Four Questions about Same-Sex Marriage
Now that the California Supreme Court has usurped the will of the people by striking down their democratically-decided law, there is sure to be a debate over the next few months about the merits of Same-Sex Marriage.  The issue may even make it to the ballot box in November in the form of a California Constitutional Amendment.Â
Political process aside, I’d like for you to weigh in on the following four questions:
1. For what secular purpose does the state endorse traditional marriage (i.e. what benefits does the state experience from traditional marriage)?
2. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in traditional marriage?
3. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Â
4. In light of your answers above, should the state legally equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships by endorsing same sex marriage?
Sorry if this sounds like a test. I just want to see how much people have thought through this very controversial issue.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:53 am
For Pete’s sake, if we left all civil-rights decisions up to “the people” interracial marriage would probably still be illegal. This is one of the reasons the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch in general exists in the first place — to strike down unconstitutional laws, whether “the people” are bigoted enough to be okay with having them on the books or not.
I don’t think the government has any business endorsing marriage in general (straight or gay). Ideally, I would prefer to see it treated as a private contract between individuals. However, it being the case that the government does endorse marriage, I don’t think it has any business discriminating.
Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re getting at with questions 2 and 3, unless you mean to imply that if zomg everyone were gay there would be bedlam in the streets or something.
Some of my very best friends are gay, and I would like very much for them to be able to get legally married in the state in which they reside, and to be able to attend their wedding ceremony and offer my heartfelt best wishes and congratulations on that occasion.
My gay friends are human beings, nothing less. And their relationships, and their lifelong commitments, are not worth any less than mine.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Aren’t “the people” what a democracy’s about?
May 16th, 2008 at 8:02 am
1. I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned marriage is a contract between two people and the state has no business getting involved. But if the state is going to get involved and offer benefits to married people then they have no business discriminating so far as which marriages get benefits and which ones don’t.
2. If everyone were heterosexual and there were exactly the same number of men as women that would probably be good for society but seeing as how everyone isn’t and there aren’t it’s a moot point.
3. That’s a really dumb question. Of course we need heterosexual marriages to continue the species. I think I see your ulterior motive here. You want to use everyone in opposite sex marriage is good vs everyone in same sex marriage is bad to try to claim that same sex marriage is bad. Doesn’t work. Look at it this way. If everyone in the country were a car mechanic we couldn’t survive because there wouldn’t be anyone to grow and produce our food. That does not mean that being a car mechanic is bad. Society needs people to play different roles. Now if every adult lived in a faithful committed relationship, whether with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, it would be great for society.
4. The state should not get involved in private contracts between individuals. But if they insist on doing so it is wrong for them to recognize some contracts but not others.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Frank,
As I am sure you are aware, most people do not think through anything these days.
1. The secular purpose the state endorses traditional marriage for is because it is the natural design for propagating the human race and the ideal environment for raising children.
2. If every adult lived faithfully in traditional marriage many of the horrible evils that plague our society would cease to exist.
3. If every adult lived faithfully in same-sex marriage the human race would have no future because homosexuals cannot bear children.
4. There is absolutely no way the state should legally equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships by endorsing same sex marriage.
On another note, if homosexuals can marry then why not allow fathers and daughters to marry? Why not allow mothers and sons to marry? Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow polygamy? Why not allow anything whatsoever? By what standard are we judging what is wrong and what is right? Where does the insanity end?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
^Kendenny practically picked my brain! I find that amusing.
SCS: “1. The secular purpose the state endorses traditional marriage for is because it is the natural design for propagating the human race and the ideal environment for raising children.”
And why, exactly, does the government need to endorse it if that’s the case? Are you afraid humans will die out if the government doesn’t tell us who we’re supposed to be having sex with?
“2. If every adult lived faithfully in traditional marriage many of the horrible evils that plague our society would cease to exist.”
If every adult lived faithfully in a heterosexual marriage, the gay ones would be miserable. Many of the straight ones wouldn’t be happy, either. Some people aren’t the “marrying kind”.
“3. If every adult lived faithfully in same-sex marriage the human race would have no future because homosexuals cannot bear children.”
If every adult lived faithfully in a homosexual marriage, the straight majority would be miserable. Good thing nobody’s promoting anything even remotely like that, right?
As for not having children, sorry, that’s complete BS. Gay people are as fertile as any other human being. I’ve thought about this scenario before: Let’s assume some sort of alternate universe or sci-fi scenario where all humans have been “zapped” or something, and everybody actually is gay. Of course there would be children. Many gay people do want children — you know why? Because it’s a human quality to want to care for children and gay people are human beings. The difference would be that there would never again be any unwanted children. Every time a couple decided they wanted to raise a child, they would have to take deliberate steps to make that happen. There would be no more babies from drunken one-night stands, no more “oops, the condom broke”. Every single child would be wanted and loved.
And you think this is a bad thing?
“4. There is absolutely no way the state should legally equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships by endorsing same sex marriage.”
There is absolutely no way that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are unequal.
“On another note, if homosexuals can marry then why not allow fathers and daughters to marry? Why not allow mothers and sons to marry? Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow polygamy? Why not allow anything whatsoever? By what standard are we judging what is wrong and what is right? Where does the insanity end?”
