent years, several mainline denominations have abandoned traditional interpretations of Scripture and have embraced the "Gay-Christian" movement. Similarly, people claim that Paul’s statements were only addressed to believers back then and are not relevant today. But God’s Word—which is unchanging and stands forever (Isaiah 40:8) gives us a different story.
FACT: GOD CLEARLY CONDEMNS ANY ACT OF SEX OUTSIDE OF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
God designed sexual relationships only for a union between one man and one woman in marriage. The first chapter of Genesis declares that “God created man in His own image . . . male and female He created them.” Throughout this chapter we learn why fornication, adultery and prostitution—as well as “homosexual marriage”—are all distortions of God’s original plan for healthy sexuality.
In the Old Testament, the sin of homosexuality is condemned by the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22). In Matthew, male and female relationships are the only sexual relationships allowed by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6). And the first chapter of Romans is usually considered the most thorough and clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, which includes a specific reference to lesbianism (Romans 1:24-27).
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
There are many distortions in sexuality because of the effects of sin, which have caused grief and hardship to so many. We know from the Bible that those who practice homosexual acts receive “in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:27, NIV). As the executive director of Exodus International—North America, the world’s leading outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality, Alan Chambers sees the devastation that occurs when the lines between right and wrong are blurred, erased or reversed. He states: “Today, culture is moving further and further away from biblical teachings about sexuality and gender. We now have an entire generation of young people being taught that homosexuality is morally, physically and spiritually equivalent to heterosexuality. Because of the downward spiral that has become our way of life, it is not surprising that people are questioning what is right and wrong regarding sex when wrong is now considered normal.
Our actions--good and bad--have consequences that impact us, our society and every single living person that comes after us until eternity. The truth matters because it means freedom for all who believe it and abide by it.
While God’s Word is clear on the matter of homosexuality, it’s also very clear on the matter of healthy sexuality. You’ve probably heard it said that “God has a plan for your life.” Would you believe He also has a plan for your sexuality? He does! He planned for us to have an exciting love life in marriage.
Issue: LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE HEALTHIER THAN GAY MALE RELATIONSHIPS
It’s generally believed that women who have sex with women are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than gay men. While most of the research on medically related health risks of homosexual activity deals with men who have sex with other men, there is interesting research concerning homosexual activity among women.
FACT: LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE EQUALLY UNHEALTHY, AND JUST AS LIFE-THREATENING AS GAY MALE RELATIONSHIPS
The fact is, most women who have sex with women do not do so exclusively. Approximately two-thirds of women surveyed have also had sex with men within the last five years.34 Sexually transmitted disease rates for bisexually active women are as much as twice that of those who engage in exclusively lesbian activity. 35 Likewise, studies have also shown that a significant number of lesbian women engage in other risky behaviors which increase medical risks of disease, such as drug use and exchanging sex for drugs and money.36 Another study reported that lesbians may have higher rates of breast and ovarian cancer because of a variety of risk factors like nulliparity (never having borne a child), childbearing later in life, higher rates of alcohol consumption and obesity.”37
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) has reported that domestic violence is as common in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships as it is in heterosexual relationships. While Lesbian partnerships generally are of longer duration than gay male relationships, there exists the counterfeit of healthy attachment-including, manipulative behaviors, emotional dependency and over-enmeshment.38
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
It’s important that women know the consequences of their choices. Lesbians are not excluded from the realities of promiscuity, like the HIV virus. The sad truth is that because this myth is being perpetuated, many lesbians are going to the doctor less often. While most heterosexual women visit the gynecologist every eight to nine months on average, the average for lesbians is every 21 to 24 months.39 This is cause for great concern as “many lesbian-identified women have other risk factors for cervical dysplasia, such as multiple male partners, heterosexual intercourse at an early age and cigarette smoking.”40
Again, God’s Word clearly speaks of consequences to sinful behavior. The only true form of “safe sex” is abstinence, or within a heterosexual marriage of one man and one woman. Whether you have lustful temptations for someone of your same sex or of the opposite sex, you can take a stand for purity and experience a lifetime of rewards. True love is worth the wait—not only because the risk of promiscuity, but because God has only blessed sex in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
MYTH #8: HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNCHANGEABLE
This is probably the most devastating myth of homosexuality circulating today. Yet, most homosexuals believe that their homosexuality is so much a part of their identity, that they can do nothing about it. In his report, “Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths,” Richard Howe suggests two major reasons why homosexual activists promote this myth:
1. They would be admitting that there are those in the homosexual community who, after careful thought, have concluded that it is wrong to be homosexual and that it does not lead to personal happiness and fulfillment. Focusing on those homosexuals who want to change continues to emphasize the immorality and personal destructiveness of homosexuality.
2. They would be denying that homosexuality is physically caused. The more the homosexual community can convince the general public that their homosexuality is beyond their control, the more tolerance or even preferential treatment they can gain in public policy.41
FACT: THERE IS FREEDOM FROM HOMOSEXUALITY
The truth is, there are a tremendous number of homosexuals who have changed, and professional opinions are changing on this issue as well.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may be changeable. “Like most psychiatrists,” said Dr. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue—some people can and do change.” 42 To the researcher’s surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process.43 “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning. I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual . . . I think that’s news . . . I came to this study skeptical, I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”44 Other professionals have reported a range from 50 to 70 percent success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction.45 Findings such as these have prompted some professionals to admit that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation through a variety of change efforts.
