I have written in the past of gay men who opposed same-sex marriage (for various reasons). While it’s old news at this point, I ran across a couple of more recently. Rupert Everett, a gay British actor, told The Sunday Times magazine he opposed same-sex marriage (and all marriage for that matter) and same-sex parenting because children need mothers and fathers.
At about the same time, Doug Mainwaring, also a gay man, published an opinion article in The Washington Post:
I am certain that the vast majority are others who, like me, simply view “marriage” as an immutable term that can only apply to heterosexuals. It’s undeniable that, from age to age, marriage has been humanity’s greatest success and source of prosperity, crossing all cultures and religions. We shouldn’t mess with it.
Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t. I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.
Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.
In France, homosexual and atheist Xavier Bongibault opposes same-sex marriage, saying: “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families.” Another gay man, Jean Marc, said “The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.” Jean-Dominique Bunel, a man raised by two lesbians, also opposes same-sex marriage. In his words, he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation. … As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray” because it would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.”
While this only represents a handful of gay men who have publicly opposed same-sex marriage, their voice is important to hear. Clearly, when even gay people oppose same-sex marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be attributed to animus against gays.
October 28, 2013 at 11:16 am
What percentage of those who oppose same-sex marriage do you think are doing so without any animus against homosexuals, roughly? 10%? 40%? 80%?
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 11:30 am
“While this only represents a handful of gay men who have publicly opposed same-sex marriage, their voice is important to hear. ”
Why? Them being gay doesn’t make them any more likely to be right or wrong about an issue.
They happen to be wrong about this issue.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Stan,
Animus against homosexuals? Do you not listen to your rhetoric? Animus means an “intense dislike; hatred; animosity.” If you think the reason people oppose same-sex marriage is because they hate homosexuals, you really don’t understand those who espouse our position. That’s like saying those who oppose alcoholism do so because they hate alcoholics. If you can’t distinguish between thinking “behavior X is immoral” and “hating person Y,” then you shouldn’t be part of this discussion.
Jason
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm
NotAScientist,
Of course it doesn’t make them right. I never claimed otherwise. What I did claim, is the part you failed to quote: “Clearly, when even gay people oppose same-sex marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be attributed to animus against gays.” Why don’t you comment on that sentence?
Jason
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Jason, forgive me, but I was merely quoting what you said. You are the one who initially used the word “animus.”
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Stan,
Yes, I used the word animus in the context of saying this (animus against gays) cannot be the motivating factor behind opposition to same-sex marriage. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment, then. What was your point?
Jason
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm
You said, “Opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be attributed to animus against gays.” But surely you would agree with the following: “Opposition to same-sex marriage is at least in part attributable to animus against gays, because that is a reason why some are against it.”
Now, the question would be the size of that “some.”
For example, someone might say, “Opposition to libertarian economic policies is at least in part attributable to people who envision a socialistic ideal, because that is a reason why some are against them.” Now, this is a true statement, but I don’t know the size of “some.” Clearly you can be against libertarian economic policies while not being a socialist, for instance.
The size of that “some” can be expressed as a percentage of the total group. For example, a person might make the claim, “25% of those who oppose libertarian economic policies are socialists.”
In this case, I’m asking, “If X% of those who oppose same-sex marriage have animosity toward people who openly practice homosexual intimacy and engage in homosexual relationships, what would be your best rough ball-park figure for X?”
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 1:59 pm
” “Clearly, when even gay people oppose same-sex marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be attributed to animus against gays.””
Actually, the only thing is clear that opposition to same-sex marriage cannot be attributed ONLY to animus against gays.
Not that I particularly care why people oppose gay marriage. The why isn’t the issue. The fact of their opposition and their attempts to make their opposition the continued law of the land is the issue.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Stan, the number of people who have animus against gays is completely irrelevant to whether or not homosexual relationships should be called marriage. I know what you are trying to imply, and I don’t like it. You are throwing a red herring in the conversation.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Mickey, in issues of semantic “oughts,” what people think, what motivates them, how they communicate, and what language is confusing or dangerous are all extremely relevant. In this case, Jason (it appears) is arguing against the notion that the anti-gay-marriage stance has a legitimacy problem because it is motivated in part by homophobia (i.e., alarmism about homosexuality and its implications). He believes that, if this “in part” exists at all, it’s small. I’m asking him how small.
I hope that made it clear why what I’m asking is relevant.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Sorry, adding some punctuation to clarify the above:
In this case, Jason (it appears) is arguing against the following notion: “The anti-gay-marriage stance has a legitimacy problem because it is motivated in part by homophobia.”
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 4:46 pm
How does the fact that some, or even many, people are homophobic have relevance to whether or not anti-gay marriage is a legitimate position? How does the disposition of the believer affect the actual belief?
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 5:58 pm
If the majority population of those against gay marriage homophobic, and the majority of non-homophobes are for gay marriage, it is compelling evidence that homophobia (that is, irrational alarmism about homosexuality and its implications) is the driving motivation (among other catalysts) against gay marriage. And, I think you would agree, irrational alarmism would not constitute a justification for any position.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm
I would agree that it would not constitute such a justification. But fortunately, arguments against gay marriage do not depend on such a justification. Also, are you implying that the majority of non-homophobes are for gay marriage? I’m a non-homophobe, and I am against gay marriage, for instance.
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 8:14 pm
I’m glad to hear that! I am sure there’s a sizeable contingent of non-homophobes among those who are against gay marriage.
What I’m wondering is — I suppose I’ll ask you! — based on your experience, if you had to guess, what rough percentage of folks against gay marriage are homophobes (by which I mean, people with irrational alarmism about homosexuality and what it implies)?
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 11:46 pm
I am straight heterosexual and I oppose heterosexual marriage…it’s not a bug deal to be against marriage. Gay men do not have a monopoly on anything more than being gay from where I sit. Nevertheless, gay marriage being an affront to biological function is hardly the issue; gays do not seek marriage for biological function but for the right of human dignity to express their love in ways that humanity demands.