This “slippery slope” argument is ridiculous. Incest is taboo and illegal in most societies because it actually is harmful in reality. Inbreeding in general greatly increases the chance of birth defects in any children produced, and in the specific case of a parent and a child, the inherent power imbalance between the couple (and that’s even assuming the child is an adult) makes the situation extremely morally problematic to say the least. A marriage is an equal partnership between two consenting adults.
As for people marrying animals, GAY PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. Animals are not. Human beings can consent to and sign legal contracts. Animals cannot.
And why not allow polygamy? Yes, why not? After all, it is sanctioned by your very own Bible. Some of the Biblical patriarchs had hundreds of sex slaves! Oh, excuse me, I mean “wives”. And that is the moral problem and why polygamy is illegal now. Everywhere polygamy has been and still is practiced, women are reduced to chattel and are sold in a financial arrangement, not a marriage, as a sex slave to a man who’s often twice their age and owns multiple slaves already. It’s a very good thing we as a society decided that the Bible is very wrong about the morality of this arrangement.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
~~~~For Pete’s sake, if we left all civil-rights decisions up to “the people” interracial marriage would probably still be illegal. This is one of the reasons the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch in general exists in the first place — to strike down unconstitutional laws, whether “the people” are bigoted enough to be okay with having them on the books or not.~~~~
CG,
Is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people? In other words is the government there to serve the will of the people?
OR
Are the people there to serve the will of the government? Is the government a group of elite individuals that knows better than the ordinary citizen what’s best for the ordinary citizen?
I will observe that no one has actually answered the questions asked, yet. I’m detecting a pattern here, but then again, I’m not considered a real scientist because of my Creationism leanings.
I’ll venture direct answers to the questions, though I will not bring up the spiritual side of these matters (for obvious reasons), even though I believe they are of supreme importance:
1. The state endorses traditional marriage because in that past the people, those whom the government serve, understood the benefits of marriage. Those benefits include stability in society, protection for women and children, and study after study show the health benefits associated with traditional marriage as opposed to any other status including cohabitation, homosexuality, or polygamy. Ultimately though, marriage ensures the continuation of the society.
2. As a teacher, the answer to this question is very obvious. A traditional marriage provides discipline and stability in a child’s life. There would be far less gang related issues, students would be far more educated on average than they are now, and a whole host of other benefits…and that’s just for the kids. Even for those married couples that have no kids, the other benefits still apply. Men are simply different than women. Furthermore, these differences compliment each other. The mental and physical health benefits generated by this pairing are proven through a number of studies.
3. The answer to number 3 is quite obvious. If every one in a society lived faithfully in a same-sex relationship, that society would cease to exist within one generation. It is quite easy to see that marriage is essential to the survival of a society where as the same-sex relationship (which I refuse to recognize as “marriage” whatever the government says) is not. Whatever is not essential is extraneous and whatever is extraneous is merely a matter of desire.
Additionally, homosexuality and polygamy confuse children. It is adults sending mixed signals to them. Atheistic Evolution in its purest, most brutal form should be opposed to homosexuality because homosexuality does the opposite of ensuring that genes get passed on. Homosexuality should be the very antithesis of Darwinian Evolution, of survival of the species. And certainly homosexuality has no place in a Christian world view because of it being sinful. So in what world view is homosexuality practical? Kids understand these things at the basic level. You need male and female to reproduce. So what purpose is there in male and male or female and female?
4. And of course number 4 is the easiest for me. Absolutely the state should not endorse same sex relationships IN ANY FORM. Homosexuality is devastating to a society and should be treated as any other threat to national security.
Now, I know a lot of people aren’t going to agree with me. That’s their choice, the only real right they have (to choose). But these are my answers and I believe the position I take (generally) is the only rational one there is.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
SCS, great post. I was in the middle of composing mine when you posted yours so I had not seen your post yet when I said “I will observe that no one has actually answered the questions asked, yet.”
Here in the real world (as opposed to some assumed science-fiction world) the truth is that a heterosexual relationship is essential where a homosexual one is not. Homosexuals are miserable in a world like the number 2 question because they choose to be. If those individuals chose to do what is right instead of wrong, they would not be miserable. But, as has been demonstrated billions of times over on this planet throughout history, man likes choosing to be miserable. *shrug* Guess that means “Hell” will not be such an “evil” place after all.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am
This is not a political site, and I don’t want to get too far off the topic, so I probably won’t post on this again, but…
1) This is simply and completely false. I don’t know of a single instance where a high court ruling was required in order to allow interracial marriage.
2) If you genuinely believe that the purpose of the courts is to override the will of the electorate on matters of social justice, you need an education in Constitutional law. That’s not even the prevailing MODERN view, and it’s about 20 light years away from the original view of the court’s purpose.
3) If that had been true (that without forcing by the court, interracial marriage would still be illegal), why would you object to it so fiercely? Is it the case that you believe self-government is only for individuals who are holy like you, and if they’re not, it’s your duty as Social Goddess to force them into proper behavior? Is that your view of limited federalism?
