Quantcast
U.S. & World

Croatians vote against same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    Awesome.

    Keep up the good work

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    Giving same-sex unions the status of marriage is just wrong. A crime against nature. Lets see what happens when humans try to fuel up on gasoline and oil instead of fuel. It brings only heartache and problems to society. Good for the Croatians. I applaud their vote, now lets see if Democracy rules, or something else...tyranny?

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    Yeah, way to go Croatia! Facing some of the worst human rights violations in the EU:

    - tens of thousands of people with mental and intellectual disabilities remain stuck in overcrowded and impoverished institutions;

    - as an external border of the EU, Croatia's political asylum seekers is burgeoning. Thousands of unaccompanied migrant children lack the specialized protection required by international law, and are being victimized by human trafficking and forced labor. Reception centers for asylum seekers and refugees are overcrowded and inhumane.

    - the rights of ethnic Serbs and Roma are summarily denied, including access to a program designed to help Serbs stripped of housing rights during the war, as well as access to medical care and education for Roma who lack identity documents.

    - Croatia ranks 62nd behind Oman and Namibia for public sector corruption.

    - racial and religious persecution continues to be serious problems in Croatia.

    It can only be from naive animosity against others with which one disagrees that anyone could possibly give a shout out to Croatia for anything regarding human rights and human dignity.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 1, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    So the majority of people still choose to follow the mind and will of the Lord on that matter. In the US most people in most states voted to keep same gender marriage down. Devil will still holler like he did in California.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    @higv
    there was a time when the majority of [people supported slavery, segregation and outlawing mixed marriages but just like is happening know times change just like in California. The last four polar votes on this issue went ion favor of gay rights and poll constantly show the majority of Americans support gay marriage sorry but thats just the way American history works always moving towards a more just society.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 1, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    It does not matter what the majority of people feel about the issue, Only matters what the Lord feels about it. He never will favor people of the same gender getting in a so called marriage situation. Tragic when the majority of the people disregard the counsel of the Lord on that matter. When it was up for a vote twice people in California voted not to allow same gender marriage. Democracy was destroyed by the judges.

    The devil will always favorite it because he is only concerned with our misery. Won't help those he speedily drags down to hell. Knows the misery of never having a family so does what he can to destroy the family. It would be good if the majority of people asked the Lord for his opinion and went with it. Those that don't ask how can you claim to speak for God without speaking to him? Since the Lord will never favor that situation you can be assured the Devil will. I would rather follow the Lord on that issue. Not someone who wants us to be miserable like he is.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Dec. 1, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    @higv

    you are free to believe what you want but we as a society do not live by your interpretations of your religion.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 1, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    So only people that agree with the devil can impose there lack of morality on people but people who are Religious have to keep there mouth shut. The first amendment applies to people who disagree with you too and all laws are based on someone's morals. Besides when until recently has same gender marriage been allowed? One of the things where you can't please God without offending the devil.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    @higv
    Seriously? Who said you do not bade right to your opinion? No one is forcing you to do anything other then not violate others individual rights. If not allowing you to force others to live by your dictates makes you feel like a victim then I suppose that's the way it is going to have to be, I see no reason to appologize to the oppressor because they lost the ability to control others.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 12:55 a.m.

    @higv

    No one is taking away your right to free speech, you have the right to your point of view and to express as you wish, you do not have the right to force others to live their lives based on those views. As a society we value individual liberties and those liberties can only be abridged when the state can show a compelling state and/or social interest in doing so. Your views of your religion do not meet that threshold, plain and simple.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    If they have a corrupt court system like we have, some activist, corrupt judge will invalidate the election and legislate from the bench. Happens all the time here.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me'.

    Keep on killing your Jesus, Christians. You are your own worst enemy.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    @higv
    No one said you do not have the right to free speech (including miss representing others) and religion you do not however have tbe right to have others to not respond to and challenge your opinions and you do not have the right to force others to forgo their rights individual liberties based on your religious beliefs and opinions.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    @higv

    You seem to be able to express your opinions without any real limitations as evidenced by this board and I do not see any evidence that your church doors are being bared shut. The right to free speech does not prevent others from expressing opposing views or to force others to live based on your views nor does your right to religious freedom extend to forcing others to live by your religious belief's. No one is forcing you to get married, and no one is forcing your religion to change its ecclesiastical functions.

