Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. They are just not Peer Reviewed Published Papers

They are peer reviewed. It's an indisputable fact. You are not the arbiter of judging what is or is not peer reviewed, but rather the process of an article being reviewed by the peers of the author--some that my previous posts either linked directly to or to cites that contained direct links to--is what decides if a paper is peer reviewed or not. Government papers, they've been reviewed. An organization of universities? They've been reviewed. Published in a major scientific or academic publication? They've been reviewed. The summarized things to spot a peer reviewed paper is plenty enough to know what I posted is legit. And you having to copy paste an entire article does look bad. It looks like you had to look up what a peer reviewed paper is, copied and pasted the results here, and couldn't summarize it because you don't know them well enough to do so.

 

[Thanda]

I mean that Tanakh says nothing about marriage, and people originally just got together and had sex. At some point they added family in recognition of a male acquiring a female, and eventually we end up with more formal ceremonies.

Please cite your sources for all these assertions.

Secondly - is the Tanakh the only thing the Jews ever wrote?

Homosexual relationships have been going on as long as heterosexual relationships.

You know well that is not what I meant. Secondly it is clearly not true. Thirdly incestuous relationships have also been going on for a long time. But they are taboo now and have been for a very long time - as have homosexual relationships. So the operative word you should have paid attention to was "normal". Did the people of the time consider it normal or did gay people have to conduct their relationships undercover?

Why would they mention same-sex relationships, - when they are about promoting patriarchy and inheritance through men collecting women?

And I might add, - Even the so-called - "wedding" at Cana isn't actually what we consider a wedding.

Gamos didn't actually mean marriage. - It was a ceremony where a male owner of a female, - father, brother, etc., did bind that possession - for sex purposes - to another male, as owner. This could be a permanent female for breeding purposes, - or as is obvious from the Bible, a maid-servant used for sex, or a concubine, etc.

For instance - if you look up the Greek Hieros gamos - you will find it is a coming together in a sex rite.

We have changed the definition, and now call it marriage. Same-sex couples have gotten together with a ceremony, for as long as heterosexual couples have.

Again, sources for all these wonderful assertions would be appreciated.

It would also help if explained exactly why the marriage would cease to be a marriage, or a wedding cease to be a wedding, if the situation was as you describe (but I first need sources for you assertions).

We start seeing writings against, - later, - after contact with other patriarchal cultures making the same change to full patriarchy. The idea being that a male can no longer act as a "lowly inferior" female. And by thus, Bringing male superiority into question.

So the Jews were so patriarchal, women were nothing more than property, but they weren't patriarchal enough stop people from having sex with others of the same sex? So these men, who were so keen to own women they sometimes had multiple, allowed women to take themselves out of the marriage pool by declaring themselves to be lesbian? Are you really thinking about what you are saying?

I did not say it was never forbidden. Later patriarchy begins to forbid it. They thought women were inferior, - and thus for a "superior" male to be "on the bottom" so to say, - to them - demeaned all men. It shook patriarchal ideas of superiority. Thus it became a death sentence.

Okay, so I would appreciate it if you gave a timeline for the "Kind of Patriarchal" to "Full Patriarchal". And as always, sources would be great.

 

[Serenity7855]

They are peer reviewed. It's an indisputable fact. You are not the arbiter of judging what is or is not peer reviewed, but rather the process of an article being reviewed by the peers of the author--some that my previous posts either linked directly to or to cites that contained direct links to--is what decides if a paper is peer reviewed or not. Government papers, they've been reviewed. An organization of universities? They've been reviewed. Published in a major scientific or academic publication? They've been reviewed. The summarized things to spot a peer reviewed paper is plenty enough to know what I posted is legit. And you having to copy paste an entire article does look bad. It looks like you had to look up what a peer reviewed paper is, copied and pasted the results here, and couldn't summarize it because you don't know them well enough to do so.

Again, your post shows your lack of familiarity about Peer Reviewed Papers.The entire post is about me and what I can and cannot do. You are making this too personal so your judgement is becoming clouded by your enmity towards me. That is the only explanation I can think of why you are saying that the apple that I am eating is an orange when I know it is an apple. How do I know that? Because you said "You are not the arbiter of judging what is or is not peer reviewed," You think I am an arrogant know-it-all instead of someone whose experience has dictated that I know what is and is not a peer reviewed paper. You are just personally attacking my intellectual abilities in order to discredit my argument, which is sound. If you can stupefy me enough then you can say "I am dense so whatever he says is bound to be wrong.

The articles that were posted here are not published papers. Your insistence that they are is the result of my claim that no papers have been published showing a connection between HIV and AID. By my being right cast serious aspersions on the whole hypothesis. It matters not to you if you are right or wrong you just want to insure that I am wrong. You are wasting your time. I know that I am right. God knew about people like you when He said "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me."

