Sexuality Matters Concluded, Sort of

Started by Richard Johnson, August 11, 2007, 11:42:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

peter_speckhard

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 02, 2007, 10:16:59 PM
Where did Jesus or Paul argue for the historicity of Genesis?
Jesus responded to the Pharisees concerning divorce "Have you not read that at the beginning the creator made them female and SAID" followed by a quote from Genesis 2. Thus, Jesus calls the specific words of Genesis 2 the very words of the creator.

Eric_Swensson

Quote from: Charles_Austin on September 02, 2007, 09:03:56 PM
Will my question about the findings of "every study conducted in recent years" proving the gay men are by nature promiscuous be answered or ignored?

These studies are easily obtainable. Here's one:

'Gay marriage' and homosexuality: some medical comments    JOHN SHEA, MD, JOHN WILSON, MD, et. al.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. In addition, many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years raising doubts about whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. Background


Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population. The number of homosexuals living in 'common law partnerships' is even less, only 0.5% of all couples. This contrasts with 70% of all households with a married couple. The pressure for introducing same-sex marriages comes from a very small section of society.
According to Statistics Canada, 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual.


Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80)


In 2001, there were just over 8.3 million families in Canada, of which nearly 6 million (70%) were married couples and 1.1 million common-law couples. The 2001 Census was the first to provide data on same-sex partnerships. A total of 34,200 couples (or 0.5% of all couples) identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples. (www.statcan.ca/Daily/ English/021022/d021022a.htm)


2. Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.

The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many 'committed' homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment.

A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even 'committed' relationships.

A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).


Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)


Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly "committed" relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)


In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)


The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded ... on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)

The report goes on. The rest is here:

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

johannesdesilentio

That "study" seems more polemical than academic.

And is my friend above saying that because Jesus quoted from Genesis that that means that he was testifying to the historicity of Genesis?

Dan Fienen

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 02, 2007, 09:11:09 PM
My name is John Petty, by the way.  I've already been "outed"--to coin a phrase--earlier on this thread, but apparently some didn't get the message.

Rev. McCain, you seem to be arguing that homosexuality is a choice.  I'm sure you're aware that most psychological research say that homosexuality is genetic, i.e. "natural."

Also, are we assuming the historicity of Genesis?  I'm not, in case anybody wondered.

A couple of thoughts concerning the "genetic, i.e. 'natural' " origin of homosexuality.

If homosexuality is strongly genetically determined, it is surprising that it is still around since there would be strong selection pressure against homosexuality.  Homosexuality is strongly biased against reproduction without modern technological intervention.  How did the gene continue to be passed on from generation to generation unless it only modifies not determines sexual orientation and performance, it which case individual choice is still involved?  (Much as a genetic tendency towards alcoholism does not determine that a person must become an alcoholic but does make the process easier and quick if choices that lead to alcoholism are made)

[By the way and totally off the subject, the origins of alcoholism are complex in each individual involving both choices that have been and continue to be made, genetic factors that can predispose some to become alcoholic and physiological/phsycological changes that occure as a person becomes adicted to alcohol.  It is a disease but one with many moral implications.  That it is a disease has profound implications for successful treatment, as does the moral choices that contribute to the onset and continuance of alcoholism.]

Does the fact that someone is born in a particular way necessarily mean that their condition is good and should be celebrated?  My uncle was born with Huntington's disease (also called Woody Guthrie disease) and died realtively young (in his late forties) basically out of his mind and with little control over his body.  It has been determined that Huntington's is a genetically based disease dependant on a dominate gene (if you inherit it from one parent you will suffer from it.)  Part of the tragedy is that the onset is generally after primary child bearing age is already past.  People can already have children before they know they have it.  Since my uncle was born that way shouldn't we have celebrated his difference?

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Eric_Swensson

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 10:57:55 AM
That "study" seems more polemical than academic.

And is my friend above saying that because Jesus quoted from Genesis that that means that he was testifying to the historicity of Genesis?

1) It is neither purely academic and is only polemical in that it is a church agency of a Church that has a highly developed tradition of teaching ethics and knows what that is.

2) That is what your friendwas saying from what I read. I think so, too. What part of that do you dispute?

johannesdesilentio

Just because you quote from Genesis doesn't mean you buy into the whole (modern) historicity argument.  I quote from Genesis all the time, but that doesn't mean I think the world was created in 4004 BC or that Adam and Eve were real people. 

To put it another way, if I quote a line from the Godfather, it doesn't mean that I think Don Corleone was a real person.

Eric_Swensson

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
Just because you quote from Genesis doesn't mean you buy into the whole (modern) historicity argument.  I quote from Genesis all the time, but that doesn't mean I think the world was created in 4004 BC or that Adam and Eve were real people. 