As I have said many times before if society would not have rejected the gay community, would not have denied them their due compassionate expression, consideration and expectation of human dignity marriage among gay people would never have been an issue but if marriage is THE institution that allows for their humanity to be recognized, that allows them access to benefits available only to married couple, please don’t complain now, that their hand has been forced and you cry a victim’s tears.
That is the real pathetic outcome as I see it: the community that ostracized the gays for so many centuries are now wailing the lamentations of the victim without justice when the shoe is on the other foot.
I lol at the calamity of the oppressors claiming to be victims.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 7:22 am
Jason Their views are views that the media censors at all costs. Its refreshing to see that some are honest enough to admit the simple conclusion that indeed a real mother & father is what is best for children.& the media works at a fever pitch to keep out all kinds of stories that wont fit their biased agenda. It can be anything from evolution committed paleontologists that acknowledge that the fossil record really wont back evolution, to when Marxists like legend Black Panther Bobby Seale went to Cuba & came back “cured” of “scientific socialism”. LOL. Thanks.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 8:11 am
sonny:
You also think that religion is the best education for children so you can be wrong more than once too.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Stan, I have never actually met anyone who could fairly be classified as a homophobe, at least by my reckoning. Maybe you can give me your definition of a homophobe and I may be able to better answer your question. But again, what if the percentage was high? Should we then say that gay marriage should be allowed just because the majority of people against it are acting irrationally? For me, it is a simple issue. I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible. God defines what marriage is, and it is between a man and a woman. He does not condone homosexual relationships. Because I am a Christian and believe the Bible, I also do not condone those relationships on principle. I have no animosity towards gays, and though I have not met many gay people in my life, I have no doubt that many of them are fine people. Though most of the few I have met are. But it really doesn’t matter how great they are. All that matters for a biblically-minded Christian is that the Bible calls it sin, and so it is the Christians duty to think of it as such, but homosexuality is certainly not to be treated as any worse than other sins. My primary concern with allowing gay marriage is actually the potential for religious persecution that could accompany legislating gay marriage. I hope the government never insists that the church recognize gay marriage against its own principles. That is the biggest problem I have with the gay agenda. They will not be content until everyone legitimates their lifestyle, and that is unreasonable and unfair to demand that.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Hey Mickey,
You said,
“Maybe you can give me your definition of a homophobe and I may be able to better answer your question.”
Forgive me, but I’ve given my definition several times so far! 🙂 It is: “People with irrational alarmism about homosexuality and what it implies.” For instance, a person who thinks that gay marraige will cause the United States to explode would be homophobic, because they are irrationally alarmist about something homosexuality implies (the state-sanctioning of a gay marriage). Another example would be a person who thinks that gay people will “turn their children gay.” That’s another example of irrational alarmism about homosexuality and what it implies.
You said,
“Should we then say that gay marriage should be allowed just because the majority of people against it are acting irrationally?”
Let’s say that 50% of people support gay marriage, and 50% of people are opposed. Let’s pretend, for the moment, that 90% of people opposed are homophobes. That leaves 5% of the total population that are non-homophobic, and yet are against gay marriage. While this might not be proof of the illegitimacy of their argument, the fact that the cohort size is only 5% is solid heuristic evidence that they have something amiss with their thought processes.
You said,
“God defines what marriage is, and it is between a man and a woman.”
Do you support state sanctioning of polygamy? The Bible is perfectly fine with a man being married to multiple women. The only explicit restriction of “one wife” was for those seeking to be overseers in the Church. Those who infer that “leave & cleave” means “one man, one woman” are doing just that — inferring — and forgetting that several of the revered patriarchs were polygamists.
I don’t support state sanctioning of polygamy because, in today’s non-primitive world, it is demonstrably deleterious in terms of many social values most of us share. That’s the litmus test for state legislation. Not a holy book, not my God’s tastes, not a sacred tablet. Only demonstrable social value threats.
And I make this declaration despite the fact that a religion might proclaim polygamy acceptable. That’s because I believe in the separation of church and state. When the church and state combine, the state corrupts the church, and the newly-corrupted church corrupts the state in turn.
LikeLike
October 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Mickey:
If there was a God, God would be like gravity, the rain cycle and the sun:
Like Gravity:
Gravity like your caricature concept of god loves no man more than the man who defies it not and loves no less the man who does.
Like Rain:
He sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Like Sun:
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good
God never defined marriage, Man did.
God did not enumerate a sin list, Man did, because Sin is the behaviour you produce that offends the self righteous. Since their God is the caricature concept of the highest standard, their created God is given credit for the Law in order to legitimize their idea of your transgression they claim is transgression against God’s Law but not really God’s Law; it is Their Law.
LET’S TALK SEX!
The female is every species has always been and will always be “sex objects”. There’s no getting around that fact. The first and only two primary goals of all species is? Come on guess? A new car? A house? No! SELF PRESERVATION & SEXUALITY. Why? Because “Life Forces”. Life Forces rule the planet regardless of Religious Insanity, Wall Street Greed and Bingo the Money
BEFORE Marriage lust(sex)=fornication; Sex without religious consent; The Delicious Apple.
AFTER marriage lust(sex) morphs into love; that is, Sex with religious consent; The Acceptable Apple.
Feedback from believers trying to prove god’s existence after talking to them regarding reason, why all humans are born and that all humans born are born as atheists, in the face of godmyths, miracles and magic, it’s like shearing a pig – lots of screams but little wool.
16 “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.”
Even if he rapes a girl shall we force her to marry the rapist………? Because the Bible says it? Exodus 22
17 “If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”
Shall we still allow fathers to prostitute their daughters……….? Because the Bible says it?
18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Shall we kill those who practice Wiccan and the like……….? Because the Bible says so?
You need to research what “civilizing” is and what it means in the real world.
Sexuality, you see, is purely a mechanical process. You don’t hear anything with your ear, you know that, vibrations are simply communicated, where you hear is in the brain. And that is where you need to begin your commentary, with that thing between your ears, the brain, with respect to homosexuality known otherwise as gender orientation, that thing between your legs we normally call sexuality, but that is not your gender orientation, that’s in the brain.