 

[Watchmen]

Somebody, please close this thread. Has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Serenity7855]

Somebody, please close this thread. Has nothing to do with the OP.

When ever you reach these many posts in one thread they rarely are.

 

[Thanda]

That is just your opinion.

In reality - since they have been with us from the beginning, - we have to assume they gave us some evolutionary advantage for survival.

For instance - several studies have shown more homosexual births after catastrophes. Thus we could conclude that after ancient catastrophes, war, etc., - homosexual births would have slowed down population growth, - while still having extra hands to rebuild, - and then start gathering enough food and supplies to again sustain a breeding population.

We need not assume such a things. And a link to those studies would also be great.

 

[JoStories]

Whatever it may be, Jesus Christ (considered a God by most Christians) re-affirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. And as he promised he continued to give revelation to his apostles to give them in their decision as is shown on numerous occasions in the book of acts. I think you would agree that if you were God and you believed homosexuality to be a good gift you had given to man that you would feel a need to talk about to, at the very least, ensure that people do not persecute those so inclined. We see that God did not such thing.

Therefore we cannot simply dismiss it by saying it was in the Old Testament and that is why it appeared in the new. Jesus himself and the apostles were not bound by what was written in the Old testament as they showed on numerous occasions.

I will concede that Jesus did say that marriage was between a man and a woman. But he also did not say anything about SSM or homosexuality. You mention the book of acts but Acts was written by Paul, known to be a misogynist, at best. And while I know it troubles some, the fact remains that he never met Jesus. I don't think viewing homosexuality as a 'gift' is necessarily the right way to view this anyway. Homosexuality simply is. I could no more change my sexuality than you could.

 

[JoStories]

Indeed. I just happen to consider that having families and raising them is still an important aspect of human life. Look at Japan - a very prosperous country but experiencing a decline as a result of a demographic crises. The population is getting old because people have become lax about getting married and having children - they prioritise their careers instead. The government has had to step in and offer incentives for people to get married. Marriage between a man and a woman should always be held sacred. It holds the key to our survival as a human race - same-sex relationship don't offer that.

This is why in the past it was seen fit to give special attention to heterosexual unions - even devising marriage to secure them. What gay marriage advocates have demanded (and got in some places) is for their relationships to be given the same status even though they clearly don't offer the same benefits.

Is it that Japan has gotten lax about having children or is it that they see the over burdened planet we have and are trying to decrease the amount of people who populate it. We have strained the earth to breaking points, literally. Whether our species survives or not depends more on how mindful we are of both perpetuating the species and making sure the earth has enough trees, and such so that we can breathe, drink water, and so forth.

 

[JoStories]

There is a couple who are my friends. They got married a few months after I did (in 2013). For a while we had the usual jokes about when they would be having children. But after a while it was clear it was no laughing matter - they were having trouble having children. They went to all the doctors they could and tried everything and now they have given birth. They did not intend to not have children - they were not even aware there were problems. When they realised they did all they could to overcome those problems.

That is why I continue to emphasize - homosexuality is not a strength to be emphasized or a gift to be appreciated - it is a weakness to be overcome.

well then, if you are going to eliminate all couples who cannot have children, such as SS couples, then we would need to include couples who carry the gene for Tay Sachs, or those who have a child with trisomy 21, or any other genetically caused disease or deformity as that would not perpetuate the species. This is similar to what Hitler wanted.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, I'm saying that your posts don't convince me of your expertise in that area. Peer reviewed scholarship is part and parcel of the biblical study you so readily dismiss with regard to my arguments.

To be honest, your opinion about me does not cause me to loss any sleep, If you do not believe me then fine, your posts don't convince me that you are a member of the clergy either.

I dismiss it on the ground that it is secular knowledge of what men believe is the truth. Men get it wrong, the Holy Ghost doesn't. Plus, God gave us what we need to know in scripture. When ever someone reads from its pages the inspiration they receive is unique to them. By getting someone to interpret it for you by using secular knowledge draws you away from God as you are not getting the message internded specifically for you

 

[sojourner]

To be honest, your opinion about me does not cause me to loss any sleep

Good! We wouldn't want you to be cross.

your posts don't convince me that you are a member of the clergy either

Sucks for you, I guess.

I dismiss it on the ground that it is secular knowledge of what men believe is the truth. Men get it wrong, the Holy Ghost doesn't.

And this also holds true for medicine. Did the Holy Spirit tell you that "HIV doesn't cause AIDS?" Or was it the "secular knowledge" found in all those "peer-reviewed" articles you posted. You seem to be all for "secular knowledge" when it suits your position, eh?