To put it another way, if I quote a line from the Godfather, it doesn't mean that I think Don Corleone was a real person.

Sir, do you quote from the Godfather the same way you quote from the Bible?

navyman

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
Just because you quote from Genesis doesn't mean you buy into the whole (modern) historicity argument.  I quote from Genesis all the time, but that doesn't mean I think the world was created in 4004 BC or that Adam and Eve were real people. 

Then I would assume that the Holy Spirit didn't inspired Scripture, and that God wasn't telling the truth!  Is this correct? We Lutherans believe that Scripture stand on Scripture, and is the Word of God!

Don Whitbeck

John Dornheim

Quote from: Eric_Swensson on September 03, 2007, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
Just because you quote from Genesis doesn't mean you buy into the whole (modern) historicity argument.  I quote from Genesis all the time, but that doesn't mean I think the world was created in 4004 BC or that Adam and Eve were real people. 

To put it another way, if I quote a line from the Godfather, it doesn't mean that I think Don Corleone was a real person.

Sir, do you quote from the Godfather the same way you quote from the Bible?

Perhaps, were I writing a sermon on the strength of the family, I'd quote him before I would Dobson.
John Dornheim

Eric_Swensson

Quote from: John Dornheim on September 03, 2007, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Eric_Swensson on September 03, 2007, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
Just because you quote from Genesis doesn't mean you buy into the whole (modern) historicity argument.  I quote from Genesis all the time, but that doesn't mean I think the world was created in 4004 BC or that Adam and Eve were real people. 

To put it another way, if I quote a line from the Godfather, it doesn't mean that I think Don Corleone was a real person.

Sir, do you quote from the Godfather the same way you quote from the Bible?

Perhaps, were I writing a sermon on the strength of the family, I'd quote him before I would Dobson.
John Dornheim

Th epoint of fthis though is the historicity of not just Adam and Eve but Jesus. Do you  think Jesus was referring to Adam and Eve as fictional or mythological creatures? What does it mean for us in these questions that Jesus referred to Adama and Eve. It sure sounds to me like he thinks they were real people. What do you think?

Really not sure why you are bringing Dobson or 4004 into this. You think I am a literalist or right-winger, huh? Try and lets keep to the point.

hansen

Quote from: John Dornheim on September 03, 2007, 06:01:25 PM
Perhaps, were I writing a sermon on the strength of the family, I'd quote him before I would Dobson.

"The strength of the family"?  What on earth is that all about?  While I've never seen The Godfather, my understanding is that it's about the mafia, and like any gang, people who are "in" the gang are treated quite differently than those who are "outside" the gang.  And that is the inverse of the Golden Rule, and is unhealthy for the family members (extreme codependence).  And so, that kind of "strength" I think we can do without. 

But again, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there's something in it which is consistent with the best of family relationships (how's that for an 8th Commandment addendum?)

Steven Tibbetts

#356
Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 02, 2007, 09:11:09 PM
I'm sure you're aware that most psychological research say that homosexuality is genetic, i.e. "natural."


Psychological research says homosexualtiy is genetic?  I must have missed that news flash, John. 

I wonder what genetic res
earch says?

Pax, Steven+

P. S.  And know that I know who you are, and that we know each other from LutherLink, welcome to ALPB Online.
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Eric_Swensson

It seems as though we have a prankster.

johannesdesilentio

You know who I am?  (Gasp!)

Couldn't have been on Lutherlink since I never could figure that out.

peter_speckhard

Quote from: johannesdesilentio on September 03, 2007, 10:57:55 AM
That "study" seems more polemical than academic.

And is my friend above saying that because Jesus quoted from Genesis that that means that he was testifying to the historicity of Genesis?
The point is not merely that Jesus quotes from Genesis, but that He quotes it AS THE WORDS OF THE CREATOR. He says, "The Creator made them male and female AND SAID..." He also uses those very words of the Creator to make a point about marriage and how God ordained it to be even before the fall. He also (rather sarcastically but also appropriately since he is addressing the so called experts in the Scriptures) asks them if they'd even read it, which indicates He at least thinks that the plain meaning of the text is rather obvious. A man shall be united to his wife. Do gay unions designate which one is the husband and which is the wife? Because you can't have a "union" without a wife. Imagine if the Pharisees had responded the way gay marriage advocates respond today-- "well, that wasn't for our time..." or "obviously in the development of the JEPD tradition there are variances..." or "the text simply isn't clear on whether a man can be a wife or not..." My guess is that Jesus would not have engaged in polite dialogue. But that's just a guess, because not even the Pharisees would try it.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk