“Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I’m not exaggerating. You’ll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional “Christian” marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn’t), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn’t like one of his wives (like if she’s unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn’t have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn’t be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn’t have, since they shouldn’t get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families.
(If they abandon them for Jesus, he’ll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.
Conclusion: We need to march to America’s heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.
Mark says:
"Because the essence of love is surrender." (qualified as the surrender to the love of others)
Mark also says "love is love," and that the love of another is like the love of the divine.
According to the Bible there are various types of love so you can not tell me that Mother Tersesa didn't "love people" because she didn't surrender to the sexual advances of another person.
According to the Bible the essence of love is not surrender, it is sacrificial. There is a difference that you can not explain by words, only by the actual demonstration of what you do to help others besides those that happen to agree with your own personal perspective or values.
Yes, the habitual masturbater and persistent "amoral" sexual practitioner surrenders to the physiological stimuli and their psychological conditioning, but do not call this a matter of the divine (heaven coming down to earth), only sacrificial love is divine.
Contrary to Karl's suggestion, I don't remember anyone characterizing masturbation (or any form of sex, per se) as "love." I do suspect that Karl conflates love and sex and that this conflation is driving this entire dispute.
Karl writes:—"According to the Bible there are various types of love so you can not tell me that Mother Tersesa didn’t “love people” because she didn’t surrender to the sexual advances of another person."
I didn't say anything of the sort. The relevant phrase is "to each their own." But do not say to me, then, that because Mother Teresa does what she does the way she does it that all other forms of expression of love are somehow less.
And:—"According to the Bible the essence of love is not surrender, it is sacrificial."
This smacks of the person who loves Mankind but can't stand individual examples. Frankly, I find that utter bullshit. Sorry, but I do. You can sacrifice yourself on the alter of the idea of love that way and never let yourself be touched by another. I know what you mean and I find it little more than sophistry. Sorry.
Finally:—"Yes, the habitual masturbater and persistent “amoral” sexual practitioner surrenders to the physiological stimuli and their psychological conditioning, but do not call this a matter of the divine (heaven coming down to earth), only sacrificial love is divine."
I didn't. I was talking about love, not predation. I suppose by your lights, anyone practicing sex outside of the bonds of marriage can be nothing but an "amoral practitioner" but that's not true. In any case, I disagree strongly with your concluding statement. It's the main point of departure I have with people who insist on a single path nature of divine love. If that's how you feel, then we really are quite far apart on this.
Sacrifice can be made without ever risking rejection. That's not surrender. That's oblivion. And you don't really have to change yourself to do it. (Let me be clear, this is not the only way to sacrifice—I'm just saying that it's a way to appear to give without giving much at all. People who go out and martyr themselves to a cause "sacrifice" all the time, but very little touches them. They remain "pure.") I think of the two I'll take honest surrender, with all its potential risk.
But it's good to understand the kind of beat to which you dance.
Mark does, actually, discuss sex as an act of love and as bringing a human being as close to the essence of the divine as possible. Yet I'm sure he also acknowledges that sex in and of itself does not equal love.
Karl, you are splitting hairs in trying to say there is a difference between surrender and sacrifice. I believe, for the sake of this discussion, they are essentially the same thing. I would sacrifice myself for my children. I surrender to the intense love of my children, acknowledging that, to me, their lives are that valuable. Same thing, really.
I surrender to the love of my beloved. I would willingly sacrifice my own needs to meet his.
The big difference seems to be that those "humanists" among us believe that the pleasure found through sex is a gift, one to be treasured and enjoyed responsibly, however and with whomever we please, as long as all acts are consensual. Period, no further qualifications. Whether it is a gift from God or nature doesn't really matter.
You and yours, OTOH, believe that the pleasure derived through sex was bestowed upon us as a blessing but a curse, imbuing us with an ongoing temptation to be avoided. We can prove our "strength of character" by not acquiescing to such temptation. If we can avoid giving in until married into a monogamous relationship, then we "win." We have somehow reached a higher plane, bettered ourselves than all those heathens out there who cave to their baser instincts, thus proving how very lowly they are.
Can you possibly see the absurdity of that? So people who never marry, simply because they don't find a person with whom they believe they can spend a lifetime, should never enjoy the pleasures of sexual intimacy? Gay people, without a doubt, should never know the joy of that surrender, because SOME people think it is wrong??