The religious institution(marriage) invented to control sexual activity is not so much for the man because the man could care less when it comes to sexual love but more for the woman so she can avoid being called a slut or as the bible so succinctly calls her, the great whore and harlot, if she is not married and to further avoid the woman’s offspring being called bastards by the self righteous religious zealots too prudish to have common sense.
Don’t please stay stuck and stagnant in stonageism.
LikeLike
October 30, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Stan, on your definition of homophobia, those are certainly irrational and alarmist to some degree. But if you speak of people who hate gays or are unreasonably afraid of them, then no, I do not think many of those exist. As for your argument regarding the percentage of homophobes, you are simply appealing to the majority. You cannot establish a truth that way. No matter how many homophobes there are, it bears no relevance to whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.
As for the Bible sanctioning polygamy, to say that is just untrue. It is true that many of the patriarchs practiced polygamy, but this does not constitute as approval of their actions. They suffered for practicing polygamy. Abraham had a concubine he slept with, and it caused strife with his wife and between his wife and the concubine. Jacob practiced polygamy, and his wives practically prostituted him and made deals to have sex with him so they could bear his children. David practiced polygamy, and his son, Amnon, ended up being killed by his half-brother, Absalom, for sleeping with Absalom’s sister. David did not control his children, and suffered great family strife because of it. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and he ended up sinning greatly against God because his wives turned his heart after false gods and idols. It is true God never comes out and says “thou shalt not practice polygamy” because he didn’t have to. It was abundantly clear that polygamy was bad news. Also, God only created one man and one woman to propogate the human race, if you believe the Bible, showing that he intended for only one man and one woman, not one man and multiple women. In the New Testament, Jesus says that “man will leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” You cannot be “one flesh” with multiple women. The Bible clearly endorses monogamous marriage. And this makes sense, because in Ephesians 5, Paul explains that marriage is a picture of Christ’s relationship with his church. He has one body, and he is united to his people alone. While his people may “whore” after other gods, Jesus is always faithful to his bride, now and forevermore. He died for them, and still lives for them now.
I too believe in the separation of church and state. If it was up to me, I wouldn’t have the government be involved in marriage at all. I have a libertarian view of gay marriage in that regard. As I said before, I am simply concerned that churches will lose the right to refuse to recognize gay marriages as legitimate.
LikeLike
October 30, 2013 at 5:52 pm
SonofMan, I am sorry, but to say that humans are born atheists is simply ridiculous. Babies are not born with any kind of belief because they do not have capability for having conscious faith in anything. Atheists, however, do believe something, namely that there is no God. Babies can’t even believe that. As for everything else you said, I can understand how you think those things, because you do not agree with the Christian religion. You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder, and I am sorry, but the truth of the Bible is not meant to make us feel good, but meant to lead us to repentance and holiness toward Jesus Christ. Yeah, its hard to hear how bad we are when you read the Bible. But the truth that Jesus has died for us to set us free from our hopeless, sinful condition is beyond glorious. But that is the truth of Scripture. I don’t want you to reject it, but it is your prerogative. I am sorry if you have been slighted by Christianity in any way, but I assure you it has no bearing on how great Christ is. His people may be imperfect, but he loves them by his grace.
LikeLike
October 30, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Jesus did not die for anyone’s sins, he was crucified because of the sins of the Jewish people not to absolve them of their sins. That’s church dogma.
You are suffering from a false definition of an atheist by saying
“Atheists, however, do believe something, namely that there is no God.” That is a false definition.
An atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in a God. You believe in a god but an atheist does not believe.
You believe that Jesus died for your sins but he did not; first of all Jesus did not die on the cross so all you can say is that Jesus was crucified and with that I will agree; however, the truth is that only knowledge can set you free, belief never can and never will; it is a belief, a wish, a hope, a prayer. Belief is the expertise of Theology, experts that is, in the unknowable.
I am slighted that all religions are a form of mental illness and I am slighted that the clergy, worldwide have you and most of the world duped in believing in miracles, myths and magic and the supernatural curse of religion.
Jesus hated religion, hated the clergy and was an atheist, from where I sit. That’s why the clergy felt threatened by him when he came out of the proverbial closet to denounce the clergy in his famous “Woe to you” indictment in Matthew 23.
You do not know Jesus only what the church and dogma want you to believe and you all respond in the same old, same old nonsense.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 8:13 am
SonofMan, Jesus an atheist? Not sure where you got that idea from. Certainly not the Bible or the extrabiblical resources at the time. Where do you get these ideas from? I also feel that you are putting all religious people in the same category. That’s like saying all atheists are serial killers because they don’t have religion. also its a bit arrogant to claim you don’t believe anything. Postmodernism is wrong about a lot of things, but it did get one thing right: human reason is not infallible. I dont deny that a lot of harm has been done in the name of Christianity, but a lot of good has been done as well. Please don’t just say stuff about a belief system without backing it up. You don’t have to believe the Bible, but don’t try to make Jesus a person he wasn’t. that’s not historically or intellectually honest.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 8:56 am
Mickey:
Jesus may have been a Jew by birth but he was an Atheist by choice; that’s why they tried to kill him. He did not try to “fix” religion because religion was as unfixable then_ as it is unfixable today, the entire religious Laws were corrupted because the Status Quo did not understand how to practice the Law. The punitive Mosaic Law of Revenge, eye for an eye, was not fixable; it was replaced by its correct fulfillment by Jesus, Universal Laws: Forgiveness, Compassion and Love.
Jesus the atheist, hated religion and all things clergy: hypocrisy, pretense, devouring widow’s property, lengthy show of prayers, rituals ,greetings, high seats, supernatural, white washing tombs, decorating graves. Gods are myths. Jesus never believed in the supernatural gods created by men; Jesus accepted and referred to what God, God whom?
God as The Father residing within; AKA, the Self Witness, The Guiding Spirit of the human Experience abiding within and through such things as the brain in harmony with memory of people who by practice have their sense trained up in the discernment of good and evil and enough common sense to choose the good. Lk 17:20 Jesus speaking: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Religious institutions have no life of their own, it’s the people who are virtuous, good and from whom all morals(and religion, unfortunately) derive, religious factions can only attempt to claim good people as members to try and bolster their institution, religion has always done that, always claimed the good, the better, the best and the brightest as their own to portray their own agenda in a good light and promote their own sect of religious, dogmatic idiocy.
Tell me what part of Religion, Church, Clergy, Rituals, Jesus loved! Or was a member of? NONE! Jesus was an atheist and the religious wingnuts of his day sought to imprison him, throw him over cliffs, stone him, whip him, beat him, mock him and crucify him, which is no different than religious wingnuts do today to atheists and gays alike, especially in Muslim countries, Supernatural god myth followers do it with words today, online.
Most religious regurgitating minions, proxies and proselytes think that Jesus was a Christian. So Lolable. If Jesus was around today he would be the first to tell the hypocrite Preachers to pack their robes and vacate the seat they purport to sanctify and never take the name of Jesus in vain again!
I know I cannot convince anyone through logic or reason because most minds are made by indoctrination by the values of the society they are born into, too dogmatic to be easily persuaded to see another point of view but I have studied the Way all my life and Jesus since I was 12 years old. Jesus is none of the things said of him in churches by preachers, pastors, priests and popes.
I know and understand Jesus and while he may have been a person at one time who walked the earth, his legacy is one of attitude and disposition, graceful and genuine in compassion and kindness, always ready to forgive those willing to receive it; a man full of common sense and sound judgment, not for his own ego but from the recognition of the Father within, not the supernatural gods created by charlatans, magicians, popoffs and snake oil salesmen selling miracle water in ketchup packages.
It is amazing to no small degree how so few people understand the nature of “soul”; in particular, Christians who seem only able to glean their daily information from the bible that was, itself, conceived and written in antiquity. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease, much less about Body, Soul and Spirit: Mind, Emotion and Will.
Having said that please understand these remarks are not degrading to Jesus but to the clergy of Jesus day, those who followed and those who perpetuate the hoaxes of miracles, myth and magic.
No, Jesus was a real man who never performed a miracle but was tagged with supernatural powers because of his common sense ideas to tackle any problem. Jesus gave the presence of his peace by his life, not through his death; the clergy has it all backward by claiming Jesus gave the world life through his death, uh uh. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Jesus gave life to the world through his life not his death but supernaturalism caters to the residual reptilian ritualistic brain of humans and as long as you have clergy devoted to live off of the avails of prostituting falsehoods, myths and miracles for the financial security they solicit from those willing to give it to them, that’s religion for you, catering to Bingo the Money God for their own selfish egos.
The Dogma of the Church has always been to perpetuate fear, hell, accursed, not of God, take leave of him, I seldom quote scriptures outside of Jesus but even in John most of the references are terms like God that Jesus never or hardly ever mentioned, as notable in the other three Gospels; the language in John therefore is suspect because of that. Jesus almost always talked about the Father who lives within you as described in Luke 17:21
I was never vaccinated against religion and immune to the ways of the religious world.
I was brought up in a catholic community where in those older days we could not eat meat on Friday and if we did we could not receive communion without first confessing to the priest; this anti meat law was the reason that “Fish Friday” was always on the Menu List at the restaurants and in many cases persist until this very day.
My first recollection of being in church was when I started reading the sunday missal which was centered on the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament scriptures; even at 12, I loved the profound words of wisdom and the obvious logic in his teachings and felt he was talking directly to me, unlike the ones who could not understand the parables because they were blind, I understood everything he said perfectly.
In my late teens I started reading books diligently and studying two books persistently: the Bible and the Dictionary and spent hours perusing both. If I read the bible once, I read it from cover to cover 50 times and doted on the New Testament teachings a thousand times without neglecting the Old Testament. I wanted to piece the reality of the words to the Church’s teaching to the common sense of Jesus and discover the truth of religion, of god and the supernatural, of religious rituals and prayer.
Here is the real Jesus:
It is very difficult to alter someone’s perception of Jesus; aka, the Son of God and even though Christians have long settled for Jesus as the Son of God by the supernatural brainwashing technique of the clergy, did you ever get to know him as the Son of Man? As he claimed to be? Most Christians have long settled for the Deity myth but most Christians never take the time to imagine Jesus as he really was, a human being, like the rest of us.
They never imagine him as a little kid playing with his fellows in the village square, falling and scratching his elbows and knees, clinging to his mother’s skirt as a youngster, crying for comfort. THIS MAN. He was the one who came and fixed your window when it jammed. This man, was too ordinary.
Jesus wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he never went to this university and that university only to come home with this Degree and that Diploma. This Man, Jesus, was much too ordinary to be understood on the basis of his mere humanity. His common sense eluded the masses.
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and they said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, whence hath this man these mighty words? And you might wonder why they said of him, THIS MAN.
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A man is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
————————————
THE ONLY JESUS TO BELIEVE IN!
The life of Jesus covers the whole spectrum of human experience. The characters he encountered range from tyrants, murderers, bullies, thieves, jealous schemers, liars and assassins to noble kings, tender lovers, doting parents, roistering drunks, swaggering soldiers, philosophers, gravediggers and country bumpkins. How could one man, who lived all his life within a small area of the Middle East, have achieved such an encyclopedic knowledge of mankind?
The answer of course is by looking inside himself. In his own head and heart he found every possible trait of character and twist of emotion. His dialogue rings true because Jesus knew that he himself was Everyman. He had only to consult his own soul to imagine how any character would react in a given situation because he—-as a human being—- was also a microcosm of the whole human race.