    @mountainman

    I agree, how dare those "Activist" judges protect people's constitutional rights and act as a check and balance as a third branch of government, so "corrupt."

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    @dray

    so protecting individual liberties is now "Tyranny?"

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 2, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @Dray --

    "A crime against nature. "

    Many nonhuman animals out in nature practice homosexual behaviors. Therefore homosexual behaviors are perfectly natural.

    In contrast, NO nonhuman animals have religion. So -- perhaps religion is actually the "crime against nature"?

    @higv --

    "people who are Religious have to keep there mouth shut."

    Many religious people already support same-sex marriage, and many denominations are happy to perform same-sex weddings. This isn't a case of religion against "the devil" -- although it may be a case of people who ignore Jesus' instruction to "love your neighbor as yourself".

    Nobody has to keep their mouths shut -- but it would be nice if some people would keep their noses out of other peoples' business.

    "when until recently has same gender marriage been allowed? "

    Same-sex marriage has been allowed in various cultures and at various times throughout human history, dating back at least to the time of the Assyrians and later the ancient Romans.

  • Denita WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    higv wrote:

    So only people that agree with the devil can impose there lack of morality on people but people who are Religious have to keep there mouth shut. The first amendment applies to people who disagree with you too and all laws are based on someone's morals. Besides when until recently has same gender marriage been allowed? One of the things where you can't please God without offending the devil.

    I am heterosexual and 100% ok with same sex marriage. I don't believe I'm satanic. I think you fail to see a distinction here that is very important. By desiring a legal, same sex marriage, gays are not imposing their morality on you. You are not required to do anything. It doesn't affect you or your marriage in the least. However, YOU are imposing YOUR morality on others by doing whatever you can to prevent a group of people from enjoying a privilege you already have for no other reason than it is against what YOU believe.

  • Denita WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Give me one non religious-based reason to oppose gay marriage. So far, nobody has been able to do it. I'm a heterosexual male who's been married for 22 years. If the gay couple next door gets married it won't change one thing about my marriage, my family, or anything else for that matter. If religion is the only reason you have to oppose something then you have no right to impose your morality on somebody who does not believe the way you do. And, no, if it becomes legal the Mormon church won't be forced to perform gay marriages in the temple, etc as they like to claim.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 2, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    No one has the right to redefine marriage. Jesus's name gets invoked in any debate people choose to take. Marriage as an institution has always been between a man and women. Lets do away with people closely related marrying, People marrying there dog or a minor. Mass confusion there. Could anyone picture Jesus condoning Same Gender Marriage when he instituted it himself or his Father before the world is. People that don't think God exists I can see them not caring one way or the other. But Same gender marriage does and will hurt society as a whole.

    California the Knight initive overturned, So a constitional amendment now how do they rule it unconstitutional does not make sense. When pointed out majority favor marriage how it has always been told don't know what they are talking about and the like. The Devil will always holler when people defend the sacred institution of marriage.

  • Stop The Nonsense El Paso, TX
    Dec. 2, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    While we are on the subject of ensuring peoples' rights, why don't we talk about the rights of the millions of fetuses that are killed each year due to voluntary abortions? Who is standing up for them? While I am opposed to gay marriage for my belief in that it will negatively affect society, I would happily allow gay couples the right to marry and even adopt the children that would otherwise be aborted.

    How about this idea: we outlaw voluntary abortions (except in the cases of rape, incest, and medically justified health risk to mother) and allow these children the right to live and be adopted by parents, be they gay or straight? (Thus we will have guaranteed the rights of two groups at the same time.) Any takers?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    @higv
    At the end of two days the problem is the same you do not get to decide for others based on your religious beliefs and there is no reliable evidence that supports our claim of a harm (unlike marring dogs and minors).