Plus, God gave us what we need to know in scripture.

So, let's forget about nutritional science, medicine, immunology, the internet, electricity, meteorology and chemistry -- you know, stuff we need in order to function in today's world.

When ever someone reads from its pages the inspiration they receive is unique to them.

"Inspiration" and "knowledge" are two different things.

By getting someone to interpret it for you by using secular knowledge draws you away from God as you are not getting the message internded specifically for you

No, you listen to the information, and then use it as a base for your inspired interpretation. Exegesis and interpretation are two different things, Bishop. Were you not aware of that??

 

[sojourner]

Was homosexuality not once categorised (by scientists no less) as a disorder?

They used to think epilepsy was "evil spirits," too. Shall we continue to burn people at the stake to cure their epilepsy?

 

[sojourner]

Wait, AIDS denialism in this thread now? Seriously?!

It's all they got.

 

[sojourner]

You think I am an arrogant know-it-all instead of someone whose experience has dictated that I know what is and is not a peer reviewed paper

Oh, you mean the same thing you've accused me of with regard to biblical knowledge, yes?

You are just personally attacking my intellectual abilities in order to discredit my argument, which is sound.

Oh, you mean the same thing you've done to me all along, yes?


What's good for the goose, my friend...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gravity is the same today as it was 4000 years ago as HIV is a harmless retrovirus has been that way for at least 200 years and is the same today. HIV did not cause AIDS in 1980 and it still doesn't cause AIDS today. Time is irrelevant. Science does not change it discovers and develops new technology using known natural laws. But you know that, after all, you write papers. It is laughable

I was referring to the research involved in the study of HIV/AIDS. Clearly we've come a long way technologically over the last 30 years. We have all kinds of tests and research methods that weren't available in the past. Not to mention all we've learned about medicine, disease and health overall during that amount of time. Science changes fast.

You're providing facts, quotes and articles that are pretty outdated at this point. It's as if you haven't read any modern research on HIV/AIDS. But even if you didn't, there have been enough studies conduced over the last few decades to link HIV to AIDS which is why prevailing thought is that HIV causes AIDS.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not an illness, it is a syndrome. A syndrome is a group of symptoms which consistently occur together, or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms. The problem being that the symptoms are the same as 27 other diseases. The illness can be one of twenty seven different diseases, therefore, If you have TB (a well known disease) and HIV (a harmless passenger retrovirus) then you have AIDS (a set of symptom that are identical to the TB, because it is TB). Most astute individuals would smell a rat by now, however, people are gullible and believe the big boys, like Robert Gallo, who is now a very rich man, rather then the conscientious caring people, like Peter Duesberg. Of course it is all hype intended to deceive. By redefining AIDS they increase numbers of patients taking AZT, and other cocktails, which increases the drug companies profit margin.

You should have read some of the material I posted for you:

"An HIV-infected person is diagnosed with AIDS when his or her immune system is seriously compromised and manifestations of HIV infection are severe. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently defines AIDS in an adult or adolescent age 13 years or older as the presence of one of 26 conditions indicative of severe immunosuppression associated with HIV infection, such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a condition extraordinarily rare in people without HIV infection. Most other AIDS-defining conditions are also "opportunistic infections" which rarely cause harm in healthy individuals. A diagnosis of AIDS also is given to HIV-infected individuals when their CD4+ T-cell count falls below 200 cells/cubic millimeter (mm3) of blood. Healthy adults usually have CD4+ T-cell counts of 600-1,500/mm3 of blood. In HIV-infected children younger than 13 years, the CDC definition of AIDS is similar to that in adolescents and adults, except for the addition of certain infections commonly seen in pediatric patients with HIV. (CDC.MMWR 1992;41(RR-17):1; CDC. MMWR 1994;43(RR-12):1)."
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/pages/hivcausesaids.aspx

So they've got an HIV antibody test, an antigen test and a nucleic acid test to find out if HIV is present in a person's body. Then there are specific infections that are present in people suffering from AIDS that are rarely found in individuals who are not infected. Those things together aren't enough for you though. Do you think doctors and scientists are completely incompetent, that they couldn't possibly narrow down the symptoms enough to make a proper diagnosis? That they wouldn't know how to rule out other possible infections or diseases in order to make a proper diagnosis? That there isn't any protocol? Like I said before, you need to make a lot of unnecessary assumptions about a lot of things in order to make your conspiracy work.


I have no idea who Robert Gallo is but I do know you're the only one talking about him. He's not the guy who invented AZT, no matter how many times you say it.

What are these other 27 diseases you keep referencing?