I understand that you choose to live your life as one in which physical self-denial (disguised as excellent self-control) trumps all, but you have no right to insist that others live as you do. That's the difference, Karl. I/we disagree with you, and (obviously) feel strongly enough to argue strenuously, yet nowhere are we saying you should change your ways. I wish you could see WHY I/we disgree, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that. I wish it only because people like you are denying yourselves joy for no fathomable reason, other than the self-congratulatory ability to present yourself as better than.
As I think Erich noted in response to a different post, most of us who write here were raised within the confines of one organized religion or another, and fell away; after much soul-searching, we chose freely not to return.
In essence, we sat on your side of the fence, tried it out, attempted to fit in, and did not. Have you done the same? Have you tried living life on YOUR terms rather terms prescribed to you by someone else? Perhaps you have – perhaps you lived a life of debauchery at one time and religion is what "saved" you from yourself. Perhaps that is why you so fear losing control again – not because you are honoring God so much as fearing a return to a life you don't want.
If that is the case, your perspective would make a lot more sense – but what you might try to understand is that most people don't find it a slippery slope at all. Most people find a comfort zone somewhere in the middle, and reside there, happily and healthily, without living in mortal fear of eternal retribution.
Karl
Thanks for providing the verse regarding 'mental' adultery – I presume that is your answer to Erich's revised question, then – that all adultery is a sin, mental as well as physical – and as such is proscribed behavior.
Regarding the rest of your post, I find it illustrates the gap in out understanding of the world and what it means to be human.
You said
Well… yes!
You may recall that we, as with many other animals, are social creatures. Our instincts have been honed by evolution to foster a society, and that includes grooming and petting (similar to the other apes). We have the additional 'benefit' of a highly functioning brain, that allows us to model others (see Wikipedia and this Primer on mirror neurons).
Our modeling abilities provide us with much richer opportunities to 'break out' of the kind of operant conditioning that you describe, since we can model not only others, but also ourselves. We must 'wish' to do so, however, and must also learn to recognize our true behaviors and motivations honestly. This is hard, so most people take the easier path of "following someone else's lead" – which sometimes means religion.
You assert God and a 'spirit' that this God has placed in us. I have seen no evidence for such. I've seen many examples of being moved by beauty and grandeur and poignancy and sorrow, in myself and in others. I have seen no evidence of an externally imposed spirit. I don't want to get metaphysical, but the spirit of the gaps is getting smaller every single day. Your 'spirit' is my 'emergent neurophysiological behavior'.
You make the assertion that your values and ideals are somehow 'higher' or more worthy than mine. I would dispute that, having seen the progress of my own life, and how I have both succeeded and failed in my career, and in my relationships with others.
I have direct historical (and recent) evidence of the behaviors resulting from extreme religious mania (Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and many others). Belief in God appears to be correlated with a belief that 'you' are somehow 'inspired by God' and therefore your course of action is 'divinely ordained'. This is thinking that I (and the world) can do without!
I would suggest that honestly thinking for oneself is a better remedy to your doomsday dictatorship than trusting in 'God'. It's blindly trusting 'authorities' that grant dictatorships their power (one thing the libertarians seem to have gotten right!)
Again, Mark & Mindy have nailed it – you, Karl, are fearful that you will lose 'self-control' and somehow mutate into a ravaging uncontrolled beast. Your security blanket is your belief in God, and while you have that to cling to and to guide you, you can feel safe and secure in your life.
Meanwhile, a rich, engaged, and rewarding human life is passing you by.
I'm hopeful that these dialogs will at least light a spark of independent thought in you, and that you will, eventually, gladly and fully participate in the human race and all it has to offer.
In response to Mindy,
Mindy you wrote:
"I truly believe those who feel as you do harbor deep fear of their own inability to exercise self-control, should they allow themselves the least bit of freedom. You either give in and pleasure yourself willy-nilly every time the thought enters your head, or you abstain completely. So there.
Uhhh, no. That’s just not how it works, Karl. Yours is the same mentality that insinuates gay men are also pedophiles. OMG – If they want other men, they must be crazy out-of-control sexual deviants who won’t stop until they’ve taken little boys, too!!!
Expletive deleted."
Karl responds –
Sometimes a wholesome fear of what you might be capable of doing is the only thing that keeps this world from taking up arms against others with different values than your own. This is obvious by your reaction to my statements. This is obvious by the example of Perez Hilton last week. This is obvious by your decision to either act upon or refrain from acting upon what your imagination is really thinking right now!