Since each of us is a human being, each possesses within himself the whole potential range of emotions, urges, fears, anxieties, appetites, physical and emotional needs, instinctual drives and reactions common to all. This is not just idle philosophizing, it’s a fact of key importance to your own personal life and to your understanding of Jesus, the Son of Man.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 10:00 am
SonofMan, I agree that Jesus was a man. That is a fact I try to emphasize in my own life often. What I don’t see, though, is how you can say Jesus was an atheist. Where is your proof for this claim? If you’re going to take the word of the Bible, then Jesus claimed to be deity, as well as the son of God the Father. Its true that God is within, but only by consequence of the Holy Spirit. That passage you quoted where it says “within” the Greek word there can also mean “among” which makes better sense, seeing as the first century Jewish community was collectivist in nature, and did not think of the individual like we do today. Hence, the metaphor of the body of Christ. I agree that Jesus preached love, but the Bible is clear that God is also judge. And that is precisely why Jesus came! To free us from judgment by his grace to live for him and live with him, both now and through eternity. A lot of what you said about religious traditions I agree with, that they are bad. That’s because they are not based on the Bible. If you want to understand the Bible you must take it as a whole. Only then does it make sense. Anybody can make the Bible say what they want, but that doesn’t make it right.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 5:37 pm
What do you think it is that makes my understanding of the bible less than anybody else’s understanding of the bible? Remember when Jesus read the bible in the synagogue everybody was on the edge of their seat wondering what amazing thing he’d say next. because he spoke as one having authority.?
I interpret the bible in that same way that jesus did. it is simple to me.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 5:45 pm
It’s not that I don’t think you can understand the Bible, its just that your interpretation with Jesus being an atheist is impossible. He was born a Jew, raised a Jew, and taught as a Jew. Yes he spoke as one having authority, but the Christian answer to that is that he was the Son of God. He and the Father are one, he said so himself. We know the Father through Jesus. Jesus interpreted the Bible the same way Jewish Rabbis at his time did. The problem is that they missed him, the Messiah. They didn’t get it. He was the fulfillment of prophecy. Yes, he had new interpretations, but he also wasn’t coming up with new stuff left and right. He was bringing the Jews back to the proper understanding of the Old Testament, which they had missed over the course of their rebellion against God.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Well that’s just an interpretation of the bible and I have another interpretatin.
Also remember that when Jesus interpreted scripture the people were offended.. Their wrath was manifest in a way that made them want to stone him so please don’t think that their interpretation was any more accurate that today’s interpretation.
I submit it is not.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 6:03 pm
There is only one right interpretation of the Bible, and it is our job to find what it is. That is why we have the church. As a Protestant, I do not believe the church has a higher authority than laypersons to interpret, but we all interpret the text together to arrive at the right conclusion. The Bible is not a post-modern document with multiple meanings. It says one thing and one thing only. You can’t just twist it to suit your own opinions. How do you substantiate your interpretation?
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Also, they wanted to stone him because he basically said that God had chosen to heal Gentiles instead of Jews who rejected him. And Gentiles did not seek God, he simply saved them by his grace.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I interpret scriptures like Jesus did; perfectly.
LikeLike
October 31, 2013 at 6:21 pm
You seriously claim to interpret the Scriptures perfectly? What arrogance! You have great hubris my friend, and there really is no talking with you if you take this attitude.
LikeLike
November 1, 2013 at 10:00 am
Mickey:
That’s what they said about Jesus ……and there are many parallels
John 6: 48 “I am that bread of life”.
59 “These things said he in the computer, as he taught in
WordPress.”
60 “…………when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying;
who can stand to hear it?”
66 “From that time many ……. went back, and talked no more with
him.
67 “Then said He………, Will ye also go away?
It is worth noting that Romans 2 supports and endorses atheism made obvious in this passage:
14 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another;)”
LikeLike
November 1, 2013 at 10:08 am
Mickey:
Do you think you interpret scriptures perfectly?
If not then please tell me one scripture you do not understand?
I submit that your first reply to the first question will be to admit that you do not know or understand everything in the bible; and further, I submit the answer to the second question will be that you will not be able to list one scripture as an example of what you do not know or understand in the bible.
LikeLike
November 1, 2013 at 10:22 am
Mickey you also said:
“Jesus interpreted the Bible the same way Jewish Rabbis at his time did.”
That is a completely false statement and shows a lack of understanding and here is an example of why.
If ye had known what this means, ‘I will have mercy, and not sacrifice’, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12
12 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Mark 2:27-28
25-28 Jesus said, “Really? Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was hungry, along with those who were with him? How he entered the sanctuary and ate fresh bread off the altar, with the Chief Priest Abiathar right there watching—holy bread that no one but priests were allowed to eat—and handed it out to his companions?” Then Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made to serve us; we weren’t made to serve the Sabbath. The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath. He’s in charge!”
Luke 6
The Sabbath was made for Man not Man for the Sabbath.
6 1-2 On a certain Sabbath Jesus was walking through a field of ripe grain. His disciples were pulling off heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands to get rid of the chaff, and eating them. Some Pharisees said, “Why are you doing that, breaking a Sabbath rule?”
3-4 But Jesus stood up for them. “Have you never read what David and those with him did when they were hungry? How he entered the sanctuary and ate fresh bread off the altar, bread that no one but priests were allowed to eat? He also handed it out to his companions.”
5 Then he said, “The Sabbath was made for Man not Man for the Sabbath.”
LikeLike
November 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm
FOR ALL YOU RELIGIOUS DIE HARDS WHO THINK GENDER IDENTITY IS A CHOICE READ THIS LATEST TWIST STORY:
The BBC’s Stephen Evans in Berlin says that it’s not yet clear what this will mean for German law on marriage
Australia endorses gender choice
Q&A: How do you define sex?
Germany has become Europe’s first country to allow babies with characteristics of both sexes to be registered as neither male nor female.
Parents are now allowed to leave the gender blank on birth certificates, in effect creating a new category of “indeterminate sex”.
The move is aimed at removing pressure on parents to make quick decisions on sex assignment surgery for newborns.
However, some campaigners say the new law does not go far enough.
As many as one in 2,000 people have characteristics of both sexes.
‘Bruised and scarred’
Sarah Graham, intersex woman and counsellor: “This pink and blue thing is a nonsense”
They are known as “intersex” people because they have a mixture of male and female chromosomes or even genitalia which have characteristics of both genders.
