Author |
Message |
Karuuna
Member
08-31-2000
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 2:43 pm
Mocha, yes and no. Does that help? Some will say that Jesus' sacrifice and message superceded the OT, ie, no longer do we have to offer sacrifices to appease God for our nature, since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice (himself) to make up for our sinful natures. Or, they will say that Jesus formed a new covenant with the people, a new "deal" between God and God's people. And in some very clear ways Jesus did do away with some OT teachings - the first that comes to mind is "you have heard it said love your neighbor, I say to you love your enemy". Or you have heard it said "an eye for an eye", whereas Jesus said turn the other cheek. And then there were rules about healing on the Sabbath, or what you could eat or whom you could eat with that Jesus openly defied. And Paul went even further in saying that converts to Christianity did not need to be circumcised, as was required in the Jewish tradition of the OT. And then there are some who say that Jesus came to "fulfill the law"; and that nothing has changed. Although you can probably tell by my post, that with so many examples of changes, I am of the opinion that many OT teaches were superceded by the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the NT. Does that help?
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 2:55 pm
Ahh ok and yes. I'm a Catholic School girl but it's been a longggg time lol.
|
Whoami
Member
08-03-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 2:55 pm
I have to say my favorite post in this whole conversation so far has been Scout's "Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:16 am" post. Very well said! Couple of other things I remembered about last night. When the straight dad was saying something like having a diamond and not really knowing how much you appreciate it until you have it back in your possession (or something like that). And straight mom was just gushing all over that and how wonderful he is and stuff. Well, ok. He just talked about possessing you. But whatever floats your boat honey! Ok, I realize maybe he wasn't really insinuating he possessed her, but it was what first crossed my mind last night as he said it! I'll also allow myself to feel some sympathy for the straight mom. I feel sad that she needs to gain her own feeling of importance by flashing the material things she owns, and by posturing her feeling of superiority over others by virtue of her possessions, and her "moral" values. That said, she had no place or call to tell the gay couple (especially to their face) that they were depraved, sexual predators, etc. That kind of crap makes my blood boil. She's ignorant cause she chooses to be ignorant. She's knows only what suits her, and anything anyone else tries to tell her just gets a brick wall. If any knowledge were allowed to seep in, she would have a weaker foundation to plant that superiority complex on.
|
Rosie
Member
11-12-2003
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:05 pm
Whomum, you are absolutely RIGHT!
|
Reader234
Member
08-13-2000
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:18 pm
You tell 'em Who, and that reminded me, every time that woman flashed her material possesions I wondered if she remembered the Biblical Story about how hard it is for a "rich man" to get into Heaven!! Her importance did seem to come from her possessions, and her clean house... to the extreme, which made me wonder what kind of life she had before marriage...
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:20 pm
my problem with the "christian" mom was her constant referral to her way of doing things being the proper or correct way. *rolls eyes*
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-17-2003
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:48 pm
I would love links if you have them Karunna or some solid search words that I could look up. Other than Hypothalmus changes I know of NO neurological breakthroughs but I have been out of the loop for a while so apologies if new info is available. It's not a "lifestyle", it's biology. (??) I will note that we have as much evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined as we do that lefthandedness is. From what I have read, that comment is not correct. I have years of medical background and less than 40% of gays have any genetic precursors or enzymatic/ hormonal problems. The percentage is even lower for lesbians. What ISNT low is the percentage of sexually interference that the adults had during their childhood years(gay, bi and lesbian adults).