If you present me with relevant evidence instead of unrelated essays and studies then I will keep rejecting them as insignificant. I have asked you to provide evidence of your claim that HIV causes AIDS. Thus far you have not done that, regardless of what you say.

This is getting pretty old at this point. That has been done. Two other posters have also provided evidence as well.

Then why do you keep telling me to back my anecdotal point up with evidence and then say that I over indulge in backing my claims up. You are moving goalposts. Oh, I have used Conservapedia articles twice because they said what I wanted to say. Do you think that if you feel that a site isn't up to your standards that everything the write is lies?

What?

I feel that a site that is not academic or educational in nature, or that is not associated with a credible scientific organization and/or that does not contain proper references and citation and/or that is purely opinion based, is not up to snuff.

Even if that were true, you cannot site a paper on particulate ingress through micro filters to substantiate your claim that HIV causes AIDS. Which is what you have done so far. So, you are attempting to elevate your credibility, however, you are just showing you snobbery and bias instead of your integrity in obtaining the truth rather than recognition. The truth is the truth regardless of who writes it. Secondly, how do you determine what a credible source is? John told you, you found a list of them on the internet, or is it just your opinion?

I have done that. And I've cited scientific organizations and their websites that agree with what I say and disagree with you.

You mean to tell me you don't know what a credible source is, after all this?

I do not believe you. You haven't mentioned it before. You are too vague about them to now make such a unlikely claim.

I don't care if you believe me. But I think it's pretty obvious here, who is familiar with scientific literature and who is not. I can forward you one that I have written, if you'd like.

An assertion without corroboratory evidence is no more than a bunch of empty, meaningless words. Why would anyone believe this when you have not given evidence to prove it. I have ignored unrelated articles from individuals on the internet, most of which are far from proving what I asked you to prove. I have read them and have told you that they are not evidence and why I believe they are not evidence.



You have been presented with the unmitigated truth that a 3rd year school kid could see, it is that obvious, and you dismiss it out of hand.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand. It was directly addressed.

You do not have a clue then claim to have published a paper. Kochs Postulation has not been fulfilled in any of it's four postulates. Why am I wasting my time with a wannabe intellect?[/QUOTE]
I've never claimed to have published a scientific paper. I said I have written many.

Koch's postulation has been revised and altered and even then, it still fulfills them. This claim seems to be more of a gish gallop type of claim to me because it's really not all that relevant to begin with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're either being dishonest, not reading the sources, or are just blind. They are peer reviewed and they do show a link between HIV and AIDS.

Intentionally blind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This relates to you more than me

Good one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that were true then as with science you would prove your hypothesis both right and wrong. You would look at all the evidence instead of the evidence that best suits you.

It's not my hypothesis. It's the current, prevailing, mainstream view of HIV/AIDS based on all the available evidence.

The person that's only looking at the evidence that best suits them is the one who keeps repeating that evidence that is literally right on front of their face isn't there.

 

[Serenity7855]

.

And this also holds true for medicine. Did the Holy Spirit tell you that "HIV doesn't cause AIDS?" Or was it the "secular knowledge" found in all those "peer-reviewed" articles you posted. You seem to be all for "secular knowledge" when it suits your position, eh?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about your function as a clergy and not the scientific advancements of mankind. Probably those old semantics being manipulated again. I state one area of secularism and you then take it to it's extreme, to either wind me up or out of ignorance. Either way it does little to aggrandize your credibility.

So, let's forget about nutritional science, medicine, immunology, the internet, electricity, meteorology and chemistry -- you know, stuff we need in order to function in today's world.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about your function as a clergy and not the scientific advancements of mankind.

"Inspiration" and "knowledge" are two different things.

No, you listen to the information, and then use it as a base for your inspired interpretation. Exegesis and interpretation are two different things, Bishop. Were you not aware of that??

The definition of Exegesis contains the synonym "interpretation" How do you intend to wriggle out of that one?

exegesis
ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/
noun

1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.
   "the task of biblical exegesis"
   synonyms: interpretation, explanation, exposition, explication,elucidation, clarification;
   gloss, annotation

You are creating a job for yourself that is not needed. Indeed, there should be no paid ministry 13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Are you a paid clergy?

This is exactly why we are taught not to lean upon the arm of flesh. When we do so we are deceived by those whose hearts lay open to Satan and his enticing's and deceptions. These scripture below tells us that the spirit of God speaks to our souls, individually, through His Holy Spirit making the need to be told second hand information by fallible men unnecessary. By communicating directly with the spirit there can be no ambiguity. It is all there in scripture for everyone to read.

John 15:26
26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

The Holy Ghost testifies of truth, and it is through His power that we “may know the truth of all things”

Romans 8:16
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

John 16:13-14
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/QUOTE]