The intense difficulty for parents is often that a gender has to be chosen very quickly so that the new child can be registered with the authorities, the BBC’s Steve Evans in Berlin reports.
Sometimes surgery is done on the baby to turn its physical characteristics as far as possible in one direction or the other, our correspondent says.
The law in Germany has been changed following a review of cases which revealed great unhappiness.
In one case, a person with no clear gender-defining genitalia was subjected to surgery. The person said many years later: “I am neither a man nor a woman. I will remain the patchwork created by doctors, bruised and scarred.”
German passports, which currently list the holder’s sex as M for male or F for female, will have a third designation, X, for intersex holders, according to the interior ministry.
Silvan Agius, ILGA-Europe: “It does not address the surgeries… and that’s not good”
It remains unclear what impact the change will have on marriage and partnership laws in Germany.
Current laws define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and civil partnerships are reserved for same-sex couples.
Silvan Agius of IGLA-Europe, which campaigns for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex people, said the law needed to go further.
“While on the one hand it has provided a lot of visibility about intersex issues… it does not address the surgeries and the medicalisation of intersex people and that’s not good – that has to change,” he told the BBC.
While Germany is the first country in Europe to legally recognise a third gender, several other nations have already taken similar steps.
Third gender recognition
Australia – passport applications since 2011
Bangladesh – passport applications since 2011
Germany – on birth certificates from 2013
India – electoral roll since 2009
Nepal – census since 2007
New Zealand – passport applications since 2012
Australians have had the option of selecting “x” as their gender – meaning indeterminate, unspecified or intersex – on passport applications since 2011. A similar option was introduced for New Zealanders in 2012.
In South Asia, Bangladesh has offered an “other” gender category on passport applications since 2011.
Nepal began recognising a third gender on its census forms in 2007 while Pakistan made it an option on national identity cards in 2011.
India added a third gender category to voter lists in 2009.
While transgender or intersex people have long been accepted in Thailand and are officially recognised by the country’s military, they do not have any separate legal status.
SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24767225
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 6:43 am
I never said I interpret perfectly. I also don’t think I understand all the Scriptures. Heck, I probably haven’t even read all of them more than once. There are several passages I don’t understand. But I do understand the ones you are talking about, and there is no way to come to your interpretations using the proper methods of exegesis. The Bible is not a book that can just be twisted to say whatever you want. It has a definite message. As for the rabbis, not all of them were the same. Jesus himself told his people in Matthew 23 to listen to what they say but do not practice what they preach. The rabbis should have known better. They ignored the proper teachings of Scripture in favor of ones which suited their own purposes. As for gender identity, that’s fine if other countries think gender is ambiguous but that doesn’t make it right. I think transgenders should of course have citizenship rights, never said any different. That’ what I’m trying to tell you, though. I believe how the Bible addresses this issue. It is very clear from Scripture that God made man male and female, not a situation to where they can choose. All transgender people are still the same gender they were born with, whether they acknowledge it or not. Most of the gay agenda is run by sentiment, not principles. There is no foundation to stand on to uphold the rightness of homosexuality. You may not agree with the Bible’s teachings on it, hence your disagreement.
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 8:13 am
Mickey:
“There are several passages I don’t understand.” was my first prediction in my last commentary, and you have not provided one, was my second prediction.
So tell me one of the several passages you do not understand?
I’ll wait.
Regarding one specific transgender definition; namely, “People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves.”
I think you did not read the report article I referenced because the new Law in Germany leaves the gender blank when children are born with characteristics of both male and female; and, that Law is RIGHT!
I have written before an explanation about gender that religionists do not take into consideration or when confronted with the explanation, discount it because of their indoctrination of what a male or female is, so allow me to enlighten you about modern gender identity, not stoneage (Biblical, Koran OT, the so called Holy Books and most inappropriately named writings that ever existed) on modern gender identity:
God does not punish behaviour, any more than gravity punishes behaviour if you don’t have a solid foothold; but, you could fall and hurt yourself or worse in some cases. Men punish behaviour;, it’s written in their law: for the crime, for the punishment and for the deterrence; that is, the Mosaic eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth revenge mentality of the OT, again written by men claiming to speak on behalf of the god they created but discarded by Jesus when he bade you listen to another side called compassion which the entire Justice System in the Christian world has ignored throughout its history
Jesus said: “Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: ‘Don’t hit back at all.’ If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Show kindness and love to your enemies who may have never seen it before. Live and love generously among your fellowmen.”
AND AGAIN: “You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you, the God that lives within you, the Father who would not give you anything but GOOD things…….if you let him”.
Your sexual instincts are perfectly normal to you and they are perfectly normal to those who have a gestational anomaly that does you no harm, no hurt, it causes you nothing except to step on the sensitivities for activities that religion has taught you to be disgusted with holding you in thrall by a herd mentality which you all feel a need, an urge to condemn and ostracize like the Scribes and Pharisees had a need and an urge to condemn and ostracize Jesus for the good he was trying to show them. They, like yourself, refused to accept others because of their imbedded indoctrination of obedience to the laws they made on behalf of the god they created, whether it was eating corn on the sabbath or trying to bandage a wound of an injured person; they showed more compassion to their animals on the sabbath that they did if anyone dare break their precious laws. For goodness sakes retail grocery stores in some cities can be fined substantial amounts of money for being opened on Sunday, people needing food notwithstanding!
You need to think big, not myopic.
With all due respect you are confused about the mind and the brain. Biology includes the brain of which the mind is a function of. I am not saying nor can anyone else say, as you allude to, that the mind determines sexual gender, that is not what I said because the mind is not subject to gestation formation, the mind is only a function of the brain and it is the brain that is subject to gestation anomalies. The mind can only function with the tools the brain is endowed with or its lack thereof. Nobody thinks themselves or wills themselves to be a certain gender; that is the argument of those who will not accept gender anomalies formed in the gestation period or a genetic effect and therefore stake their claim ONLY that gender is a lifestyle choice. Sure it is a lifestyle but not a choice of the mind, rather an inevitable consequence of the brain. Michelle Bachman has a school for converting gay people based solely on their belief that gender is a lifestyle choice but that is their belief that the mind is in control and not the brain. Two different pieces of the puzzle to discern.