|
Karuuna
Member
08-31-2000
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:46 pm
oh my heck, Sunshyne, that evidence of "sexual interference" had already been discredited more than 20 years ago when I was in school! Perhaps you'd like to provide some *current* evidence of such.... The science is wide and varied, from being able to create "gay rats" by exposing them to testosterone in utero (thus changing critical brain development) to simplistic heredity studies (the frequency of gays in families is exactly the same as handedness, as is the freqency of gays in identical twins). Specifically the concordance rate for being gay is exactly the same concordance rate for handedness. Or did you know that by implanting a single gene in male fruit flies, all of them refuse females and attempt to mate only with other males? There's plenty out there if you are truly interested.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 6:15 pm
I remember once seeing a PBS documentary that showed a difference in brain scans of gay males. I can't remember the show, but it did note that there was a markedly difference between the brains of gay males and hetero males that was consistent in all the test subjects. It was speculated at that time that sexual orientation was indeed a biological issue and that the difference appeared to have a connection with the levels of testerone/estrogen in the mother during early pregnancy, when the baby's brain was being formed. This was years ago, so I'm sure those studies have been expanded on since then.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 6:16 pm
quote:I have years of medical background
You aren't a podiatrist are ya? 
|
Seamonkey
Member
09-07-2000
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 6:26 pm

|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 6:54 pm
All this rhetoric really doesn't matter. Regardless of why a percentage of people and animals are homosexual, the fact is that they exist and have, as far back as written times go...Even hieroglyphics depict homosexuality. Let's face it homophobes have a million reasons why they hate, spew nastiness and pontificate of the horrors of homosexuality. It would almost be funny if it weren't for the random violence that is often unleashed. In my personal experiences, it usually comes down to religious interpretations and the need to force others to believe their bent. Believe what you want, spew your venom...we don't have hate laws here and I support freedom of all speech. I rather know whose hearts and minds are hating than being surprised. It usually comes down to people not being comfortable in their own beliefs to let it be. “Thou protests too much” If you don’t support homosexuality fine. But don’t try to interfere with rights and don’t judge them as not being fit to be called a family, as that lovely Christian mom said. What is it that the late Martin Luther King said? Something about judging a person by their character? I’m of the belief that in every group of people you’ll find great, good, average and really nasty people. Oh, that rhtoric comment was flip and I didn't mean to really dismiss all the thoughts.
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:05 pm
my problem with the lesbian couple is that they let their 8-year-old watch pg 13 and above movies and talk to adults in a smart-ass fashion. their being a couple doesn't bother me (except that one lady was being the kind who in victorian days laid on the couch and fanned herself while others worked around her! i don't care for wusses...) but i think they were letting their daughter grow up too fast. i don't think their being gay will affect what gender the daughter will prefer personally, but i think being exposed to movies with language, sex scenes, violence, etc., aren't appropriate for an 8-year-old. as for the baptist woman, she was living life the way she had grown up and with the 'values' SHE had learned. the lesbian couple was living the way they wanted to live. while far apart in life-styles, each couple was living the way that felt 'right' to them. i try to view this show as being an experience and being able to learn about people 'different' from oneself, but it also seems these shows try their darndest to find 'opposites' for reactionary excitement and ratings. had the lesbian couple been exchanged for another couple--perhaps the barefoot couple in santa cruz who play blue grass and share a room with their teenage sons--it maybe would not have created the sparks this one did. they really like extreme opposites to exchange homes for the week! (now, i can't recall if the santa cruz people were on this show or the other spouse exchange show....LOL seems every time an idea comes out there are copy-cat programs and i can't keep them straight! or gay.......)
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:45 pm
Tabbyking, great post!
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:14 pm
AFIC, the only "choice" you make in regards to who you're attracted to is whether or not to follow your heart. I grew up in a Christian institution. We had never heard about homosexuality. We sneaked in movie magazines and most of us drooled over the male stars, but some drooled over the female stars. No choice, no decision, just nature taking its course.
|
Jodied75
Member
08-26-2004
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:39 pm
Karuuna - I have read all your posts, and I must say I hold you in the highest esteem. A few of the other posts made me angry and sad, but in no way could I have responded with such intelligence and wisdom as you did. I totally agree with everything you wrote. Homosexuality is indeed not a choice. Someone wrote that they had a lot of gay friends but still think it wasn't right for the gay mom to bring straight dad to the dance lessons, because it went against his "moral choice". That is like saying a black woman shouldn't bring a white bigot to meet her black friends in her favourite hangout....because it would be against the bigot's moral choices. I can't be as eloquent with my words as Karuuna, but I hope you know what I mean. I thought the whole point of this show was to experience life in another family...and perhaps make someone step outside their own limited box to see that maybe life in other worlds are not so bad.