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    @higv --

    "...has always been between a man and women."

    No it hasn't. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in multiple cultures at multiple times throughout history, from the Assyrians to the ancient Romans and on from there.

    "Lets do away with people closely related marrying"

    Incest is already illegal -- there's nothing to "do away with".

    "People marrying there dog or a minor"

    Already illegal -- again, nothing to "do away with".

    Here's the defining principle: polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage. Therefore they should remain illegal.

    Gay marriage, OTOH, does NOT convey any increased risk of harm.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    "Could anyone picture Jesus condoning Same Gender Marriage"

    Actually, Jesus specifically said that men who are "born eunuchs" (a term which included homosexuals) should not marry women (Matthew 19:12).

    "People that don't think God exists I can see them not caring one way or the other"

    Again -- many religious people support same-sex marriage, and many Christian denominations are already happy to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. This is NOT a battle of religion against gay marriage.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    @higv

    "So only people that agree with the devil can impose there lack of morality on people but people who are Religious have to keep there mouth shut."

    I know is hard for you to conceptualize this, but, isn't it possible that SSM is the desire of two people who love each other to live according to YOUR morality and life style?

    Self identified "Religious people" tend to aim for the perpetuation of a human organization that regulate their lives according to a set of beliefs.

    On the other hand, self-identified "Spiritual people" tend to search for the understanding and connection with a Supreme Being/conscience and respect different ideas and life styles. They may or may not participate in a religious institution.

    Spiritual people tend to love and not pass judgment. Certainly they are not afraid of what is different.

    Many of us LGBT believe in a divine being and in following the dictates of our conscience. We give you the same right. About keeping your mouth shut.... that is up to you.

    In Croatia the Catholic religion won the referendum but History will soon determine if Croatia won or lost as society.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    RE: Contrarius, “Animals’ out in nature practice homosexual behaviors. Therefore homosexual behaviors are perfectly natural.”

    Theologians point out that man was created superior to animals and animals and are not equal with him.

    "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1:26, NIV)

    Man’s likeness to God and animals’ subservience to man implies that animals may have the "breath of life," nephesh in Hebrew, but not an immortal soul in the same sense as man’s
    .
    God prohibited the killing of man ("You shall not murder," Exodus 20:13) but not the killing of animals. Man is made in God’s image(Spiritual), so man must not kill one of his own kind. Animals do have a "soul" that survives death, it is different from man’s. It does not need redemption.

    @Animals have no religion.
    True, Christ died to save the souls of human beings, not animals

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Dec. 2, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    Great job Croatia! It's fantastic to see a nation stand up to the perversion of homosexual behavior. There is nothing positive to celebrate regarding homosexuality and it is wonderful to see a nation stand up for truth and righteousness.

    It's unfortunate to see states in the US lose their principles and values in the name of equality. There is nothing equal about heterosexuality and homosexuality. There is no reason to embrace homosexuality whatsoever.

    I hope more nations follow Croatia and the 31 or so states in the US who have taken a moral stand and said, enough is enough.

    Society has the right to say what it will or will not accept and I'm very supportive of those who stand up for what is right.

    ps, God's laws stand on their own whether you believe them or not. And, no one has to give a non religious reason for objecting to homosexuality. The objection can be for whatever reason someone chooses. You don't get to frame it any other way.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 3, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    It does not matter what the majority of people feel about the issue, Only matters what the Lord feels about it.....

    As a Personal Opinion, your statement is fine.

    As a way of making laws in a so-called democracy, your way is oppressive and rude.

    It comes as no surprise that the bishops in a country that is far more catholic than Utah is mormon got their way -- but we ought to note that the voter turnout was light.

    As for more societies a bit more advanced than Croatia -- again, let's say Utah -- the ability of a religious group to impose laws on society ought to be nil.

    Let's face it -- the only REAL objection to marriage equality is that it would give churches, such as the catholic and lds major problems in altering doctrine, when their own members and children want to marry.