Individuals who have gone through an Exodus International Member Ministry have discovered that Jesus Christ is sufficient to make the difference. “The road begins not with just giving up on the gay life, not with trying to relate with a woman, not with just trying to relate to other men in a different way; it begins with coming into a relationship with God . . . From where many of us stand who have gone down that road, it was difficult, but it was worth it a hundred times over, because it has been the way to joy, freedom and personal fulfillment.”46 Is homosexuality unchangeable? Hardly. There is plenty of evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
God is clear about the consequences of unrighteousness such as homosexual behavior. Yet, as with other sinful lifestyles, homosexuality is forgivable if a person repents of his or her actions and turns to God. His power can bring healing, restoration and change. That’s the message that’s being silenced today: there is freedom from homosexuality through the unconditional love and grace of Jesus Christ. Of course, ending a destructive behavior—especially one that is addictive in nature like drinking, smoking or having homosexual (or heterosexual) intercourse—is a difficult task. But there is so much hope with Jesus! Think about it: God’s power is amazing! If He could raise Jesus from the dead, He can rescue a person from any entanglement.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
-1 John 1:9, NIV
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, and the new has come!
-2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV
YOU CAN HELP SOMEONE STRUGGLING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY
The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of homosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written extensively on the struggle of homosexuality and has helped countless people help others—and help themselves. The following has been adapted from his “What to Do . . . and Not to Do” list from his report Homosexuality Facts versus Fictions.47
1. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.
2. Don’t condemn. People have not “chosen” to “have homosexual feelings” the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience—and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the homosexual struggle is rejection.
3. Don’t start citing all the problems with homosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don’t go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “alternative” may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.
4. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of homosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.
5. Share specific avenues of help like the ministry of Exodus International–North America that has helped thousands of men and women in the midst of their struggle with homosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Perhaps even share this article with them. Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.
6. Show love, concern, gentleness and respect as you point the way to healing.
Need more help?
Exodus International-North America is a worldwide coalition of Christian ministries that offers support to men and women seeking to overcome homosexuality, as well as services for family members and friends. Most of these ministries offer support groups, one-on-one counseling and literature. For a free packet of literature on the work of Exodus, including a complete list of referral ministries, contact: Exodus International-North America, P.O. Box 540119 Orlando, FL 32854; (888) 264-0877; e-mail: info@exodus-international.org; www.exodus-international.org.
1 G. Remafedi, M. Resnick, R. Blum, and L. Harris, “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 89, no. 4, April 1992, pp. 714-21.
2 J. Budziszewski, Ph.D., “A War of Words,” Boundless, www.boundless.org, September 30, 1998.
3 Ibid.
4Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H.Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.
5Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London, 1948, pp. 650-651.
6Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Edward W. Eichel, Lochinvar-Huntington House Publishers, 1990.
7Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.
8 Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. Footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief. See Laumann, et al. The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States, 1994 or "Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale," Bruce Voeller, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation, The Kinsey Institute Series, June Machover Reinisch, ed., Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 35. “The Homosexual Numbers," March 22, 1993, p. 37.
9Santinover, Jeffrey, M.D., “Is There a ‘Gay Gene?’” National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Fact Sheet, March 1999, p. 1.
10“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, 30 September 2002.
11 Ibid.
12“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, 30 September 2002. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no. 3.
13 Larry Burtoft, Ph.D., Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, Focus on the Family 1994, p. 58.
14“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, September 30, 2002.
15 Whitehead, N.E.; Whitehead, B.K. (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana, calculated from Laumann et al., 1994.
16Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): p. 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
17M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality, Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985, pp. 40–61.
18“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
19W.E. Owen Jr., “Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent,” Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6, No. 4, July 1985, pp. 278-85.
20Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp. 190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 , no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases”; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, " TARGET=_blank>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp.>
21“APA’s Practical Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with HIV/AIDS,” Epidemiology, Clinical Features Influencing Treatment, sections, www.psych.org/aids/, Anti-Viral Treatment section.
22 “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men—San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 29, 1999), p. 45.
23 Satinover, Jeffrey, “Reflections: Interview with NARTH,” February 5, 2001, http:www.narth.com/docs/satinover.html.
24 Shidlo, A., 1994, “Internalized Homophobia: Conceptual and Empirical Issues”, in Greene, B., Herek G, Lesbian and Gay Psychology. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage, pp. 176-205.
25McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
26Ibid.
27Jeffrey Santinover, M.D., “Homosexuality Facts versus Fictions: What You Need to Know, Where to Find Help,” Focus on the Family broadcast, February 5-7, 1997.
28THE HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, through December 2001.
29Larry Burtoft, Ph.D., Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, Focus on the Family, 1994, pp. 32-33.
30THE HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, through December 2001.
31Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L., 1999: Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.; Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T., 1999: Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.; Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel, 2001: Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, pp. 85-91.; Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.
32Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.
33“Not Afraid to Come Out: A celebration of freedom from homosexuality,” by Matt Kaufman, Boundless webzine, Focus on the Family, September 30, 1998.
34 “Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 48.
35Ibid.
36Ibid.
37 “Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 51.
39“Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 51.
40Ibid.
41Richard Howe, “Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths” The American Family Association, 1994, pp 11-12.
42A report released May 9, 2001 at the annual American Psychiatric Association convention, psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.
43Ibid.
44Ibid.
45Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996. Therapy of Homosexuality, 1999 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
46 No Easy Way brochure by Regeneration (Baltimore: Regeneration, Inc., 1991). Regeneration is a non-profit, interdenominational Christian ministry for men and women seeking a way out of homosexuality.
No, you are wrong there Trefor. Although they were British subjects at the time, they are still considered early Americans and some of the earliest founders of this Nation. You may not think so, but I live here, and I know that they are considered by a vast majority of Americans to be some of the earliest of America's Founders, and founders of the religious freedom that we enjoy here. That was their sole reason for coming which is to me very spiritually significant.
Most certainly they were not numbered against those American Brits who stood up to King George III in the 1770's, because they were dead by then. But the spirit of revolution that lived in the the Pilgrims was further exhibited by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and the rest.
And, agree you may not, but it is extremely indicative of "Christian beginnings" when the very first or at least one of the very first "compacts" or "constitutional documents" starts out with...In the name of God", and also includes the words; "the advancement of the Christian Faith"..
And, btw, this was to be a simple piece of evidence to Mr. Mosh that the history of Christianity in our government goes way back before the Cold War.
And, I have read numerous times in the past of references to God and Christ in documents from back in the 1770's and on. Just thought it would be cool to post the very first one that was binding..
You may not think so, but I live here, and I know that they are considered by a vast majority of Americans to be some of the earliest of America's Founders, and founders of the religious freedom that we enjoy here.
You should check out the other thread I started on this topic in order to avoid derailing this one. I have quotes by some of the people you mentioned that show they did not support a Christian nation, but rather one with freedom of religion, or a distaste for Christianity.
Your posting is only a rehash of the right wing religious propoganda that has as much relevance to reality as I know it or true biblical understanding as I know it as a leaflet about contraception has to the Pope. It is so full of lies and half truths and selective statistics and has nothing at all to do with the issue in hand.
Jonny:
I am not wrong in what I said and if you read the new thread you will see that you cannot find this Christian "under God" thing at the time of the American Revolution.
In fact Masonic influences appear to have had more of an influence upon the founding fathers. When the foundation stone of the Capitol was laid they are wearing Masonic aprons and the eye in the pyramid on your currency is a Masonic symbol too.
Clearly quite a few things had changed between the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers and the Revolution.
Popular understanding of history or even of the Constitution may not always be the same as the actuality.
quote: Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow
A key GOP group plans a campaign against the proposed constitutional amendment in several states crucial to the president's reelection.
By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2004
WASHINGTON — Angered by President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman, gay conservatives are laying the groundwork for a campaign against the proposal in swing states, such as Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio, that are critical to the president's reelection.
Log Cabin Republicans, the largest GOP organization on gay issues, is exploring options from grass-roots voter mobilization efforts to television and radio ads — all designed to convince fellow conservatives, as well as moderates and independents, that the White House is "playing politics" with the Constitution.
"A constitutional amendment is a call to arms for gay conservatives," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, which is planning its annual convention in Palm Springs in April. "A lot of gay conservatives who have been extraordinarily loyal will not remain silent. This is a breach."
In the last few months, Guerriero has visited Missouri and Ohio to assess the political climate and talk to activists. In the last year he has traveled to 26 states and 87 cities to prepare for the largest presence ever of gay conservatives and their allies at the Republican National Convention, which will be in New York this year.
He said that since Bush's announcement on Tuesday embracing the amendment proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.), anger among gay conservatives was boiling over.
"The feeling is, if you want a cultural war, you'll get it," he said Wednesday in an interview. "We don't want history to record that we stood silent when our president and our party tried to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution."
Some gay conservatives who work in the Bush administration or who hold political office say they feel a special sense of betrayal, and they share a conviction that the White House has miscalculated the political fallout.
Recalling the 2000 campaign, when Bush met with gay activists and vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney — who has an openly lesbian daughter — talked of leaving this issue to the states, some gay Republicans are vowing to vote Democratic for the first time, while others are pledging to stay in the party and fight.
For the White House, the issue of same-sex marriage is a dicey political issue, pitting key constituencies — evangelical Christians and social conservatives — against an activist group of gay Republicans and their allies among Libertarians and moderate Republicans. In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush. Gay Republicans say, however, that it is not only their support Bush is risking, but that of their families and friends and like-minded conservatives.
"The day word came out that he was going to support a constitutional amendment, my phone was ringing off the hook, with straight Republican friends saying, 'He just lost my vote,' " said Rebecca Maestri, a lesbian activist who works on Iraqi redevelopment issues for the U.S. Agency for International Development.
David Catania, a Republican at-large member of the Washington, D.C., City Council, said he believed the administration had "grossly miscalculated this issue in terms of the electoral landscape." Catania, who has raised more than $50,000 for the president's reelection, said he was so livid that he stopped soliciting contributions for the campaign and would not vote for Bush.
"I'm a vested Republican and my stomach is turning," said Catania, who has won citywide election three times as a Republican in the predominantly Democratic city. "To say I feel betrayed is an understatement."