|
Watching2
Member
07-07-2001
| Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:11 pm
Mocha, I actually am aware of prejudice among black people toward different skin tones. I even thought about it while I was posting, but since I had written so much already, I figured I'd better try not to go into detail in that area since I tend to go off on tangents. Also, there's been articles written and I believe even TV shows which show a greater prejudice toward black gays among black people and it is one reason why so many black women are being infected at such a large rate with HIV. There's a name used for what married black men call it when they go out w/men and have sex because they claim they aren't gay or bisexual, mainly because of the stigma. What I based my comment on was what I have heard black civil rights activists say - "At least we had our families," when they were facing prejudice. The words the Christian mom used which made me cringe was "excellence" and "excellent" in reference to herself, her family and how they did things. I think at one point she said something like, "Then you just get MORE excellent." OY OY OY! LOL Karuuna - ITA with your posts. Puzzled - Thank you for sharing your experience. While I didn't grow up in an institution, I never heard about homosexuality either and for some reason, I just had crushes from a very young age on males. I know other females whose crushes were on other females. Yep, nature taking its course. 
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 12:21 am
Watching, you're thinking of "being on the DL," when ostensibly straight men have sex with other men. There is a new book out called "Beyond the Down Low" [DL stands for Down Low] that successfully refutes many of the claims made by the NY Times magazine, the Oprah show, and a book called "On the Down Low" by J.L. King. For example, Oprah, the Times, and King suggested that many African American women who are infected with HIV are infected by DL men. As it turns out, this is probably not the case because the best data available shows that only 1.7% of HIV infected women have acquired it from DL boyfriends [admittedly, 1.7% is still too high, but hardly the dire numbers suggested in King's book]. "Beyond the DOwn Low" suggests that the interest in the DL is really a concern with black sexuality, which American culture has always had a problem with [e.g. lynchings], and that the DL discussions are part of gender wars that help to demonize African American men.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 1:25 am
I just read an interview with Kris Luffy [the lesbian--it's confusing because the other "wife" was also a Kris, but her name was Gillespie] in The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine. And I guess it just showed his silly I was because what the article makes clear is that the show operated from a false dichotomy--that it presented lesbian as the "opposite" of Christian/religious, but Kris talks in the interview about going to church with her family, etc. I'd be willing to bet that her church is different from the heterosexual couple's church, but we, or I, have been talking about them as "the lesbian couple" and "the Christian couple" without acknowledging the possibility that the lesbian couple could also be a Christian couple. That's just how seductive television is I suppose.
|
Prisonerno6
Member
08-31-2002
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:11 am
Well, I think that article clarifies the "she was really only worried about the PG-13 movies, not that her daughter would really be molested" discussion. Oh, and here's an interesting summary of the role of genetics in homosexuality I found: http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:17 am
I'm sorry but I don't know what the Down Low Brothers has to do with the show.
|
Terolyn
Member
05-06-2004
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 6:25 am
Did anyone else think Kris looked talked and had the same mannerisms as Condolesa Rice  
|
Watching2
Member
07-07-2001
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:57 am
Mocha - It came from my "tangent" of saying I knew there was prejudice among black people regarding skin color. I went on to say there was greater prejudice toward black gays and what could result from that.... and it led to the "Down Low" info. I told you I needed to be careful about my tangents. Sorry about that! 
|
Watching2
Member
07-07-2001
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:09 am
Tish - Most of my gay/lesbian friends are also Christian and it was because of our Christianity that we met one another. I met the civil rights leaders at a church convention. I guess it was just easier to use those "tags" for the people involved in the show while posting since that's how they were portrayed on the show. Too bad.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:12 am
During the whole meeting at the end, I couldn't shake the feeling that I had seen both of the swapped moms before........it was weird.
|
|
|
|