I hate being lectured about the purpose of our Constitutional system by people who are completely ignorant of it, and wouldn’t agree with it if they understood what it meant.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Plumb Bob: “1) This is simply and completely false. I don’t know of a single instance where a high court ruling was required in order to allow interracial marriage.”
Loving v. Virginia.
Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple. They were arrested for violating anti-miscegenation laws and had to eventually take their case to the Supreme Court to have their marriage recognized and anti-miscegenation laws overturned. This all happened as recently as 1967.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the intention of insuring liberty and justice FOR ALL. Not just the majority. If “the people” make a law that the courts determine to be in violation of constitutional rights, it is THEIR JOB to overturn it.
And you’re certainly one to talk about government being “only for individuals who are holy like you”. You’re the one who wants to limit marriage only to people who are straight like you. You’re the one who wants to force people into “proper behavior”.
Ernie: “Atheistic Evolution in its purest, most brutal form should be opposed to homosexuality because homosexuality does the opposite of ensuring that genes get passed on. Homosexuality should be the very antithesis of Darwinian Evolution, of survival of the species. And certainly homosexuality has no place in a Christian world view because of it being sinful. So in what world view is homosexuality practical? Kids understand these things at the basic level. You need male and female to reproduce. So what purpose is there in male and male or female and female?”
Evolution is not a religion or an ideology. It is not “opposed” to anything. And the simple fact is that gay people do exist. If you had any understanding of biology or even bothered to think these things through, you would realize that there are, in fact, ways for non-reproductive individuals to influence the gene pool and ensure their genes get passed on. Bees come to mind — only the queen bee is allowed to reproduce. The other females in the hive assist the queen and protect the young. And because they are genetically related to the queen (they’re her daughters), they are helping to pass on their own genes as well.
Similarly, some scientists suggest that a certain amount of gay people would have been beneficial to an early human society because, with no children of their own, they would be free to help out their close relatives with their children. And because they share genes with their relatives, they’re helping their genes survive.
See? That wasn’t so hard.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Plumb Bob shows his ignorance again with “1) This is simply and completely false. I don’t know of a single instance where a high court ruling was required in order to allow interracial marriage.”
Three words Loving vs Virginia
The supreme court ruled that laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional thereby forcing the state of Virginia to recognize the marriage between Mildred and Richard Loving.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
1) The purpose of state-sanctioned and subsidized marriage is to protect and encourage procreation and child-rearing, to aid the propagation of the species. Marriage is a great deal more than just a contract; it’s the means by which we survive.
2) If all humans lived faithfully in heterosexual marriage, venereal disease would be stamped out in a single generation. Crime, poverty, and misery would drop dramatically.
3) If all humans lived faithfully in same-sex marraiges, the species would die out in a single generation.
4) There’s an excellent reason why the state should subsidize hetero marriage, and that reason does not apply to homosexual marriage.
I’ve been arguing this for years. Don’t expect proponents of same-sex marriage to play along, though; they choose to be obtuse because acknowledging what everybody knows undercuts their arguments. The same was true of arguments against abortion; it takes real effort to come up with ways to pretend we don’t know life begins at conception, but they not only manage it, they manage to make it sound as though there’s never been any doubt about it.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Granted. I was not familiar with the case.
On the other hand, social mores changed so dramatically between 1960 and 1980 that I have a hard time believing that miscegenation laws would have survived the 1970s, even without the Court’s intervention. I stand by my original point.
Just curious, KenDenny — 1) do you think miscegenation would still be illegal today if it weren’t for the Loving case? 2) are you planning to defend ChickenGirl’s notion of the purpose of the Supreme Court, and 3) do you support her disdain for enfranchisement of voters who happen to disagree with her on social issues?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Plumb Bob: “1) do you think miscegenation would still be illegal today if it weren’t for the Loving case? 2) are you planning to defend ChickenGirl’s notion of the purpose of the Supreme Court, and 3) do you support her disdain for enfranchisement of voters who happen to disagree with her on social issues?”
1. Possibly in Mississippi or Alabama, unlikely anywhere else.
2. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution which is exactly what Chicken Girl stated.
3. I didn’t read anything in her post that I can interpret as disdain for enfranchsement of voters who disagree with her.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Now that the California Supreme Court has usurped the will of the people by striking down their their democratically-decided law, there is sure to be a debate over the next few months about the merits of Same-Sex Marriage.
Nothing like having minority rights decided by majority vote, huh? Sure wish we could bring back those days…
1. For what secular purpose does the state endorse traditional marriage (i.e. what benefits does the state experience from traditional marriage)?
None that I can see. Seriously. Let’s get the government out of marriage entirely. I think there should be laws and support which recognize the bonds (financial, emotional, etc.) which develop when two people live together, but that’s it.
2. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in traditional marriage?
Probably deep unhappiness, self-abuse and child abuse, depression and resentment. Hey, I’ve got nothing against marriage when it works, but when it doesn’t or when the individuals aren’t suited, then it hurts everyone involved to force it.
3. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in same-sex marriage?
The same as above.
This sounds like one of the stupidest questions I’ve ever heard. Can you really imagine that anyone wants to force people to live in a same-sex relationship? Come on.
4. In light of your answers above, should the state legally equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships by endorsing same sex marriage?