Describe for me where the word "militant" is used in regards to a true follower of Jesus Christ, and then we'll see who has a better grip on what sacrificial, self-control is really all about.
Secondly, adultery is not only wrong because it offends someone else – as if you have to have a "real victim" besides the two consenting adults to make a behavior wrong. There are many instances where families for generations are hurt and scarred, alienated or shunned by their supposed private behaviors that are none of anyone else's business.
Be honest – these types of issues come to the forefront in individual's lives (at least in America)well before they are adults, and well before they are of legal age for anything. So your consenting adult description seems to work like this.
A 24 year old has consensual sex with an unmarried eighteen year old. Not adultery – no harm to anyone.
An eighteen year old then has consensual sex with a seventeen year old peer who is not about to press charges against the eighteen year old. From this point on the spiral just goes to younger and younger ages until you have children too young to make any wise choices regarding their sexuality.
You are right, not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but they probably mostly had their first introduction to while under the age of eighteen.
People tend to follow a specific peer group in regards to these matters.
Try as you claim to say you don't want private matters discussed and expect me to keep out of other people's bed rooms, because its none of my business, I didn't ask the question. Erich did!
http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBr…
BTW
• Statistics show that 99.99% of all cheating spouses DENY they are having an affair – EVEN WHEN CAPTURED ON VIDEO!
Tony wrote to Karl: "You . . . are fearful that you will lose ’self-control’ and somehow mutate into a ravaging uncontrolled beast."
May Karl someday experience the above-described pleasure.*
*With a person to whom Karl is lawfully married pursuant to the religion of his choice, of course, and in the course of sex that involves people who are half-dressed, missionary position & in the dark, so that it doesn't get too intense for him.
Karl – are you truly serious?
1. Adultery is only an issue of harm for the people directly involved: anyone else is simply engaging in prurient Grundyism! (note – those people can be affected children, etc., but not great aunts, neighbors, or folks across town)
2. Do you truly think so little of our sexual nature that you believe your comment:
Such a scenario is only plausible if you ensure we never engage is a dialog with our kids about sex and our sexual natures as human animals. Enforcing 'abstinence only' pledges, and making sex 'dirty' and 'icky' will only make it all the more desirable for impressionable young people whose bodies are starting to awaken.
You only get such destructive behavior in the absence of education. (I don't recall any huge furor about child pregnancy in Sweden, or high requests for abortions among minors).
Repression breeds ignorance which disables people from making informed and intelligent choices.
Them you go on to conflate homosexuality with something 'predatory'. 'Not all homosexuals are pedophiles' – gee, thanks for small mercies, I guess! What exactly do you have against homosexuality, other than you don't like it. They are not trying to 'convert' you? Most gays are not even in your face about it (except when your lot are in their face to proscribe their rights and deny their nature). What exactly does a homosexual look like anyway, Karl?
Regardless, I'll try to explain this like I do with my 13 year old son.
Acceptance of our 'animal' nature leads to understanding of that nature, and affords the opportunity to learn how to manage that nature appropriately in society (no rutting on the stairs, young Jenkins!). Proper behavior is not absolute, so don't assume you know the rules — observe, then ask if you don't know. And when in doubt, be more proscribed than otherwise – you can always loosen up, but it's really hard to come back from dancing naked on a table. That's why we wear suits and ties to meetings, but golf shirts or t-shirts when we do the actual work.
As for you, Karl. You really need to get out more, dude!
Any breakdown on those stats, Karl?
Not doubting you, but the socioeconomic and religious affiliation would be intriguing.
Erich, re your footnote
fixed it for you 🙂
Mark says:
"The relevant phrase is “to each their own.” But do not say to me, then, that because Mother Teresa does what she does the way she does it that all other forms of expression of love are somehow less."
That is exactly what I'm saying and apparently you can't see that you have no concept of truth or love other than what you think is right for you. This makes it pointless to discuss sacrifice and self-control when sacrifice and self-control can mean whatever someone decides can be both different but equal.
You seek to pull views of altruism down into an easy no sacrificial choice for some which is equal to the sacrifice of others who obviously hold to values that require more self-control and commitment to a cause that is greater than themselves or their personal comfort or pleasure.