Until now, many gay Republicans had expressed satisfaction with Bush's performance. On taking office in 2001, Bush did not rescind several executive orders issued by President Clinton — including one that bars employment discrimination against gays and lesbians in the federal government — despite pressure from social conservatives. He appointed gays and lesbians to several prominent and many mid-level positions in his administration, including career diplomat Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania. And he talked of "compassionate conservatism" — which included a more tolerant approach to gay issues, including increased funding for AIDS research.
"Bush has been a good president for gays and lesbians," said Robert Kabel, a lawyer and a gay activist. He cites the story of Bush, at a fundraiser in 2002 for then-Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), telling him that he hoped to "take the heartburn out of your issue."
But since the Supreme Court overturned a Texas sodomy law in November, evangelical Christians have been pressing the administration to intervene. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush vowed to "defend the sanctity of marriage" against judges who "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people."
That speech was the final straw for Carl Schmid, a Washington consultant who in 2000 helped Bush beat back a strong primary challenge by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among gay voters.
"I will vote for him, but I cannot vocally support him," said Schmid, who said he told Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot earlier this month that the White House was going to be on "the wrong side of history. America has changed. I don't know why he's so beholden to a minority."
The perception that the Republican Party is being hijacked by social conservatives dates to the 1992 GOP convention, when candidate Patrick J. Buchanan gave a firebrand speech in which he accused Democratic candidate Bill Clinton of having "a different agenda" that included unrestricted abortion, women in combat and gay rights.
In Bush's endorsement of the marriage amendment, said the Log Cabin's Guerriero, "there are echoes of Pat Buchanan's call for a cultural war in 1992 that led to the defeat of the first President Bush. This is no way to launch a reelection campaign."
Unlike 1992, gay activists now feel they have political clout to back up their disaffection. Although polls have been inconsistent, perhaps because Americans are reluctant to disclose their feelings on the issue, the latest Los Angeles Times Poll found that 32% of Californians believe that same-sex marriages should be allowed.
Part of the lament for many gay and lesbian conservatives is that they support Bush on most policy issues. "Most of us are Republicans for economic and ideological reasons," said Steve Gunderson, a former congressman from Wisconsin who now heads the Washington office of the Greystone Group, a communications and consulting firm. "What the president failed to do is recognize that there is real discrimination and real problems for those of us in long-term relationships."
For Mike Ferens, a former president of the local Log Cabin Republicans chapter, Bush's endorsement of the amendment hit hard.
"I am shocked by it," said Ferens, a private contractor who works for the Department of Homeland Security.
Because of it, he said, he would likely vote Democratic this year for the first time in 20 years.
"The president has forgotten one of the ideals of the founders: the separation of church and state. It's not only discriminating, it's insulting," he said.
Mark Sibley, a financial consultant for the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, took a more pragmatic approach.
Sympathetic to the "political reality" facing Bush, and the long odds against a constitutional amendment being enacted by the mandatory two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress and by three-fourths of the states, Sibley spoke for many straight Republicans when he said: "If I'm upset with the president, it's over deficits. I'd like to see him use his veto pen on some of that pork."
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.
So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.
All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.
12 Biblical Principles of Marriage
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fianc?in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]!
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."
So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of
traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.
Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?
From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.
Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.
To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.
My 500th post! Some way to catch up with Ex tho! :D-->
The 14th amendment says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says nothing about "any two people." Nowhere does the Constitution mention "two people", "a couple", or any other small group of people as an entity having rights or powers. It mentions individual rights and rights and powers of "the people."
It seems to me that any argument that marriage laws violate equal protection provisions of the Constitution must rely on a notion not supported by the Constitution, the notion that "two people" and "person" are synonymous.
You're right, it doesn't explicitly say that. However, I think you could find an analogue with the issue of "affirmative action," school bussing, and so on. A class of people said that they were being discriminated against. Those solutions wre either upheld or mandated by the courts.
In this instance, I can picture one of two scenarios happening:
1. A class of people bring suit against a state because members of that class were discriminated against illegally by the state, because the state refused to issue a marriage license.
2. A class of people bring suit against a state or against a state-licensed agency (such as an insurance company) for illegal discrimination, because they did not recognize a marriage legally licensed, contracted, and registered in another state. Once this is ruled upon (in favor of the plaintiffs) and the computer databases and state regulations are updated, then another suit will be brought alleging unequal protection.
I have a feeling that, in the current court, the end result will be, on a 5-4 ruling, a mandate for all states to remove the distinction "one man and one woman" from their statutes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Mister P-Mosh
I'm not sure that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation to begin with. Sure, there were colonies of Puritans here, but there were deists, atheists, etc. within the founding fathers of the country. I think that's why they tried to come up with a way to "agree to disagree" and let people hold onto their own beliefs and keep the government and religion seperated.
Most of the Christian stuff in the government (such as adding the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance) were done fairly recently. From what I can see, the Christian aspect of our country came about as a result of the cold war, where people wanted to differentiate themselves against the Communists. There's always been a majority that support Christianity here, but for the most part it doesn't sound like it played that big of a role in deciding laws until the past century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The 14th amendment says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says nothing about "any two people." Nowhere does the Constitution mention "two people", "a couple", or any other small group of people as an entity having rights or powers. It mentions individual rights and rights and powers of "the people."