    There is NO defense for the fact that some children in mormon families are automatic 2nd class citizens because they were born Gay, and are deemed to not deserve the love and the religious and community acceptance that their siblings receive.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 3, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Trying to change marriage to be a union of simply any two people has no meaning. In every place that has tried to change this, removing the purpose of marriage and procreative activity, it has only come about after a decline in the spiritual health of the nation or state, and has inevitably brought about further discrimination and intolerance against those who disagree with them.

    I'm happy for the people of Croatia; they've done themselves a service many of them may not understand the full implications of yet.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    "you do not have the right to force others to forgo their rights individual liberties"

    Tell that to the Bakery Owner in New Mexico.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 3, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    "man was created superior to animals"

    Hey -- it's you religious people who keep making the claim that homosexuality is supposedly "unnatural". If you don't actually care about nature after all, then you guys should stop bringing it up. ;-)

    @Jamescmeyer --

    "it has only come about after a decline in the spiritual health of the nation or state, and has inevitably brought about further discrimination and intolerance against those who disagree with them."

    Really??

    Please provide examples. Be specific.

    In fact, same-sex marriage has been practiced across multiple cultures at multiple times throughout history.

    In the most recent years, gay marriage has been a success in multiple other countries like Canada and the Scandinavian region.

    In ancient times, the Romans had gay marriages for roughly 1000 years.

    Please tell us exactly which cultures have experienced this supposed "further discrimination and intolerance".

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @higv --

    "...has always been between a man and women."

    No it hasn't. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in multiple cultures at multiple times throughout history, from the Assyrians to the ancient Romans and on from there.

    "Lets do away with people closely related marrying"

    Incest is already illegal -- there's nothing to "do away with".

    "People marrying there dog or a minor"

    Already illegal -- again, nothing to "do away with".

    Here's the defining issue: polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage. Therefore they should remain illegal.

    Gay marriage, OTOH, does NOT convey any increased risk of harm.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    "Could anyone picture Jesus condoning Same Gender Marriage"

    Actually, Jesus specifically said that men who are "born eunuchs" (a term which included homosexuals) should not marry women (Matthew 19:12).

    "People that don't think God exists I can see them not caring one way or the other"

    Again -- many religious people support same-sex marriage, and many Christian denominations are already happy to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. This is NOT a battle of religion against gay marriage.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    But, I thought Europe was so much more progressive than us backward Americans. Whoda thunk?

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    No, Contrarius, this is a battle of progressives attempting to redefine the institution of marriage. It is done with scorn, half truthes, demonizing and out and out lies. You want a non religious context? Contact the CDC and explain away the fact that the average homosexual male will live 20 years less than I will. Explain away the dirty little secret of homesexual partner abuse. Most of us don't accept the caricatures that you and your ilk try to paint with such broad strokes. Most homosexual couples aren't like the ones on TV. And those who oppose it aren't hate mongers you try to make us into. That is where the battle is being fought.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    @Contrarius

    "Many nonhuman animals out in nature practice homosexual behaviors."

    --------
    Of all the arguments in favor of homosexual behavior, the argument that "the animals do it" seems to be the most ridiculous of them all.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    Contrarius:

    The few examples of homosexual "behavior" in animals are based on an expression of dominance (rhesus monkeys) or protection of the young (some birds). Animals lack cognitive thought and self-awareness, so they cannot make a choice. To company human to animals is disengenuous.

    I struggled with same-sex attraction as a youth. I did not act out with another person, and over time as I fought against those desires and brought my will in line with God's, I changed. I do not have those attractions anymore. There are thousands and thousands of men and women who have done the same thing. Yet the media refuse to report this; choosing instead to "celebrate" immorality.

    God and His Word do not change. That society is moving further from God only illustrates more clearly that we are moving closer to the prophesies in scripture.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 3, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    @Coach Biff --

    "Contact the CDC and explain away the fact that the average homosexual male will live 20 years less than I will."

    You are confusing marriage with promiscuity and depression.

    LGBT individuals are 4-5 times more likely to commit suicide than straight people -- in large part because of institutionalized homophobia telling them that they are less worthy than everyone else.

