No Case For Homosexuality in Bible

No Case For Homosexuality in Bible 

by Bottum, Reynolds, and Porter
washingtonpost.com

In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to.

On any plane of argument, the contradiction would appear stunning, but, then, neither Jon Meacham nor Lisa Miller are engaged in argument. They're speaking, instead, in familiar tropes and fused-phrases and easy clichés. They're trying to convey a feeling, really, rather than an argument: Jesus loves us, love is good, homosexuals love one another, marriage is love, love is loving--a sort of warm bath of words, their meanings dissolved into a gentle goo. In their eyes, all nice things must be nice together, and Jesus comes to seem (as J.D. Salinger once mocked) something like St. Francis of Assisi and "Heidi's grandfather" all in one.

In truth, of course, Meacham and Miller actually know what everyone else knows: The Bible offers no support for homosexual marriage. Christianity teaches love, mercy, and forgiveness for those who do bad things, true enough. Look, for example, at the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus offers his divine love, mercy, and forgiveness to a woman guilty of adultery. He shamed those who would stone her. He taught us all that we are sinners and often hypocrites. And then he told her, "Go and sin no more." He did not reinterpret the Old Testament to proclaim adultery another life-style choice.

[Read more... ]

To read the original Newsweek article referenced, visit Beetle Blogger .

Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life. John Mark Reynolds, an evangelical, is associate professor of philosophy at Biola University. Bruce D. Porter is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Posted yesterday on Pearl Diver.

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

...

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.

For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

Officer Fired for Expressing Christian Views on Homosexuality

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman at LifeSiteNews.

NORFOLK, BRITAIN, December 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Norfolk County police officer who was fired for quoting the Bible regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual relations says that he is "totally devastated" by what has happened to him.

"It was a job I loved. This is destroying me and my family," Officer Graham Cogman told the Daily Mail last week.

Cogman was reportedly dismissed from his position in late November after he sent an email quoting Biblical passages denouncing homosexual behavior, and another e-mail linking to a ministry in the USA that seeks to cure homosexuals of their condition.

Cogman says he sent the emails after being "bombarded" with emails sent by police department employees promoting the "gay" agenda, including messages urging him to wear a pink ribbon in honor of "gay history month." He reportedly responded to one email from a homosexual liaison officer with the Christian saying, "Love the sinner, hate the deed."

There are no reports of firings or discipline against the employees of the police department who promote homosexual behavior.

[Read more...]

Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.

We think people should know about it.

“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”

“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

A Case For Morality

By William K. Vogeler, Esq.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is such a simple declaration, but seemingly necessary as a matter of law today. Gay rights advocates rage that it is bigoted; activist courts claim it is discriminatory. But it is neither. It is, rather, an indication of moral confusion. Joyce Kilmer, a soldier and poet, stated the problem in the contradictions of his time. He recognized the greatness of God and the smallness of man. "Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree."

We as human beings have made many marvels, but we will never create better than God has created. Or if your god is Nature, you will never do better than evolution. Whatever our philosophical persuasion, we know this is true: we cannot create a universe, a planet or a person. And we cannot survive as a species without heterosexual relations.

The principle --- the supremacy of God or Nature --- underlies all human endeavors. We can change, even improve, the human condition. But ultimately we must recognize our very being depends on certain, self-evident truths.

One saving truth is that we are still moral beings. It defines and guides our conduct as individuals and as a society. If we deny our morality, we deny our humanity. In the realm of government, morality is center stage. But she has become more like a dreary background than a leading lady. Because of our limited ability to appreciate the real drama of life, we have lost sight of the fact that life is a morality play.

So the same-sex marriage issue --- without morality at its center ---has divided good people, independent states and a great country. The United States have defined marriage as between a man and a woman many times. But courts increasingly have overturned these laws, focusing on
notions of equal protection over democratic processes.

A handful of judges have called traditional marriage laws unconstitutional. At the same time, these non-elected jurists have frustrated millions of voters and fueled hate across the country. The arguments have pitted heterosexual rights against homosexual rights, civil rights against children's rights, and set in conflict many other public policies. And in the crossfire of this battleground issue, morality has been dismissed.

But morality cannot be ignored in this debate. Same-sex marriage laws raise the same moral questions as laws against bigamy, incest, prostitution, bestiality and pedophilia. As a country and as people, we have consistently outlawed these behaviors on moral grounds. We justify them to preserve families, protect children, promote health and otherwise bring order to society. But we do so ultimately because we know it is right.