Yes, definitely, absolutely, without doubt. Any long-lasting relationship should have the same legal status.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Strictly biologically speaking, marriage is not required for the propagation of the the species.
Basically, marriage is a commitment between two people to share their lives with each other. Traditionally, this has been between a man and a woman, but that doesn’t make it right. That is not an argument for it being right or wrong either way.
The idea that society will only allow certain types of people to officially make a life long commitment to each other is pretty evil. Especially when there are governmental / societal incentives for making that commitment.
I’m not gay, but I have friends that are. One couple has been together for over 20 years! That’s longer than many ‘perfect christian couples’ I know about. But still, if one of them is in the hospital, the other has severely limited rights because there is not equivalent for marriage for them.
That is messed up at a level that defies basic human compassion.
I don’t care if you think homosexuality is wrong or not. Homosexuals are still human beings.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Josh Charles asserted:
~~~~The idea that society will only allow certain types of people to officially make a life long commitment to each other is pretty evil.~~~~
Based on what standard? How can you say that such a thing is evil? I say that it is very good (if we are specifically referring to marriage). Which of us is correct?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I don’t know what I’m even posting this, given the reputation you all have garnered here.
Basically, you’re saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to control another persons love life? More than that, you’re willing to deny the rights and privileges afforded to those people who take such public vows of commitment in order to satisfy some iron age morality?
When two people truly love one another, we have no right to interfere. We have no right to deny them, for example, access to their loved one’s at the hospital because they don’t have a piece of paper from the government approving of their relationship.
If they’re living in sin, let them be judged in the afterlife. They’re hurting no one in this life.
You’re a hypocrite if you espouse the virtues of love, while denying that very experience to other people.
Or do you really think that homosexuals never fall in love? That their only motivation is sexual perversion? That’s the only reasons I can think of that you would want to deny them the rights and privileges they deserve.
And that is inhumane at every level.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Regardless of how bees do their thing or how much help a homosexual could be in rearing a child, how could it not be more obvious that said child could never possibly even come into existence out of a homosexual relationship. Anyone can ramble on for as long as they want to about bees and some sort of hypothetical evolutionary advantage to homosexuals making themselves available for diaper changing and such, but at the end of the day, the pure, real, hard, black and white biology of the matter doesn’t find such ramblings very convincing.
Man + Woman = survival of the species
Man + Man or Woman + Woman = death of the species
And the “my poor gay friend can’t visit his poor gay lover in the hospital” argument is as bogus as the notion that an unborn child is somehow less valuable because it’s the product of rape. It’s not an argument, it’s an appeal to emotion, that manages to do a nice job of completely ignoring the real problem in this scenario.
Person A is in the hospital. Person B is a person that Person A would like to be visited by. Person A ought to have the right to demand that Person B, regardless of their relationship with one another, can visit them if they so desire. If Person A’s desire for visitation from Person B is not allowed by the hospital, then the problem here is with the amount of freedom allowed Person A by the hospital, a problem which has nothing to do with gay marriage. You could choose another hospital that allows such visitation or press for reform in the healthcare industry such that sick people can receive visits from whoever they like. The core problem here has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, and everything to do with simple freedoms we allow ourselves to be denied in the society we find ourselves living in.
Last but not least, it’s always amusing to me to hear people with no warrant whatsoever for absolute objective morality somehow confuse themselves to the point where it somehow makes any sense at all to them when they decide to accuse others of ‘evil’ or ‘inhumane’.
I can only assume what you mean here is that it is ‘evil’ or ‘inhumane’ because you don’t like it, not because it is objectively wrong. You may like wearing flip flops in the summer time too, I don’t though… I don’t like the way that thing feels in between my first two toes, it bothers me. I guess, in your way of thinking, that I am then ‘evil’ and ‘inhumane’ for not liking flip flops.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Josh,
All you have offered is an emotion-based, feel good “argument” for your position. You haven’t given anything that remotely resembles an objective standard, or answered the question asked. “If it feels good, do it” is not an acceptable standard because what feels good to you may feel wrong to me, and vice versa. I’ll ask again: By what standard are you judging us? If it is merely your personal opinion, who are you to be judge over me? If it is not, then what is that standard and how is it objective?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
An interesting and thought provoking take on why the government ought not to be involved in marriage at all.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=37360
But wait, if the government weren’t here to sanction and license marriage, how would anyone ever be able to visit anyone in the hospital?
May 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Well, these seem like fair questions, so I’ll try my hand at them:
1. The state endorses marriage because it is in society’s interest for people who wish to live together in love and companionship to be able to do so. Married couples consistently enjoy greater rates of happiness, stability, and success in raising families.
2. If every person lived in “traditional” (I assume this means “heterosexual”) marriage, the people who desired that arrangement would be happy and would live in stability and harmony. The people who did not desire that arrangement (homosexuals, those who are single by choice, those who are married to abusive or unfit spouses) would be depressed, unhappy and miserable.
3. See answer to #2.
4. Yes, absolutely. If two consenting adults wish to make an arrangement to live their lives together, the state has no absolutely business in preventing them from doing so. If the benefits of marriage are offered to some, then the state must not discriminate; it must offer those same benefits to all.
I assume the answer I was “supposed” to give was that if everyone was in a gay marriage, then society would collapse from lack of reproduction and therefore we should outlaw gay marriage? This is an amazingly silly conclusion. First of all, gay couples can and do raise children (which, incidentally, is a good reason to permit gay marriage - so that children of gay couples enjoy the same benefits as the children of heterosexual couples).
Second, even if that were not the case, no one is proposing that everyone be forced to get a gay marriage! For truth’s sake! From the way some people were carrying on, you’d think the issue was whether heterosexual marriage was going to be abolished and replaced solely by gay marriage. In reality, advocates of marriage equality say that those who want heterosexual marriages should be able to get them, and those who want gay marriages should be able to get them as well. From the way some people carry on, you’d think there was a huge majority of normal, straight people who were in danger of turning gay the instant a favorable court ruling was handed down.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Wow, so you guys really are inhumane. As such, I’m not even going to bother posting any more after this. If there were ever any proof of how christianity turns people into EDITED, Ernie and Bryan are it.
Bryan, you need to educate yourself on the legal rights and privileges afforded to married couples. I’m not going to take the time to explain them to you.
You also seem to make the argument that when we allow gay marriage, everyone is going to become gay. That is the only possible situation where your argument about the propagation of the species has absolutely any relevancy.
As I said, I’m not going to even bother coming to this website anymore. I don’t see reasonable discussions; I see bigotry, hatred, and pure evil. I hope I never meet any of you outside of the internet.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Josh,
Ernie and Bryan have asked you valid questions to see if you could support your position with evidence. Calling them names does nothing to advance the conversation and may only reveal the weakness of your position.
What is your standard of morality by which you make your claims?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Frank,
I gave your book a shot. When I was just ending my deconversion process, I was had quite a bit of doubt on whether or not I had made the right decision. I purchased a copy of ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’ because I thought it would help me resolve my difficulties.
It helped spectacularly, but not in the way you were hoping. So full of straw men arguments, and other logical fallacies, I knew the christian viewpoint didn’t have a leg to stand on.
I could go through and logically debate each of these points, but it would serve no purpose, as you and the others on this website have repeatedly demonstrated that you have severe deficit in your understanding of logic.
I love discussions like this where you have multiple viewpoints coming together to have a real discussion. I thought, given the nature of a few of the original viewpoints, that maybe this website would be a place where such discussions could truly take place. Perhaps your book was a poor representation of your thinking. I gave it a shot.
All that I see here is a bunch of bigots arrogantly claiming that they have a monopoly on objective truth, while ignoring or not understanding the valid objections of others (not necessarily myself, for it’s true that I didn’t present a logical argument, but a humane argument). I see straw men assembled of your opponents that are swiftly dissassembled to loud proclamations of victory and a bunch of self congratulations.
You asked me what standard of morality do I use to make the claims that I do. It’s pretty simple. Peace is a good thing. Cooperation is a good thing. Pacifism is a good thing. Love is a good thing. Harm is a bad thing. The creation of suffering is a bad thing.
We don’t need some higher authority to tell us whether these things are good or evil. As a matter of fact, I find the idea that some people require these things to be told to them quite horrifying. I’m sorry, you depend on some book to tell you that it’s wrong to murder someone?
You can squawk all you want about ‘not playing by the rules’ but guess what! You’re not the one who gets to decide what the rules are. I couldn’t care less if you claim that I have no real reason to think that these things are right or wrong. Your accusations are meaningless.
The bottom line is that you have to decide what sort of society you want to live in. I happen to want to live in a society where people who love each other are allowed to fully express themselves.
Given my stated goal, it is logical for my to take the stances that I have. If I wanted to live in a bigoted and hateful society, then I would take a stance that is just the opposite.
How can I be sure that my stance is ‘right’? I don’t know. I can only give it my best shot.
I suspect that you are going to twist my words around every which way, but I don’t care. I only came to this website hoping to find something different than the usual christian stupidity I see. Unfortunately, this was not the case. You believe you have a monopoly on truth and no logical basis for it. You ignore all arguments that point this out, or your logical fallacies, and simply proclaim yourself the winner. I’m not about to waste any more time on enabling your intellectual masturbation.
For my final words, I’ll leave you with some science. Homosexuality has been observed in several other species on this planet. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a natural phenomena. I suppose that you’ll say that this is because of ‘original sin’ or some such baloney, but you don’t really have any objective basis for making such a claim. I would stay and watch you try to explain how these sort of behavior can exist in soulless creatures incapable of sin, but I highly doubt it’ll be worth it.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Josh,
Yes, some animals have been observed to engage in homosexuality. But some animals have been observed to eat their young too. Should we do that as well?
Blessings,
Frank
May 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Josh, let me apologize. I do get a little insensitive and have a knack for being a jerk at times instead of conversing as politely as I could. Let me try it this way.
Believe it or not, I actually do not want to be thought of as a purely evil bigot, as I do not think of myself this way. I do think of myself as depraved, but do not think of myself as a member of the ‘pure evil’ category. I usually reserve that category for folks like Stalin and Hitler and Mao. So, if someone thinks of me in that way, I should take it serious and try to understand why.
I think I understand, at a general level, why you think of me that way. You think of me as bigoted, hateful and purely evil because I do not have the same morals that you have… because I do not subscribe to the same moral code. So, I’m asking you to help me with the problem you think obviously think I have. Please help me understand your moral code. Keep in mind that I can’t get at it via some kind of clairvoyance, that it’s not practical for me to have you on speed dial (or some such arrangement) and ask you personally every time I’m faced with a moral conundrum. I’m willing to look into and make an honest effort to understand your standard of morality. Can you tell me where I can read about it? Is it written down somewhere? Maybe some podcasts or mp3s? Where am I to go so that I can definitively understand your moral code, at least the essentials of it?
Oh, and one more thing. Let’s say from all the options I listed above, your moral code turns out to be written in a book that you can refer me to. Who authored that book? Hopefully it is someone I can rely on to transmit a perfectly reliable moral code to me.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“The bottom line is that you have to decide what sort of society you want to live in. I happen to want to live in a society where people who love each other are allowed to fully express themselves.”
Let me understand - marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples by the State of California = full expression of homosexual love?
That seems odd to me. I for one would not stop loving my wife or think of my marriage vows any differently whatsoever if the state that issued us our marriage license decided to retroactively declare it null and void as of some date before I was married. Are you saying that homosexual couples are incapable of fully expressing themselves without marriage licenses?
Let’s be clear for a moment. Homosexuals are allowed to do whatever they want. I don’t see mainstream/orthodox/majority Christianity trying to do things like hunt homosexuals down and execute them as punishment for their behavior. And if there were, it would be the responsibility of people like myself and this website to unequivocally and loudly declare that it is absolutely and objectively wrong and should be stopped.
When you speak in the terms you do, the supposed plight of homosexuals gets blown way out of proportion. I’d just like to point out that the persecution you imply exists simply doesn’t, not compared to any real example of persecution, present day or historical.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Bryan,
“Are you saying that homosexual couples are incapable of fully expressing themselves without marriage licenses?”
The fact that love can persist even in the face of prejudice does not mean that prejudice is acceptable or harmless.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Josh…
You say:
Peace is a good thing. Cooperation is a good thing. Pacifism is a good thing. Love is a good thing. Harm is a bad thing. The creation of suffering is a bad thing.
Alright, so let’s say that when a person named Bob came out of the closet and declared himself a homosexual that this declaration and his behavior bothers Bob’s father John very, very much. It bothers him so much so that one could say it makes John suffer.
Now we’ve got suffering from John. How does your moral code address that?
May 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
This site depresses me.
No, it’s not because I disagree with all of it (although I do). It’s that there’s no coherency. How will homosexuals getting benefits affect the nation in any way that heterosexuals getting the same benefits won’t? Numerical concerns have no weight here; I mean, we could say the same about blacks or women, using that “logic.”
And I’m sorry….if you believe that all of the horrible problems facing our society can be solved by forcing everyone to combine one penis and one vagina, then you are sadly mistaken. Personally, I have a LOT of problems that have absolutely nothing to do with sex, homosexuality, or Christianity. Although….I could just as easily say that if all the Christians disappeared, the rest of us could be gay, straight, black, white, male, female, Satanist, Buddhist, or whatever without any problems.
But I’m not going to say that, because that would be disrespectful and judgmental of all Christians (and all other groups).
May 18th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Bryan,
If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I didn’t call you pure evil. I said that is what I see here. Still, I came back to this site specifically to apologize for those two words. I see bigotry and hatred here, but pure evil is a bit of a stretch.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear because I followed it with the statement that ‘I hope I never meet any of you outside of the internet.’
I should have been clearer, because I meant this as a separate statement, and I stand by it. You may think yourselves different from the ‘God Hates Fags’ people, but this thread clearly demonstrates you’re basically the same.
Prejudice is not pretty no matter how it is dressed. No matter how hard you try to justify it, and how right you think you are, the moral zeitgeist has moved on, and you’re inability to move with it will just lead to irrelevancy. Really, you’re in the same position those Christians who defended slavery were in back in the 19th century.
Face it: just as the bible can be used to support either side of the slavery issue, it can be used to justify either side of the homosexuality issue. In fact, when you do a survey of current Christian beliefs in the US, this is exactly what you find.
For all your talk about objective moral codes and what not, Christianity has moved along with the current views of morality pretty well.
Wait, is this a dominionist website?
Bryan, it’s unfortunate that you truly view yourself as depraved. That is the true evil of Christianity: you have to have such a low opinion of yourself. You actually have to view yourself worthy of an eternity of torture. That takes some major self-hatred, if you’re to truly grasp the nature of that. Goodness knows I’m flawed, as my comments on this thread demonstrate very clearly. I reject the idea that I can’t do any better, though, because I know I can. I can improve myself, and I do so daily. It doesn’t require divine intervention.
And that was a nice dodge of Ebonmuse’s point, by the way.
Frank, just as I predicted, you completely missed the point. Here is a hint: signing your comments with ‘blessings’ immediately after creating a straw man that no sane person would support makes you sound pretty dang insincere.
Bryan, at least you don’t pretend to offer blessings after creating strawmen.
You all want my original argument put into a logical progression?