    And disease transmission caused by promiscuity causes a lot of early deaths as well.

    BUT -- huge BUT -- marriage encourages monogamy, thereby DECREASING disease transmission. Marriage also encourages stable and happy family households, which decreases depression and provides a stable support network.

    Therefore, it's easy to see that gay marriage actually DECREASES the risk of harm -- through several different mechanisms.

    "Explain away the dirty little secret of homesexual partner abuse. "

    What "dirty little secret"?? Multiple studies have confirmed that intimate partner abuse amongst gay couples occurs at roughly the same rate as amongst straight couples.

    If you believe otherwise, please provide some evidence. Be specific.

    "your ilk"

    My "ilk" is made up of scientists and other logical, factual thinkers. I'm very happy with my "ilk", thanks. ;-)

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    @Contrariuserer ,keep making the claim that homosexuality is supposedly "unnatural".VS,

    The Greek for "natural function",*“natural” phusikan, 1) produced by nature, inborn, 2) agreeable to nature.

    RE: In ancient times, the Romans had gay,

    "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women Exchanged the *natural function for that which is UNnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB).

    This letter is from Paul, Jesus Christ’s slave, Chosen(Called by God) to be a missionary,…(Romans 1:1)

    Saint Peter,” Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (2 Peter 3:15)
    What’s your view on Saint Paul?

    (Matthew 19:12)in context,The gift of celibacy, People totally devoted to God, Eg.. Nuns, Paul, “I wish that all men were like I am [unmarried}.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    @Utes Fan --

    "..."the animals do it" seems to be the most ridiculous..."

    If it's ridiculous, then why do religious folks bother to continually -- and loudly -- proclaim that homosexuality is unnatural? It clearly isn't. That doesn't make it good or bad -- but it does destroy one argument that gets trotted out over and over.

    @RedWings --

    "The few examples of homosexual "behavior" in animals..."

    You're completely wrong there. In fact, as one researcher has stated, "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has **not** been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all..."

    "God and His Word do not change. "

    Of course God's word changes. Mormons believe in continuous revelation, remember?

    @sharrona --

    Sorry, but the points of your posts are often very difficult to understand.

    You appear to be agreeing with me that homosexuality is natural. Thanks for that.

    "This letter is from Paul"

    Right. Paul -- the same guy who supported slavery, thought women are inferior to men, believed that nobody should ever get divorced, and taught that it was better to remain single than to marry.

    Do you agree with everything Paul said?

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    As an EU nation, Croatia will eventually have to accept the rulings of the EU court which will no doubt rule that LGBT people cannot be denied their right to marry. Same will happen here in the USA because the Supreme Court will also hold that LGBT Americans likewise cannot be denied their right to marry a person of the same sex.

    These civil rights advances are inevitable and obvious to any serious legal analyst. Any comments to the contrary are irrelevant, including those that reference God because religion is not an admissible argument in American courts.

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    If homosexuality in animals determines what is natural (normative) behavior, then we had better be prepared to normalize homosexual rape-- the establishment of dominance among males, which accounts for a lot of homosexual behavior among animals (including, in the past, among humans. Incidentally, this behavior also occurred in human antiquity, so that lends further support for homosexual rape being normative, apparently).

    Jesus referenced homosexuals as eunuchs-- an ad hoc, biased claim made only by those with a pro-homosexual agenda. Etymological and exegetical fallacies will not advance your cause. Check the standard lexica, many of which that are written by critical scholars without a moral agenda.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    @brokenclay --

    "...animals determines what is natural (normative) behavior"

    "Natural" doesn't mean good or bad -- it simply means natural.

    "be prepared to normalize homosexual rape"

    We don't need to normalize homosexual rape any more than heterosexual rape -- BOTH of which are natural behaviors for nonhuman species.

    "Jesus referenced homosexuals as eunuchs -- an ad hoc, biased claim made only by those with a pro-homosexual agenda."

    Guess again.