It seems to me that any argument that marriage laws violate equal protection provisions of the Constitution must rely on a notion not supported by the Constitution, the notion that "two people" and "person" are synonymous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
It's what flows from the amendment rather than the amendment itself. You would probably be hard pressed to find any definition of marriage, per se, in the Constitution. If there was there would be no movement for an amendment in the first place.
Whereas "two people" and "person" may not be synonymous, the fact remains that one kind of person may enter into marriage with another person, whereas another kind of person may not.
The amendment does not make reference to Master and Slave nor Black and White nor Men and Women either, yet the personhood and rights of the latter in each group have been abrogated in the past by the former.
Sometimes when laws are framed they are not watertight regarding how they stand with other legislation or with the Constitution. They may have been enacted many years before an emerging social revolution may lead to a challenge and landmark cases produce change. No change will be popular with everybody, especially at the beginning, but later on there will be people who wonder how it could once have been different.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
TThis reference to God and Christianity in early American govenrment was not added very recently...It was definitely way before the Cold War
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 26, 2004 at 12:41.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor, with respect, I'm looking for Mark's thoughts regarding specific implications of the 14th amendment, which he brought up. I tend to agree with you more than with him regarding the morality of homosexuality. I tend to agree with him more than with you regarding constitutional law. His take on the 14th amendment surprised me, so I asked him to explain his thinking.
I said nothing about any constitutional definition of marriage or any proposed amendment to the Constitution. The slavery, racial, and gender issues you raised are not relevant to my question to Mark or my point about the Constitution addressing individual rights. Changes in law regarding all of those issues are specifically founded on constitutional amendments, one of which abolished slavery, and three of which deal with rights of individuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The Guardian has a pretty funny cartoon about this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I often find it difficult to state my position well. Well, I did find a Web site that covers many of the issues we discussed here, and while they are not my words, they do reflect many of the issues I believe in.
Find them on www.family.org under the heading of hot topics, homosexuality.
Anybody is welcome to send me an e-mail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jonny:
The Mayflower Compact was the colonies period and the signers still saw themselves as subjects of the British Crown.
You need to find references around 1776 regarding the nation being "under God" as a self-governing republic.
Long Gone:
Sorry didn't realise you were specifically asking Mark the question.
-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
hey Tref, I saw a tshirt today that said:
"I only support gay marriage
if BOTH chicks are hot!"
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Issue 1
HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN HETEROSEXUAL ONES
Homosexual advocates want their relationships to be treated the same as heterosexual ones. But are homosexual relationships any different than heterosexual ones? You’d be surprised.
FACT: HOMOSEXUAL MALE RELATIONSHIPS ARE RARELY MONOGAMOUS AND THOSE INVOLVED ARE MORE AT RISK FOR LIFE-THREATENING ILLNESSES
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals.15 A study on the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals, published in the Journal of Sex Research, found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only.16 Research has also found that few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”17
Check out these findings:
* 24 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
* 43 percent of gay men had over 500 partners
* 28 percent of gay men had over 1000 partners18
Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.20
AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 26 to 44, and 60 percent of new cases are contracted by men who have sex with men.21 Despite the twenty-year “safe-sex” campaign, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices resulting in various diseases is on the rise.22 An estimated 30 percent of all 20-year-old homosexual men will be HIV positive or dead by the age of 30.23
Studies have also found that while homosexuals may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is acceptable, they have serious doubts in their hearts. A Columbia University study on “internalized homophobia” among homosexual persons found that a significant percentage of homosexuals surveyed held negative attitudes toward their own homosexuality and toward other homosexuals.24
While there are some who would promote the myth that homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones as pure fact, there are also those from the gay community who admit it to be a false statement. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent conservative gay author, says that gay couples adhere to a very different moral standard than straight couples do. He says their moral standard is one in which “a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets” exists.25 Also, two researchers who professed themselves to be a gay couple came to the conclusion that gay relationships between men rarely survive if they are not open to outside sexual contacts.26
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
God created the unique relationship between a man and a woman. Yet He is equally unhappy with pre-marital sexual relationships as He is with homosexual relationships. Both are not what He intended. To say that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones is to make a mockery of God’s divine act of creation and His ordination of marriage. He made man and woman for each other and called it “good” (Genesis 1:26-28,31). To say otherwise is to lead people astray.
Issue 2: HOMOSEXUALS ARE NORMAL, HEALTHY, EVERDAY PEOPLE
While the American culture promotes “having it all,” it is likely that most individuals just want to be accepted and appreciated. Homosexuals are no different. They have been wounded by rejection and, in general, seem to say whatever it takes to be considered “normal.” Ironically though, society’s intolerance doesn’t seem to be what’s driving homosexuals into more risky and dangerous behavior. In fact, such conduct tends to exist most intensely in places where homosexuals face the least amount of disapproval—such as large cities like New York and San Francisco or on college campuses with concentrated gay communities.