1) One of the greatest, and as psychologists tell us, essential parts of being human is the ability to love something, and to receive and recognize that love in someone else. For the record, I’m only discussing romantic love.
2) While most people tend to fall in love with members of the opposite gender, some people experience this type of love with members of the same gender.
3) Societies have recognized the importance of this relationship and have institutionalized into something called marriage.
4) The individual states that make up the United States have the power to grant two people in this sort of relationship (romantic love) to be legally married, and to define what that means in legal terms.
5) This legal civil contract grants certain rights and privileges, such as visitation rights at hospitals, rights of inheritence, rights of ownership, special tax benefits, and much more.
6) Currently most state governments state that this sort of legal civil contract can only be made between a man and a woman.
7) These restrictions represent the obviously wrong idea that people of the same gender cannot make the same commitment to each other that members of the opposite sex are able to make.
You can think whatever you want about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I don’t care one iota about that.
What I do care about is the governmental mistreatment of an entire group of people. I do care about when citizens are not granted the rights they deserve due to some religious belief. There is no legal reason for these people to be denied their rights.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Josh…
You’re not helping me. I’m asking you to convert me to your moral code. You seem like a compassionate person, so it may just be that the moral code you subscribe to is better than mine. Bring me to the other side.
I asked you a simple question and I just don’t feel too comfortable with the answer yet. I’m not even sure you were directly answering me, but it looked like an answer to my question. Please correct me if I’m wrong and this is not your answer. Where do your morals come from… yours personally? I’m asking you to think of me as a blank slate, or at least have pity on me as someone who is obviously wrong. Show me the light, I don’t understand what I need to do in order to subscribe to the same standard of morals that you do, and in order for you to not think I’m wrong, I need to do that. For a moment there, I thought you gave me an answer when you said….
“Peace is a good thing. Cooperation is a good thing. Pacifism is a good thing. Love is a good thing. Harm is a bad thing. The creation of suffering is a bad thing.”
This seemed reasonable at first glance, but then I thought of the scenario of a gay man’s father suffering because of his son’s homosexual behavior. I don’t know what to do with that. Whose suffering is more important in your system?
And then a few more examples popped into my head. Like, what happens when someone from NAMBLA tells me they love little boys? I have no reason to doubt that they honestly believe they love a little boy. Because the NAMBLA member loves the little boy, ought I to consider his relationship with the little boy morally ok?
Oh, and peace. Does this mean I should be upset with my grandparents generation, the generation that fought World War II? They didn’t respond to Japan peacefully when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and they didn’t deal with Germany peacefully either.
I’m trying really hard to understand how your moral code deals with this. A father of a homosexual suffers, but that’s got to be bad according to your standard, right? A pedophile loves a young boy, and that’s got to be good because of your morals, correct? The WWII generation, because they weren’t peaceful in their dealings with Japan and Germany, were wrong, correct?
And by the way, as good as your moral code sounds, I still don’t understand where it came from. Is this something you just made up? Did someone teach it to you?
—–
The other thing. I’d like to kindly point out that I don’t think the phrase ’straw man’ means what you think it means. I could’ve missed where Frank constructed and tore down a straw man, so please correct me if I’m wrong… but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t done it. He’s mostly just asked questions, many based off of assertions you’ve made. Let me give you an example of a ’straw man’ so you can recognize them better in the future. It turns out to be one you used.
“You’re basically the same as the ‘God hates fags’ people.”
No one that I’ve seen, certainly not Frank or myself, on this thread has once come close to asserting that ‘God hates fags’. You have absolutely no factual basis for claiming we’ve argued such a thing, which is actually what makes a ’straw man’ a ’straw man’.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
This seemed reasonable at first glance, but then I thought of the scenario of a gay man’s father suffering because of his son’s homosexual behavior. I don’t know what to do with that. Whose suffering is more important in your system?
What about people like me, who have to suffer listening to people rant on and on about such stupid crap as “homosexuals cause earthquakes and tornadoes?” It’s not a perfect world; there is suffering. It’s part of life. Get over it; even if we were all Straight and Christian and White and Rich and Well-To-Do and Perfect, there would still be things we disagreed upon—there would still be things that one person does that might cause another to “suffer,” to use your loose definition of the term. Not all problems in this world revolve around Christianity and sex, although I don’t doubt some people’s ability to try and tie them back to those subjects.
Last, what really bothers me about Christians like this is that they assume that all morals came from the Bible—that it’s a given that the Bible started morality in motion, and it’s the burden of the rest of us to prove otherwise. That’s simply not the case; most major religions share similar moral codes, and all of them claim to be The Original Moral Code. What do you do when two different people tell you the same thing, and both of them insist that they came up with the idea first? Either one of them is lying….or it’s just an interesting coincidence. And in the case of the coincidence, who’s to say which side is more correct, or more “true” because of it?
Morality didn’t come from Christianity. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing you can tell me to convince me of that; especially if it begins with, “but the Bible says, the Bible says!” That’s called circular reasoning, and it’s really getting old.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
From Wikipedia:
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position)”
I said:
“I would stay and watch you try to explain how these sort of behavior can exist in soulless creatures incapable of sin, but I highly doubt it’ll be worth it.”