For those of us who chose divine intelligence, we act on faith. For those who prefer human intelligence, we act on reason. In either case, we make a choice consistent with our belief about what is right. That is the essence of morality. This dynamic is more than a philosophical perspective. It is the engine of human progress. It is natural selection and faith in action --- opposite sides of the same coin.

So it is time for Americans to make another decision based on a moral conviction. We must hold this truth to be self-evident: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Like our Founding Fathers, we must enact a national constitutional amendment to ward off an encroaching aristocracy --- those courts that have overruled the will of the people. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, enumerating certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In so doing, we will regain our democratic right to govern ourselves. We will assert our sovereign power to act according to the dictates of our conscience and our moral choices. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Fired For Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

Australian Health Minister Fires Men’s Health Ambassador for Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

By Ellen M. Rice
As reported on LifeSiteNews.com

SYDNEY, December 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon appointed Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation as one of six men’s health ambassadors who were charged with the task of building a federal men’s health policy, in part to address the epidemic of male suicide in Australia. The Australian homosexualist group, Coalition for Equality, however, immediately demanded Marsh’s firing, and two days later, on November 27, he was gone.

[read more...]

An Ugly Attack on Mormons

By Jonah Goldberg
December 2, 2008
As printed in the LA Times

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

[read more...]

The Need to Keep Our Voices Heard

*Another excellent submission! We're on a roll!*

by Heather at Make My Vote Count

This afternoon I received the agenda for my local town council meeting to be held tonight and on it was a speaker against proposition 8. Okay, two thoughts popped into my head: 1) Prop 8 has already been voted on; 2) How is this an issue that the town council needs to address?

I could not attend due to prior commitments, but my mom did attend. Two people spoke, one was a lesbian who voiced her troubles in getting child support after separating from her partner 10 years ago; the second was a bisexual lawyer who felt that if you love someone, you should be able to marry him/her.

The woman said that all of the ads in favor of prop 8 were lies and it made her sick to her stomach to see all of the signs in favor of prop 8.

When it was time for questions, someone asked if domestic partnerships don't allow the same rights as marriages. The woman said a domestic partnership is for second-class citizens. The lawyer said that domestic partnerships provide for the same benefits as marriage but domestic partnerships are only recognized in California and not in other states.

A side note, this was the lowest attended town council meeting in a very long time, with only 20-25 people in the audience.

I felt this is important to post because I think it is important that we are aware of what is going on in our local communities. The question was raised, "How did we let it get this far?" By not knowing what is being said at our town council meetings, by not telling our city council people our thoughts, by not voting because we think our vote doesn't matter.

Here is what we need to do NOW:
Voice our opinions in our local communities.
Reach out to our neighbors.
Write letters/make phone calls to our political leaders.

Now is not the time to sit back just because one issue was voted in our favor. Now is the time to stand up with the other 6 million Californians and reach out across the nation. Our grassroots effort is not over... it has just begun!

Same Sex Marriage and Schools

*Our first e-mail submission! Keep them coming, folks. Marriage needs us.*

Teachable Moments and Unintended Lessons
by California Crusader

As I listen to the debate rage on about whether overturning Proposition 8 will affect our public schools, I’d like to weigh in as an elementary school teacher. I remember a debate I listened to recently between protect marriage’s Chip White and No on 8’s Andrea Jackson.

Prop 8 Debate

One of their discussions was about Rob and Robin Wirthlin, the Massachusetts parents who were told they couldn’t opt out of instruction about gay marriage. Ms. Jackson argued that this case doesn’t apply to California because we have the strongest opt-out laws in the nation, so that parents can always choose what they will allow to be taught to their children. I had to snicker. Ms. Jackson just doesn’t understand the dynamics of the public school classroom.

One of the most powerful tools teachers use are what we call “teachable moments.” These are times during the day when teachers stray from their lesson plans because of a comment, question, or action by a student. THEY HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, especially with younger students. Here are a few examples from my own experience:

1. A boy in my class used the N word. We had a long talk about why we should never discriminate against anyone because of the color of their skin. I even read them the book Martin’s Big Words as a follow-up the next day.

2. A student stole a classmate’s snack and ate it. We had a class discussion about honesty and how it feels when someone steals from you.

3. As I was teaching a reading lesson, we heard a loud clap of thunder outside from a rainstorm. Based on the frightened faces of some of the students, we stopped and talked about thunder and why we don’t have to be afraid of it.