I'm sorry but you can not compare Mother Teresa with Perez Hilton on any day of the week. If you do, you obviously have an agenda that is not concerned with anything other than your own search for meaning and approval in what you do, or at least in not being riduculed by those who would like to do nothing better than to laugh in the face of a woman like Mother Teresa.
Jesus put it this way while on his way to the cross,
Luke 23 verses 27 – 31
27) A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28) Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29) For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30) Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" ' 31) For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
Karl, the first thought that comes to mind in formulating a response to you is:
AAARARRRRAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! ::::::frustration font off:::::::
The second is, "Huh?" I have re-read your first two paragraphs and am still scratching my head, trying to figure out what you mean. Honestly, I don't follow. At all.
You wrote: "Sometimes a wholesome fear of what you might be capable of doing is the only thing that keeps this world from taking up arms against others with different values than your own. This is obvious by your reaction to my statements. This is obvious by the example of Perez Hilton last week."
I am truly baffled. Please tell me what wholesome fear is keeping me from taking up arms when I react to your statements? Wow.
Next, explain to me how you leapt from the 24- and 18-yr.-olds having consensual sex to children too young to understand it having sex? I realize that that scenario may play out sometime, but to make that assumption defies logic. I have an almost 14 yr. old with whom I discuss all aspects of sex and dating, and will continue to do so as she gets older in the hopes that she makes good decisions. If she doesn't, well, it won't be the fault of some random 24 yr. old out there, and if I do my job, she'll learn from her mistakes.
I would love for you to tell me where you got the stats about gay people having gay sex before 18? You are saying they "became gay" because someone enticed them to have gay sex and they FOLLOWED A PEER GROUP????? Are you serious?
My daughter knows two boys and one girl at her school who are openly gay. None of them are in relationships, and one, who is a friend, is most definitely still a virgin, but still quite certain of her orientation. Thankfully, at our school and in her family, she is accepted for who she is. Most of her friends are not gay.
As for adultery, Karl, for the last time, none of us equated adultery with "offending someone." We ALL acknowledged that adultery is wrong – BECAUSE IT INVOLVES BREAKING A VOW. You continue to argue it, yet we've agreed with you!! The act of sex outside marriage is a violation of trust – THAT is what makes it wrong.
You just obstinately stick to your story, Karl. Don't listen, or attempt to pull any meaning out of our words – I fear your head may explode.
Karl writes:—"Mark says:
“The relevant phrase is “to each their own.” But do not say to me, then, that because Mother Teresa does what she does the way she does it that all other forms of expression of love are somehow less.”
That is exactly what I’m saying and apparently you can’t see that you have no concept of truth or love other than what you think is right for you."
I have no concept of truth or love. Really. Well, that is as may be. But clearly you are therefore as ignorant as I am.
Also:—"I’m sorry but you can not compare Mother Teresa with Perez Hilton on any day of the week."
Did I mention Paris Hilton? Did I say what she represents is what I'm talking about? I don't think so. And if the only way you can conceptualize what I am talking about is through that characterization, then you have absolutely no idea what I've been talking about. Are those the only two models you have? Mother Theresa at one end and Paris Hilton on the other, with nothing in between?
You know, in that post you mischaracterized and misunderstood just about everything I said—and by so doing proved every point I made.
Have a nice existence.
Mark – for once Karl did not suffer a typo or misspelling! Perez Hilton is the dude who asked the 'gay marrriage' question at the Miss America pageant (I only know this because my wife makes me stay 'in touch' with her version of reality!)
Regardless – he (Karl) is still delusionally ignorant in his ravings, and your comment is still perfectly valid (one airhead, for another is an easy swap).
Perez Hilton is not Paris Hilton and you may better understand where I'm coming from if you did a little investigative research.
Mark is such a smart guy because he doesn't spend much time keeping up with pop culture.
Karl,
Ah. My bad. But I pay little attention to "Miss Anything" contests—I find them shallow. But it's interesting—you seem fixated on issues involving gays.
His question was perfectly legitimate and her answer was perfectly honest. I'm afraid I don't see the connection to Mother Theresa.
(Forgive me for assuming you misspelled it—you did it pretty consistently with masterbation.)
Karl
I don't think you are in a position to disparage Mark's innocent, and not at all relevant, misreading of your post.
From the perspective of the conversation – there is not a whole lot of difference between Perez & Paris in the context of Mother Theresa.