I appreciate your communications.
As I mentioned in previous posts, gender is not determined in the human by the genitalia between his legs but by the gender brain in his head; that’s where gender determinant is expressed; genitalia is merely the mechanical mechanism through which the expression is manifested exactly like the ear is the mechanical process where the ear offers the expressway to where the hearing takes place, in the brain.
For example: If a man’s body has a male’s genitalia but the man body’s gender has a female gender and is attracted to another man, that is a heterosexual attraction even though you believe it is a homosexual attraction, it is not.
When the male with the female brain sees a man and is attracted, and THAT man has a similar female brain, that works because they are both attracted heterosexually even though both men have a female brain. In this case both female brains are attracted to the male’s physical gender which is the expressway for sexual attraction in the brain.
I found out sometime ago from a friend who had close contact with gays in her extended family, that, in what we think of as a homosexual (Gay) relationship, one member assumes the role of female behaviour and the other assumes the role of male behaviour and this role playing is heterosexual in nature. I had always assumed that two men were in a homosexual union and like yourself saw only the outside physical appearance without understanding the brain gender function.
My position is not one that defends homosex behaviour, no; I do not agree with it nor have I ever practiced it but since learning the hetero nature of these relationships and brain gender, that knowledge changed my attitude.
Now, I would never suggest to any gay person that their (apparent) gay relationship is not as genuine with the tools they are dealt, as my relationship with the tools I’ve been dealt and so on the gender basis of that understanding I believe the LGBT community has every right to the same human rights as everyone else.
Those rights include marriage because love, tenderness, compassion, charity, kindness, consideration, sorrow, pain, joy and happiness is not in your cleft or between your legs but in your brain and if there is one thing I am certain of, is that where those emotes are, is the same place that Jesus said the Kingdom was (within you)and where the Father of that Kingdom resides (within you) and that same place, the brain, is where human dignity lives.
Cleft lip (cheiloschisis) and cleft palate (palatoschisis), which can also occur together as cleft lip and palate, are variations of a type of clefting congenital deformity caused by abnormal facial development during gestation.
Substituting the term homosexuality for the clefting example; otherwise, known as “same sex” attraction, I submit that some bodies develop genitalia anomalies in gestation separately and differently from brain gender development in the same way as the cleft anomaly occurs in the human population in both sexes.
I further submit that a surgical operation to correct the gestation anomaly that reverses the physical genitalia anomaly (sex change) to conform with the brain gender (the real determinant gender seat) is every bit as valid and should be every bit as acceptable as an operation to repair the cleft anomaly.
Furthermore I submit that the Brain/Body anomaly while as unseemly perhaps as the cleft lip anomaly may be to the majority of society, is not an abomination by any means; certainly, not to those who understand this as an anomaly of biological function.
In addition this anomaly occurs in the general population from normal heterosexual activity more than general society cares to admit to, especially religious societies that have readily adopted, approved “The Word” and admonish others because of ancient religious tradition, tradition formulated by societies that did not understand gestation deficiencies any more than they understood the so called “demonic possession” (of epileptics) as a function of neurology anomalies.
Whether the gender anomaly is corrected by physical surgery or not is not the issue here entirely however; the main issue is that society in general and religious sects in particular must recognize the anomaly for what it is and accept it with understanding, especially in light of the preponderance of evidence that many parishioners, priests and preachers in all walks of religion are themselves afflicted by this anomaly and therefore (treating others as they want to be themselves treated) should be tolerant of their fellow humans out of compassion if not outright shame for ostracizing the LGBT Community amid the LGBT’s many pleas (prayers) to be accepted as normal human beings freckles and all.
“What is Truth”? Truth is the compelling acceptance of the brain based on Memory(the Spirit Guide) gleaning from a bundle of experiences of the 7 Senses, neurons firing in genetic controlled pathway sequences and sometimes genetically uncontrolled pathways and mutations, proteins and protein and vital vitamin deficiencies, drugs, over saturation and under nourished nutrients, religion, ritualism, reptile brain function, belief, emotion, hormones, wish, hope, desire, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego; along with, joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.
There is no such behaviour as homosexuality; this does not exist. Sexual orientation is designed, formed and behaviour oriented by what is between your ears(The Brain) not what’s between your legs ( the genitals). And here is an illustration which you cannot possibly fail to understand:
“Hearing, like sexuality, is a purely mechanical process.
I use my thoracic and abdominal muscles so that I can use my thoracic cavity as a bellows to produce a draft of air that will pass across my larynx and by tautening or slackening the vocal chords, I’ll produce vibrations that are projected into the atmosphere and caught by two cup shaped appendages which you have on the side of your head and they’re focused on the outer membrane called the eardrum that begins to vibrate in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and you see, attached to that outer membrane, the eardrum, there’s a little bone called the hammer that’s in contact with another little bone called the anvil and it begins to strike it, motivated by the eardrum in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and that little bone, the anvil, is in touch with another little bone called the stirrup, so called, because it’s like what you might use if you were riding a horse and that, in its turn, is in contact with an inner membrane that contains fluid and the vibrations are communicated through the fluid to the nerve end that then convey an impulse to a certain area of your brain; and then, you know exactly what I’m talking about. You see, it’s purely a mechanical process. You don’t hear anything with your ear, you know that, vibrations are simply communicated, where you hear is in the brain.”
It’s extremely difficult to get over the physical limitations of indoctrination and get into the spiritual understanding that sexual orientation resides in the brain.”
Being Human, learning to crawl, walk, run.The brain is the human experience, WHERE THE SPIRIT DWELLS. Same, apparent gender based on genitalia leaves you a much poorer person; IS YOUR SPIRIT MALE OR FEMALE?
Now tell me a biblical passage you don’t understand. Any?
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 8:39 am
Mickey:
WHAT IS AN AXIOM?
A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer.