    Multiple references in ancient texts bear out this interpretation. Here's just one --

    As Clement of Alexandria wrote 1800 years ago (he is quoting the Bible and then referring to followers of Basilides -- and yes, this is a direct quote from Clement):

    "'...there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth...' And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman..." (Stromata, III. 1.1) .

    They acknowledged the meaning of this phrase **1800 years ago**.

    "Check the standard lexica"

    You should check them yourself.

    The root of the Assyrian word for "eunuch" comes from "trusted ones" -- as in trusted around women. The root of the Greek word "eunuch" comes from "temple guard". Neither root requires physical alteration.

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    The abstract, "Associations of sexual identity or same-sex behaviors with history of childhood sexual abuse and HIV/STI risk in the United States" on PubMed would be well worth your read. The incidence of childhood sexual abuse among non-heterosexuals was 2.9 to 12.8 times higher than in heterosexuals, depending on the demographic. This study casts a lot of doubt on the popular theory that all homosexuality is inborn, and at least tells us that homosexuality is a complex phenomenon that can have multiple causes, environmental or otherwise. It also tells us that at least some homosexuality is a response to destructive environmental experiences. But science like this is overlooked in the media's cherry-picking, similar to Contrariuserer's contrived definition of "eunuch."

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    @brokenclay --

    "...animals determines what is natural (normative) behavior"

    "Natural" doesn't mean good or bad -- it simply means natural.

    "be prepared to normalize homosexual rape"

    We don't need to normalize homosexual rape any more than heterosexual rape -- BOTH of which are natural behaviors for nonhuman species.

    "Jesus referenced homosexuals as eunuchs -- an ad hoc, biased claim made only by those with a pro-homosexual agenda."

    Guess again.

    Multiple references in ancient texts bear out this interpretation. Here's just one --

    As Clement of Alexandria wrote 1800 years ago (he is quoting the Bible and then referring to followers of Basilides -- and yes, this is a direct quote from Clement):

    "'...there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth...' And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman..." (Stromata, III. 1.1) .

    They acknowledged the meaning of this phrase **1800 years ago**.

    "Check the standard lexica"

    You should check them yourself.

    The root of the Assyrian word for "eunuch" comes from "trusted ones" -- as in trusted around women. The root of the Greek word "eunuch" comes from "temple guard". Neither root requires physical alteration.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Woops, sorry for that duplicate post!

    @brokenclay --

    "Associations of sexual identity..."

    You should try actually reading that study before you falsely claim that it supports your point of view.

    First, "childhood" was defined as any age under 18. We already know that many LGBT people are thrown out on the streets by their families before age 18, so of course they are at higher risk for sexual abuse.

    Second, you are confusing cause and effect. As the study specifically reports, "CSA is not identified as causally related to individuals becoming gay/lesbian or bisexual as adults" and "In fact, previous studies have reported that many LGB adults remember being gender atypical as children and reported physical and sexual abuse at the hands of peers and family members because of this difference."

    You'll have to try harder than that. Next time, be sure the study actually says what you think it does.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    Contrariusier, The root of the Greek word "eunuch" comes from "temple guard".
    But,
    The Greek Root Word (Etymology From eune (a bed) ἔχω (G2192 )Also, one naturally incapacitated for marriage begetting children one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.
    MT 19:12 In context is the gift of celibacy. See 1Cor 7. Paul wished they all could be unmarried like him.

    Some of his (Paul)comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction(2 Peter 3:16 NLT)

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Contrariusier, The root of the Greek word "eunuch" comes from "temple guard". Also,
    The Greek Root Word (Etymology From eune (a bed) ἔχω (G2192 ).one naturally incapacitated for marriage begetting children one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.

    MT 19:12 In context is the gift of celibacy. See 1Cor 7. Paul wished they all could be unmarried like him.
    Some of his (Paul)comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction(2 Peter 3:16 NLT)

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    Sharrona: "The Greek Root Word (Etymology From eune (a bed) ἔχω (G2192 ).one naturally incapacitated for marriage begetting children one who voluntarily abstains from marriage."