Perhaps if you were to look at how you answer (or fail to answer) you may find that disparaging Mark for a single misplaced pop-culture reference is incredibly hypocritical.
You call out his mote, while ignoring your own beam!
Good-night, Karl. I so hope that you are more clear in your real-life conversations than you are in your responses here.
I wish you the best in your long-term goal of complete self-control. May that mindset serve you well.
I can think of nothing else to say to you that you wouldn't completely misconstrue.
Mindy states:
"I would love for you to tell me where you got the stats about gay people having gay sex before 18? You are saying they “became gay” because someone enticed them to have gay sex and they FOLLOWED A PEER GROUP????? Are you serious?"
AFA is biased and profamily.
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/childrenc.as…
However Kinsey was not.
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Gr-Im/Homosexuality…
Here are some details
Children and Homosexuality
In the twentieth century more data became available and the study of childhood sexuality became systematized, although studies are very difficult to do except retrospectively, that is, through people's reported memories of their own childhood activities. We know that children learn early on what sex they are. In most cultures they are easily identified as a boy or girl by the clothes they wear and what their parents and others tell them. In fact, the sex of a newborn is usually the first question asked about it. Though children gain a gender identity sometime between one and two years old, they do not yet have a sense of gender constancy. A little boy may believe, for example, that at some later point in life he will be a girl. Even though the overwhelming majority of children soon realize this is an error, many keep wishing they were of the opposite sex and try to act like they are, and this seems to be a strong disposing factor for later transsexualism and homosexuality. Children's unwillingness to accept their assigned gender roles is often very difficult for parents and other adults to accept.
Most children, however, do learn a gender role, and this becomes their identification during preadolescence, which is considered to be roughly eight to twelve years old in Western cultures today. During this period they spend their time away from adults and generally in all-male or all-female groups if such groups are available. This homosociality, as it has been called, lessens the opportunities for heterosexual interactions at a period in which members of both sexes are learning the facts of life; it also facilitates homosexual behavior. Boys, for example, may participate in group MASTURBATION or exhibition of genitalia or competitive urinating contests, but such activities are not necessarily an indicator of later homosexuality. Preadolescent children who later become gay or lesbian are more likely to distinguish themselves not so much by their sexual behavior at this time but by gender nonconformity in a variety of nonsexual traits.
It is in this period of development that gender norms become much more strict not only in adult expectations but in peer group pressures as well. Social disapproval is generally more severe for nonconforming boys than girls, perhaps because a degree of "masculine" aggressiveness might help a girl gain a leadership position in her peer group. The "feminine" boy, however, might find himself excluded not only from other boy groups but also from the girl groups and thrown into the group of other misfits that exist in childhood. Studies of male adult transvestites, however, find that they conformed outwardly to their male peers but then retreated in secret to don clothes associated with girls or play as if they were girls. It is also in this period that children begin to experiment sexually. Alfred Kinsey found that a large number of preadolescents (between ages eight and thirteen) engage in what he called homosexual sex play. Nearly half (48 percent) of the older males who contributed their histories reported having engaged in homosexual sex play in their preadolescence. In his study of females, Kinsey found 33 percent of the preadolescent females engaged in some sort of homosexual sex play and many reported that such experiences had taught them how to masturbate.
ADOLESCENCE, between ages thirteen and eighteen, roughly corresponds with biological events associated with puberty, including the onset of menses in girls and first ejaculation in boys. At this age in earlier periods in history, a person would be classified as an adult. Adolescence in our society can best be understood as a social construction, designed to describe the ever-widening gap between reproductive maturity and the age at which society is willing to grant men and women full adult rights and responsibilities. It also is a period in which homosexual identity is most clearly formed. Girls in particular form strong emotional FRIENDSHIPS in adolescence; interestingly, however, there is generally much less social concern about homosexuality in such relationships than there is about boys' friendships. Such relationships among girls are widespread and are an almost normative part of many girls' psychosexual development. It has been suggested that girls need the support, LOVE, and affection of intense friendships to help them survive in a male-dominated world. Many of these friendships have strong homoerotic overtones.