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 8:48 am
If it will make you happy, I do not completely understand Daniel 9, for example. And again, concerning gender identity, I believe that God determines this, because I believe the Bible. It is all about what your authority is. Also, I believe in Jesus’ teachings on love. However, the one about paying back your enemies is a bit misinterpreted. In the first century culture, hitting someone in public was a way of shaming them before others. Jesus is speaking against the natural impulse to regain your honor by payback and proposing a new solution: let them make a fool of themselves. By refusing to pay them back, they are the ones who look dishonorable. Same with going two miles with the soldier. You are shaming them and showing how unreasonable they are. Same with the tunic. It does not speak against self-defense, only trying to defend your own honor. For that, we leave it up to God. As for the gender identity issue once again, to say that gender identity is determined by the brain means that I can be whatever I want. But in fact, gender is determined by the chromosomes in our bodies. If a hermaphrodite was born, their gender would be determined by whether they had xx or xy chromosomes. Its all genetic, and it can’t be changed. All males have some female characteristics, and we all have varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. If we are male, we have more of the former, and if female more of the latter. The Bible also clearly teaches that God punishes behavior. Jesus also teaches that. Just read Revelation.
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 9:35 am
The Bible is a book written by men claiming to be messengers of a supernatural entity and used magic to prove it as they did when they tricked Moses at the burning bush. Moses was a Magician and competed for Pharaoh’s favour with the other court magicians.
The Bible clearly teaches that man punishes behaviour, not God. The only God there is, is the one Jesus referred to as the Father that lives within you in Lk 17:21 so all other references in the bible about God refers to the non existent supernatural caricature concept of man’s creation.
When you talk about being whatever you want, gender wise, that is not the case; you are confusing the mind with the brain, chromosomes with genetics. The Gender is not a mind choice. Jesus, didn’t you understand anything I wrote?
Generally there usually comes a point in dialogue when one needs to conclude.
“To he who has understanding no explanation is necessary.
To he who does not have understanding, no explanation is possible.”
Jesus had nothing to do with Revelation and I think that Thomas Jefferson sums Revelation up quite nicely:
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
—————————————————————————
Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category.
What does this mean? Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms.
In the same way, nature presents us with sex anatomy spectrums. Breasts, penises, clitorises, scrotums, labia, gonads—all of these vary in size and shape and morphology. So-called “sex” chromosomes can vary quite a bit, too. But in human cultures, sex categories get simplified into male, female, and sometimes intersex, in order to simplify social interactions, express what we know and feel, and maintain order.
So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins. Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex.
In our work, we find that doctors’ opinions about what should count as “intersex” vary substantially. Some think you have to have “ambiguous genitalia” to count as intersex, even if your inside is mostly of one sex and your outside is mostly of another. Some think your brain has to be exposed to an unusual mix of hormones prenatally to count as intersex—so that even if you’re born with atypical genitalia, you’re not intersex unless your brain experienced atypical development. And some think you have to have both ovarian and testicular tissue to count as intersex.
Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA (Intersex Society of North America) take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex.
We work to build a world free of shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgeries for anyone born with what someone believes to be non-standard sexual anatomy.
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 9:53 am
I think you’re right that we should conclude this dialogue. We have reached an impasse. And just to let you know, I understand everything you have said. It’s just that I do not agree. You seem to think that just because you give a lot of facts, this means you are right. I understand that, but the difference lies in our worldview. Stephen Jay Gould, an atheist, once said, “All evidence is interpreted in light of assumption.” This was a very honest statement concerning the evidence brought forth by science. For example, in the issue of evolution vs. creation, scientists are all looking at the same evidence on both sides, yet they interpret them differently. This is because they have different worldviews. Atheists are naturalists, and do not believe in a deity. Christians are theists, and already assume God exists. They each interpret the evidence in kind. There is no escape from intellectual bias to some degree. As for Revelation, I am aware of what Thomas Jefferson said, but that does not mean he was right. That book is riddled with Old Testament imagery, and so knowledge of that is necessary for understanding. There are differing interpretations over what it means, but it can be understood with time and work. It’s a highly symbolic book, so reading it simply at face value just doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
November 2, 2013 at 10:07 am
Take care remember Jesus knew he was everyman and he did not condemn everyman for what he knew he was. Think likewise and may you develop your path without the supernaturalism of myths, miracles and magic and use the Wisdom of Proverbs to practice discretion as the better part of religious valor.
And don’t worry about Daniel; it is, for the most part, the embellished fantasies mythology is created with.
LikeLike
December 30, 2013 at 4:00 am
I oppose gay marriage, but I’m not Christian or gay. I’m kind of an atheist but more of a freethinker.
I’m also kind of an anarchist, so I don’t care much about government laws, but I think homosexuals who get “married” should know that what they’re doing is philosophically wrong, unnatural, and unhealthy, and I don’t hesitate to say that publicly.
LikeLike
December 30, 2013 at 11:56 am
Matthew Chiglinsky:
Of course you have your opinion and a right to exercise it but the right to exercise an opinion and the right or wrong of an opinion are two different things.
The government whose laws you may loathe, may or may not give you the right of free speech to express your opinion but the right or wrong of the opinion is subjective and your opinion speaks only for yourself.
Getting “married” and “doing what they’re doing” are two separate issues. They are getting married in order to have all the benefits that society provides married couples such as inheritance rights, visitation rights and a few thousand other rights they would not otherwise have without the “marriage” title.
As far as your comments that “what they’re doing is philosophically wrong, unnatural, and unhealthy” is missing the caveat: ‘according to your understanding with the limited knowledge you have’ despite your “freethinker” status.
But did you ever wonder that millions of other people in the world who also consider themselves “freethinkers” disagree with your idea of what it means to Free Think?
LikeLike
January 1, 2014 at 1:39 pm
What is wrong with the world that keeps it still, in thrall, to a system of caste, of coloured inflections, of black, of white?…. you know, when my soulmate caresses my arm, my back, my pain, I do not feel a black touch, a white touch, a coloured touch; what I feel and what I love about my soul mate, is the human touch and that human touch of love has no companion with the division that has engulfed the world for far too long!
LikeLike