    Online Etymology Dictionary: "originally "guard of the bedchamber or harem," from euno-, comb. form of eune "bed," of unknown origin, + -okhos, from stem of ekhein "to have, hold" (see scheme (n.)).

    The Greek and Latin forms of the word were used to translate Hebrew saris, which sometimes meant merely "palace official," in Septuagint and Vulgate, probably without an intended comment on the qualities of bureaucrats."

    I did misremember that it was "temple guard", when actually it was "bedchamber guard" or "palace official". My apologies for that.

    Again -- there is nothing in the origins of these words that requires physical alteration. And we know from ancient texts (see Clement, for example) that the term was applied quite broadly.

    In re Paul -- answer the question, Sharrona.

    Paul believed that women were inferior to men. He supported slavery. He contradicted Jesus by teaching that nobody should ever get divorced. He taught that it was better to remain single than to marry.

    Do you agree with everything Paul said?

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Here's a couple more interesting facts about ancient usage of the word "eunuch", from the wiki page on eunuchs.

    "There is some confusion regarding eunuchs in Old Testament passages, since the Hebrew word for eunuch, saris (סריס), could also refer to other servants and officials who had not been castrated but served in similar capacities. The Egyptian royal servant Potiphar is described as a saris in Genesis 39:1, although he was married and hence unlikely to have been a eunuch. " (the word "saris" was used more than 40 times in the Old Testament)

    "According to Byzantine historian Kathryn Ringrose, while the pagans of Classical Antiquity based their notions of gender in general and eunuchs in particular on physiology (the genitalia), the Byzantine Christians based them on behaviour and more specifically procreation. Hence, by Late Antiquity the term "eunuch" had come to be applied to not only castrated men, but also a wide range of men with comparable behavior, who had "chosen to withdraw from worldly activities and thus refused to procreate."

    "Hijra, a Hindi and Urdu term traditionally translated into English as "eunuch", actually refers to what modern Westerners would call male-to-female transgender people and effeminate homosexuals"

  • brokenclay Tempe, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    Contrariusester,

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll eat crow where necessary. I may have succumbed to post hoc error here. I will reference these other studies.

    But concerning the eunuch issue-- the only definition for eunuch you've given that contains the word "homosexual" or the phrase (or similar), "attracted to men," is an English translation of an Indian (read, "non-Greek") text from Wikipedia, not from a lexicon of ancient Hindi vocabulary. Clement's thirdhand source doesn't say it, BDAG doesn't say it, TDNT doesn't say it, Liddell/Scott doesn't say it. BDAG, the most authoritative NT lexicon, lists Matt 19:12a as an example of impotency, without stating any specific cause (i.e., deformity, low-sperm count, etc.).

    The lexica do acknowledge that the term did come to hold the meaning of certain leadership or service positions, without physical castration. How this definitively implies homosexuality is beyond me. How being "trusted around women" definitely implies homosexuality is equally cryptic.

    In other words, you're making questionable, ad hoc, even anachronistic, inferences about what definitions DON'T say, rather than what they are actually saying, for propaganda purposes.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @brokenclay --

    "the only definition for eunuch you've given that contains the word "homosexual" or the phrase (or similar), "attracted to men,"..."

    Remember, the ancients didn't even have the word "homosexual". The term wasn't even invented until the 1890s. Even the Greeks and Romans didn't use that term, even though they widely practiced homosexual behaviors. They were usually more focused on who was pitching and who was catching, rather than on the genders involved.

    Further, Clement of Alexandria did use the phrase "a natural sense of repulsion from a woman", which has a pretty obvious parallel meaning. And he used it 1800 years ago. And no, that isn't "third hand" -- that was the phrase he wrote himself.

    Obviously, "eunuch" didn't **always** mean homosexual. As Jesus himself stated, there were three main classes of eunuchs: those who were born eunuchs (homosexuals and those with congenital defects), made eunuchs (castrati), and chosen eunuchs (the religiously celibate). Jesus's own usage of the term proves that "eunuch" didn't always correlate with "castrated" or even "impotent" (the religiously celibate specifically gave up sex by choice, not by physical limitation).

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    Good for them.