Since both sexes in preadolescence play almost exclusively with members of their own gender, homosexual behavior is far more common among younger children than it is later in adolescence. In a 1973 study by Robert Sorensen, of those reporting homosexual experiences, 16 percent of the boys and 57 percent of the girls had their first homosexual experience between six and ten years of age. By the time they had reached their thirteenth birthday, 78 percent reported having at least one such experience. The number of boys exceeded the number of girls as they went into their teens. This difference in the teens was also found by Edward Laumann and his colleagues in the 1990s. Kinsey described homosexual play in females as mutual insertion of objects (including fingers) into the vagina, mouth–genital contact, rubbing, and close examination. In the male he defined it as exhibition of genitalia, manual manipulation of genitalia in groups or between two individuals, anal or oral contacts with genitalia, and urethral insertions.
One last point.
Karl: You call we humanists 'animalistic' and 'deterministic' and claim that we disregard the 'spirit'. In your quest for ultimate self-control you yourself are attempting to become little more than a Christian automaton, programmed by the narrowest tenets of your religion, and capable of recognizing nothing of value beyond its boundaries.
You can learn to live – but you first need to break those psychic chains that bind you.
If I were religious, I would pray for you. But praying is an ineffectual palliative. I'd prefer to continue to engage with you directly, as humans should, and hope that my influence will help you discover the joy of free, unfettered humanity.
Karl
What Kinsey was talking about was perfectly normal societal and pre-adolescent behavior. If you actually read the extract for comprehension, he says that the majority of group homosexual behaviors exhibited by boys acted to exclude trans-gender and actual homosexually-inclined boys. The fact that almost all pre-teens will experiment with mono-gender behaviors is only surprising to those who deny that children (and people) have a normal sexual nature in the first place.
In fact, it may be (and he hypothesized) that such behaviors have an evolutionary societal benefit in allowing children whose sexuality is awakening and becoming operational to experiment safely with sex while ensuring that such play does not result in pregnancy.
Homosex play is normal. It does not make people homosexual. If you think that is the case , then the population should be overwhelmingly homosexual, since almost every child was influenced by homosexual play as a pre-teen or teen.
Perhaps you need to learn to read without your avidly homophobic filter.
Tony
I'm glad you believe you are free to do what ever you wish, to know how to live life free of the influence of others, and to be able to judge the worth of another's life as well.
Karl,
Kinsey is a bit dated, as is the Sorenson—work on genetic determinants had not progressed nearly far enough. A lot of what you describe, though, is less "homosexual" than it is children finding things out.
But I won't debate the science with you. I have just one question.
So what?
What difference does it make what gender preference people have? Aside from the issue of procreation, what does it actually change?
The only answer you've provided is that you believe god doesn't like it. But as has been discussed time and again on DI, god didn't write the Bible, people did, and built their biases and prejudices into it. We grown up and gotten over much prescribed intolerance in the OT.
But aside from making folks like yourself uncomfortable, what functional difference does any of this make?
Karl, I read the whole thing. Nowhere does it support what you are saying, because the study groups were not exclusively gays and lesbians. That percentage, the way I read it, is based on all adolescents, and the study clearly states that much still needs to be studied. Children "try on" different identities in all aspects of life – do they want to be fairy princesses or tomboys? Do they want to be just like their parents or completely different? Do they want to be bookish or athletic? They try them on and see what fits, they try them on til something feels right. They learn that what seemed mutually exclusive in early childhood (athlete vs. feminine, masculine vs. bookish) are actually not and they can be both. I read the article as proving that many children "try on" homosexuality. For those who truly are, it fits and they self-identify as such – IF their community is accepting. The fact that they don't self-identify does not necessarily mean that they are not gay, only that they are not comfortable with others knowing. And the fact that they might self-identify only temporarily is simply a phase of "trying on" such a mantle to see if it fits.
Your point again?
The point is Mindy asked a question and I gave some references for consideration.
Karl: I've never professed ever being able to judge the worth of another’s life as you put it.
I do 'judge' people's public persona and writing (as I expect to be 'judged').
Based on your writing, you have repressed your common humanity, and cling to your religion like a child's safety blanket. Your rhetorical skills are weak, your research is poor, your analysis is poorer, and you seem unable to make a coherent point.
I don't see where I'm judging you as a 'person', only your publicly offered 'persona'.
I'm suggesting, based on your persona, that you are self-repressing, and that perhaps you should try to break those repressive bonds. That's all.
Judging? not in my nature.
Analyzing, and suggesting mitigation? Definitely in my nature.
Being a busybody? you got me!