FACT: CONTRARY TO CLAIMS MADE BY GAY ACTIVISTS, HOMOSEXUALLY ACTIVE PERSONS AS A GROUP APPEAR TO BE LESS PSYCHOLOGICALLY HEALTHY THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION
There are several areas where the average homosexual differs from the average, normal, "everyday” heterosexual. Research has shown that men and women living homosexually are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder and nicotine dependence.31 For instance, one twin-study found that men with same-sex partners are 6.5 times as likely as their co-twins to attempt suicide.32 Another study found that a substantial percentage of gay males and lesbians report some participation in illegal drug use.33
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
Paul states in the book of Romans that homosexuality is “unnatural.” But some homosexuals will tell you they’ve been attracted to people of the same sex for as long as they can remember—in other words, it just feels natural to them. Unfortunately, their feelings do not justify their actions. “Sin” is any behavior that is displeasing to God. We live in a fallen world and sin has distorted our perception of truth—so, what someone may consider as natural or normal still cannot change the truth of God’s moral laws found in the Bible.
Homosexuality is only one symptom of fallen humanity. In our brokenness of human nature, we have an undeniable inner craving to be whole. And yet, maybe it’s because of our sinful nature that we (homosexuals and heterosexuals) seek wholeness in the wrong areas. Whether we’re struggling with same-sex attractions, pornography, envy or lying, it’s easy to want to slap a label of “normal” or “healthy” on ourselves to try to justify our sinful behaviors. But a label will never cover the deep wounds of people entangled in a life that is displeasing to God. The only place a person can find healing and wholeness is at the foot of the cross.
Issue 3
THE BIBLE DOESN’T CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY—ONLY PROMISCUITY
In recent years, several mainline denominations have abandoned traditional interpretations of Scripture and have embraced the "Gay-Christian" movement. Similarly, people claim that Paul’s statements were only addressed to believers back then and are not relevant today. But God’s Word—which is unchanging and stands forever (Isaiah 40:8) gives us a different story.
FACT: GOD CLEARLY CONDEMNS ANY ACT OF SEX OUTSIDE OF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
God designed sexual relationships only for a union between one man and one woman in marriage. The first chapter of Genesis declares that “God created man in His own image . . . male and female He created them.” Throughout this chapter we learn why fornication, adultery and prostitution—as well as “homosexual marriage”—are all distortions of God’s original plan for healthy sexuality.
In the Old Testament, the sin of homosexuality is condemned by the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22). In Matthew, male and female relationships are the only sexual relationships allowed by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6). And the first chapter of Romans is usually considered the most thorough and clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, which includes a specific reference to lesbianism (Romans 1:24-27).
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
There are many distortions in sexuality because of the effects of sin, which have caused grief and hardship to so many. We know from the Bible that those who practice homosexual acts receive “in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:27, NIV). As the executive director of Exodus International—North America, the world’s leading outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality, Alan Chambers sees the devastation that occurs when the lines between right and wrong are blurred, erased or reversed. He states: “Today, culture is moving further and further away from biblical teachings about sexuality and gender. We now have an entire generation of young people being taught that homosexuality is morally, physically and spiritually equivalent to heterosexuality. Because of the downward spiral that has become our way of life, it is not surprising that people are questioning what is right and wrong regarding sex when wrong is now considered normal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our actions--good and bad--have consequences that impact us, our society and every single living person that comes after us until eternity. The truth matters because it means freedom for all who believe it and abide by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While God’s Word is clear on the matter of homosexuality, it’s also very clear on the matter of healthy sexuality. You’ve probably heard it said that “God has a plan for your life.” Would you believe He also has a plan for your sexuality? He does! He planned for us to have an exciting love life in marriage.
Issue: LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE HEALTHIER THAN GAY MALE RELATIONSHIPS
It’s generally believed that women who have sex with women are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than gay men. While most of the research on medically related health risks of homosexual activity deals with men who have sex with other men, there is interesting research concerning homosexual activity among women.
FACT: LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE EQUALLY UNHEALTHY, AND JUST AS LIFE-THREATENING AS GAY MALE RELATIONSHIPS
The fact is, most women who have sex with women do not do so exclusively. Approximately two-thirds of women surveyed have also had sex with men within the last five years.34 Sexually transmitted disease rates for bisexually active women are as much as twice that of those who engage in exclusively lesbian activity. 35 Likewise, studies have also shown that a significant number of lesbian women engage in other risky behaviors which increase medical risks of disease, such as drug use and exchanging sex for drugs and money.36 Another study reported that lesbians may have higher rates of breast and ovarian cancer because of a variety of risk factors like nulliparity (never having borne a child), childbearing later in life, higher rates of alcohol consumption and obesity.”37
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) has reported that domestic violence is as common in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships as it is in heterosexual relationships. While Lesbian partnerships generally are of longer duration than gay male relationships, there exists the counterfeit of healthy attachment-including, manipulative behaviors, emotional dependency and over-enmeshment.38
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
It’s important that women know the consequences of their choices. Lesbians are not excluded from the realities of promiscuity, like the HIV virus. The sad truth is that because this myth is being perpetuated, many lesbians are going to the doctor less often. While most heterosexual women visit the gynecologist every eight to nine months on average, the average for lesbians is every 21 to 24 months.39 This is cause for great concern as “many lesbian-identified women have other risk factors for cervical dysplasia, such as multiple male partners, heterosexual intercourse at an early age and cigarette smoking.”40
Again, God’s Word clearly speaks of consequences to sinful behavior. The only true form of “safe sex” is abstinence, or within a heterosexual marriage of one man and one woman. Whether you have lustful temptations for someone of your same sex or of the opposite sex, you can take a stand for purity and experience a lifetime of rewards. True love is worth the wait—not only because the risk of promiscuity, but because God has only blessed sex in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
MYTH #8: HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNCHANGEABLE
This is probably the most devastating myth of homosexuality circulating today. Yet, most homosexuals believe that their homosexuality is so much a part of their identity, that they can do nothing about it. In his report, “Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths,” Richard Howe suggests two major reasons why homosexual activists promote this myth:
1. They would be admitting that there are those in the homosexual community who, after careful thought, have concluded that it is wrong to be homosexual and that it does not lead to personal happiness and fulfillment. Focusing on those homosexuals who want to change continues to emphasize the immorality and personal destructiveness of homosexuality.