Now, the problem with all these teachable moments is that they catch you off guard. You don’t have time to fall back on a prepared lesson plan; you just open your mouth, and hope you say the right thing. So, what if in the middle of a math lesson, a student asks, “Teacher, I heard about a girl that has two moms. Why doesn’t she have a dad?”

The teacher’s response would vary widely, depending on his/her personal views. Because I feel that discussions of same-sex marriage have no place in school, I personally would respond,

“That’s a good question. Why don’t you go home and ask your parents?”

But, how about a teacher who feels that giving marriage to same-sex couples is an equal rights issue? You might hear a response like this,

“That girl’s family is different than yours, but that doesn’t mean it’s not as good as yours. Her two moms love each other, so they decided to get married. Marriage doesn’t have to just be between a man and a woman. If two ladies love each other, they can get married too.”

Or, from the teacher who feels extremely passionate about same-sex marriage,

“That girl’s mothers are what we call lesbians. They are two women who love each other very much, just like your mom and dad love each other. In California, we are lucky to have laws that let them get married. Kids, I know we were right in the middle of math, but let’s take a break. I want to read you a very important book called, Heather Has Two Mommies.”

Parents, can you see why the whole question of opting out of instruction is really kind of silly? There is no time to send a permission slip home to ask if you can answer a child’s question. That’s why it’s so important to protect Proposition 8. If marriage stays defined as between a man and a woman, then teachers who feel that same-sex marriage is a civil right will be more careful during those teachable moments. But opening the door to same-sex marriage in California is basically opening the mouths of thousands of teachers who already want to teach that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. Don’t believe it? Ask the teachers you know how they voted on Proposition 8. Don’t expect them to tell you they voted yes. I’m telling you, approving same-sex marriage will have EVERYTHING to do with schools. In case you have forgotten, here are links to articles about two schools that already have decided to extend teachable moments in ways that many parents find inappropriate:

Coming Out Day at Public School

Class Field Trip to Lesbian Wedding

Here’s a great quote from an article by Dr. Laura Haynes . She expresses it much better than I could:

“At present, California curriculum includes units about families,
beginning in kindergarten. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the
door for children from kindergarten on up to be taught that the state of
California validates that marrying someone of the same sex is as legal and
acceptable an option for them as marrying someone of the opposite sex. How
would this impact required curriculum units such as family, health, values,
child development, sex education, and history? Based on present research
showing that the liberal sexual attitudes in colleges not only allow but actually
elicit homosexuality, we should expect that extending education about liberal
sexual attitudes down through kindergarten will elicit many more of our
children to go down the path of homosexuality. Some parents who have raised
their children in traditional sexual values have been shocked at how much
those values have changed when their children went to public high school or
college. The same effect will begin in kindergarten if same-sex marriage is
allowed to stand in California, and the strong precedent in California will be
used to extend the changes across the U.S.”

Please consider the unintended consequences of approving same-sex marriage. They are real, and they are already happening!

P.S. Thanks to The Journalista Chronicle for pointing me to the Dr. Haynes article!

N.H. Civil Union Sponsor Will Push for Gay Marriage

As reported in the Boston Herald

CONCORD, N.H. - The legislator who sponsored New Hampshire’s civil union bill will push next year to legalize same-sex marriage.

But Portsmouth Democrat Jim Splaine will face a fight, as those opposed to civil unions vow to try to pare the law down.

Splaine says civil unions give same-sex couples about 90 percent of the benefits and obligations that heterosexual couples get through marriage. He says same-sex marriage is the only way for same-sex couples to attain full equality. Splaine describes the bill as necessary to propel debate.

[read more...]

Iowa's Gay Marriage Ban Goes Before High Court

As reported in the LA Times

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments next month about whether the Defense of Marriage Act - briefly struck down last year - is unconstitutional.

By P.J. Huffstutter
November 27, 2008

Reporting from Fort Wayne, Ind. -- The national fight over same-sex marriage is coming to a peak in Iowa, where the state's highest court will hear arguments next month over whether the state's ban on gay unions is unconstitutional.

The debate over the future of Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, a decade-old law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, comes after a ruling by a lower court judge last year.

[read more...]

eHarmony and the Tolerance Mau-mau-ers

By Michelle Malkin

My syndicated column today expands on yesterday’s eHarmony post (link). As I note, eHarmony will be forking over $5,000 to the gay plaintiff and $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights office. Here’s the entire settlement the company agreed to, via onlinedatingmagazine. There’s more on the class-action lawsuit against eHarmony proceeding in California here. And Jacob Sullum weighs in.

***
The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

[read more...]