2. They would be denying that homosexuality is physically caused. The more the homosexual community can convince the general public that their homosexuality is beyond their control, the more tolerance or even preferential treatment they can gain in public policy.41
FACT: THERE IS FREEDOM FROM HOMOSEXUALITY
The truth is, there are a tremendous number of homosexuals who have changed, and professional opinions are changing on this issue as well.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may be changeable. “Like most psychiatrists,” said Dr. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue—some people can and do change.” 42 To the researcher’s surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process.43 “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning. I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual . . . I think that’s news . . . I came to this study skeptical, I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”44 Other professionals have reported a range from 50 to 70 percent success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction.45 Findings such as these have prompted some professionals to admit that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation through a variety of change efforts.
Individuals who have gone through an Exodus International Member Ministry have discovered that Jesus Christ is sufficient to make the difference. “The road begins not with just giving up on the gay life, not with trying to relate with a woman, not with just trying to relate to other men in a different way; it begins with coming into a relationship with God . . . From where many of us stand who have gone down that road, it was difficult, but it was worth it a hundred times over, because it has been the way to joy, freedom and personal fulfillment.”46 Is homosexuality unchangeable? Hardly. There is plenty of evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.
WHY DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?
God is clear about the consequences of unrighteousness such as homosexual behavior. Yet, as with other sinful lifestyles, homosexuality is forgivable if a person repents of his or her actions and turns to God. His power can bring healing, restoration and change. That’s the message that’s being silenced today: there is freedom from homosexuality through the unconditional love and grace of Jesus Christ. Of course, ending a destructive behavior—especially one that is addictive in nature like drinking, smoking or having homosexual (or heterosexual) intercourse—is a difficult task. But there is so much hope with Jesus! Think about it: God’s power is amazing! If He could raise Jesus from the dead, He can rescue a person from any entanglement.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
-1 John 1:9, NIV
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, and the new has come!
-2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV
YOU CAN HELP SOMEONE STRUGGLING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY
The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of homosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written extensively on the struggle of homosexuality and has helped countless people help others—and help themselves. The following has been adapted from his “What to Do . . . and Not to Do” list from his report Homosexuality Facts versus Fictions.47
1. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.
2. Don’t condemn. People have not “chosen” to “have homosexual feelings” the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience—and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the homosexual struggle is rejection.
3. Don’t start citing all the problems with homosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don’t go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “alternative” may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.
4. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of homosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.
5. Share specific avenues of help like the ministry of Exodus International–North America that has helped thousands of men and women in the midst of their struggle with homosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Perhaps even share this article with them. Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.
6. Show love, concern, gentleness and respect as you point the way to healing.
Need more help?
Exodus International-North America is a worldwide coalition of Christian ministries that offers support to men and women seeking to overcome homosexuality, as well as services for family members and friends. Most of these ministries offer support groups, one-on-one counseling and literature. For a free packet of literature on the work of Exodus, including a complete list of referral ministries, contact: Exodus International-North America, P.O. Box 540119 Orlando, FL 32854; (888) 264-0877; e-mail: info@exodus-international.org; www.exodus-international.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 G. Remafedi, M. Resnick, R. Blum, and L. Harris, “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 89, no. 4, April 1992, pp. 714-21.
2 J. Budziszewski, Ph.D., “A War of Words,” Boundless, www.boundless.org, September 30, 1998.
3 Ibid.
4Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H.Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.
5Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London, 1948, pp. 650-651.
6Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Edward W. Eichel, Lochinvar-Huntington House Publishers, 1990.
7Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1994, p. 176.
8 Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. Footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief. See Laumann, et al. The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States, 1994 or "Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale," Bruce Voeller, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation, The Kinsey Institute Series, June Machover Reinisch, ed., Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 35. “The Homosexual Numbers," March 22, 1993, p. 37.
9Santinover, Jeffrey, M.D., “Is There a ‘Gay Gene?’” National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Fact Sheet, March 1999, p. 1.
10“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, 30 September 2002.
11 Ibid.
12“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, 30 September 2002. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no. 3.
13 Larry Burtoft, Ph.D., Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, Focus on the Family 1994, p. 58.
14“The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” “In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy” by Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, September 30, 2002.
15 Whitehead, N.E.; Whitehead, B.K. (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana, calculated from Laumann et al., 1994.
16Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): p. 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
17M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality, Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985, pp. 40–61.
18“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
19W.E. Owen Jr., “Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent,” Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6, No. 4, July 1985, pp. 278-85.
20Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp. 190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 , no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases”; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, " TARGET=_blank>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp.>
21“APA’s Practical Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with HIV/AIDS,” Epidemiology, Clinical Features Influencing Treatment, sections, www.psych.org/aids/, Anti-Viral Treatment section.
22 “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men—San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 29, 1999), p. 45.
23 Satinover, Jeffrey, “Reflections: Interview with NARTH,” February 5, 2001, http:www.narth.com/docs/satinover.html.
24 Shidlo, A., 1994, “Internalized Homophobia: Conceptual and Empirical Issues”, in Greene, B., Herek G, Lesbian and Gay Psychology. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage, pp. 176-205.
25McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
26Ibid.
27Jeffrey Santinover, M.D., “Homosexuality Facts versus Fictions: What You Need to Know, Where to Find Help,” Focus on the Family broadcast, February 5-7, 1997.
28THE HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, through December 2001.
29Larry Burtoft, Ph.D., Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, Focus on the Family, 1994, pp. 32-33.
30THE HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, through December 2001.
31Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L., 1999: Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.; Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T., 1999: Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.; Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel, 2001: Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, pp. 85-91.; Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.
32Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.
33“Not Afraid to Come Out: A celebration of freedom from homosexuality,” by Matt Kaufman, Boundless webzine, Focus on the Family, September 30, 1998.
34 “Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 48.
35Ibid.
36Ibid.
37 “Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 51.
38“Understanding the Lesbian Client” by Andria L. Sigler-Smalz, clinical pastoral counselor, " TARGET=_blank>http://www.narth.com/docs/understanding.html.>
39“Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality,” The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, March 1999, p. 51.
40Ibid.
41Richard Howe, “Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths” The American Family Association, 1994, pp 11-12.
42A report released May 9, 2001 at the annual American Psychiatric Association convention, psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.
43Ibid.
44Ibid.
45Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996. Therapy of Homosexuality, 1999 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
46 No Easy Way brochure by Regeneration (Baltimore: Regeneration, Inc., 1991). Regeneration is a non-profit, interdenominational Christian ministry for men and women seeking a way out of homosexuality.
47Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality Facts versus Fictions: What You Need to Know, Where to Find Help,” Focus on the Family broadcast, February 5-7, 1997. Scripture references taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
^ Back to Top
Copyright © 2004 CitizenLink/Focus on Social Issues. CitizenLink®
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
No, you are wrong there Trefor. Although they were British subjects at the time, they are still considered early Americans and some of the earliest founders of this Nation. You may not think so, but I live here, and I know that they are considered by a vast majority of Americans to be some of the earliest of America's Founders, and founders of the religious freedom that we enjoy here. That was their sole reason for coming which is to me very spiritually significant.
Most certainly they were not numbered against those American Brits who stood up to King George III in the 1770's, because they were dead by then. But the spirit of revolution that lived in the the Pilgrims was further exhibited by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and the rest.
And, agree you may not, but it is extremely indicative of "Christian beginnings" when the very first or at least one of the very first "compacts" or "constitutional documents" starts out with...In the name of God", and also includes the words; "the advancement of the Christian Faith"..
And, btw, this was to be a simple piece of evidence to Mr. Mosh that the history of Christianity in our government goes way back before the Cold War.
And, I have read numerous times in the past of references to God and Christ in documents from back in the 1770's and on. Just thought it would be cool to post the very first one that was binding..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I was in this cult once that told us that the country was founded on principles of God by Godly men...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
which god nyuk nyuk nyuk
i've read some stuff like p-mosh said that contradicts what i always thought
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
You should check out the other thread I started on this topic in order to avoid derailing this one. I have quotes by some of the people you mentioned that show they did not support a Christian nation, but rather one with freedom of religion, or a distaste for Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Def:
Your posting is only a rehash of the right wing religious propoganda that has as much relevance to reality as I know it or true biblical understanding as I know it as a leaflet about contraception has to the Pope. It is so full of lies and half truths and selective statistics and has nothing at all to do with the issue in hand.
Jonny:
I am not wrong in what I said and if you read the new thread you will see that you cannot find this Christian "under God" thing at the time of the American Revolution.
In fact Masonic influences appear to have had more of an influence upon the founding fathers. When the foundation stone of the Capitol was laid they are wearing Masonic aprons and the eye in the pyramid on your currency is a Masonic symbol too.
Clearly quite a few things had changed between the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers and the Revolution.
Popular understanding of history or even of the Constitution may not always be the same as the actuality.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Private Topics Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
My 500th post! Some way to catch up with Ex tho!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
I wanted to post to Rosie and Kelli and the rest:
Mazel Tov!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
In this instance, I can picture one of two scenarios happening:
1. A class of people bring suit against a state because members of that class were discriminated against illegally by the state, because the state refused to issue a marriage license.
2. A class of people bring suit against a state or against a state-licensed agency (such as an insurance company) for illegal discrimination, because they did not recognize a marriage legally licensed, contracted, and registered in another state. Once this is ruled upon (in favor of the plaintiffs) and the computer databases and state regulations are updated, then another suit will be brought alleging unequal protection.
I have a feeling that, in the current court, the end result will be, on a 5-4 ruling, a mandate for all states to remove the distinction "one man and one woman" from their statutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Congrats on the 500! Don't know what exactly happened to my 4,000, but the year's still young for me to make it up...
;)-->
Remember when you had a real life, BG*?
:D-->
*BG = Before GreaseSpot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hey hey hey i have a real life really honest i do
;)-->
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.