Frank said:
“But some animals have been observed to eat their young too. Should we do that as well?”
No where did I make the argument that because homosexuality is observed in nature, we should engage in it. His construing of my argument is a straw man.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
What was you point then Josh? Why did you bring the issue of animal homosexuality up?
I just want to understand your position.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Tim…
Hello. Nice to have you in the conversation.
“Morality didn’t come from Christianity. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing you can tell me to convince me of that…”
Incidentally, we agree with one another on something. It is not my view that morality came from ‘Christianity’ either. It is my view that morality came from the one and only, everlasting and almighty God.
I’m guessing this last statement of mine is where you and I will part ways. I would like to know where you think morality does come from though. You seem very sure in your knowledge about where it didn’t come from. Do you have any thoughts at all about what the standard and source for the morality you subscribe to is? Telling us all where it doesn’t come from doesn’t get us very far. Hopefully you can move us along farther with the source for your standard.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Josh…
I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I just sat here and let you be this dishonest (for the record, dihonesty is generally something I believe to objectively wrong).
In your gracious and massive wisdom, you bestowd this scientific jewel on us:
“Homosexuality has been observed in several other species on this planet. For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a natural phenomena.”
It was clearly your intent to insinuate that because homosexuality is, for all intents and purposes, a natural phenomena (since other species of animals on this planet engage in it)… then it should be viewed as okay or simply amoral.
To summarize and abridge, you said:
Specifically…
(homosexual relations) + (animals do it) = amoral
Abstractly…
(behavior) + (found in nature/practiced by other species/occurs ‘naturally’) = amoral
Frank simply did something well within the rights of any reasoning individual. He used your equation, played in your back yard if you will, and pushed it to it’s logical conclusion. If, by your own implication, any behavior found occurring in other species in nature makes a thing amoral, then, since animals eating their young also is a behavior we find occuring in nature, it is also amoral.
I can’t decide what I find more amusing.
1) You, a person with no warrant for objective morality (at least not one that you’ve been able or chosen to produce as of yet)… accusing someone else of not having the correct set of morals.
or
2) Your useage of phrases like ’straw man’ and ‘logical fallacies’ as if they were some sort of super no takebacks quadruple wish upon a star and an eyebrow that, once and for all, wins you the argument. This is particularly ironic because you, in actuality, commonly employ both of the two aforementioned phrases.
What I do know is that when combining 1 and 2 from above, we have the perfect storm. It reminds me a bit of a more spastic, red bull fueled version of myself in the swimming pool… flailing about, head barely above water, hardly getting anywhere. Out of one side of your mouth, you’re yelling “I’M NOT TRYING TO SWIM”. Out of the other, you’re yelling “I SWIM BETTER THAN YOU”.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:39 am
lol bryan, perhaps you’re right. I’m still figuring all this stuff out. I freely admit that I don’t play completely by the rules of logic. But then again, I’ve never claimed to.
Bryan, there is a huge difference between saying that something is possibly amoral and saying that we should do something.
Frank Turek made the jump from the suggestion that something is amoral, which we could have had an interesting discussion about, to me suggesting that it was something that we *should* do.
Then he further suggested that since we observe mothers eating their young in the wild, would it be my position that we *should* do that as well?
As you so aptly pointed out yourself, the argument that if something is a natural phenomena it is not necessarily amoral, and I concede that point.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Regarding the activism of the California court:
I believe you’re showing your anti-southern bigotry here. It took southern states a little while to summon the political will to overturn miscegenation laws in the wake of Loving v Virginia, but most of them did it within about 20 years, including Mississippi.
Alabama didn’t actually remove it’s miscegenation law until 2002 (even though everybody knew it was unenforceable), arguably because the procedure for removing it from the state constitution was so convoluted that nobody bothered until then. However, that the people of Alabama had long since accepted cross-race marriage. I lived in Mobile, Alabama from 1981-1992, and the church I attended had no fewer than 5 mixed-race couples. They experienced very little in the way of social discomfort, apart from a little curiosity. At least one of the couples was married there in Alabama, and had no difficulty obtaining legal documentation.
ChickenGirl clearly believes that laws defining marriage as “male-female” are unconstitutional. Since the constitution of California contains no language specifying such a thing and avoids mentioning sexual orientation in its non-discrimination language, and the California voters supported “male-female” language in the marriage statute as recently as 2001, she (and you) apparently feel it’s the Court’s job to assess what’s socially and morally right (in your view), and enforce that against the language of the Constitution and the will of the voters. This goes a great deal beyond “interpreting the Constitution.”
Note her claim that the purpose of the Court is “to strike down unconstitutional laws, whether “the people” are bigoted enough to be okay with having them on the books or not.” Note my analysis of the California constitution, above.
There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement over the meaning of the Cal Constitution. The Court simply invented a right out of thin air. Do you support the sort of judicial activism that takes decisions out of the hands of voters without specific authorization from the Constitution?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Tim D asks:
Here are a few thoughts:
1) It serves no purpose to grant them the benefits.
The main social benefits of marriage include tax benefits related to child-rearing, laws streamlining privacy and responsibility issues relating to child-rearing, and streamlined probate (rights of survivorship to property after the death of a spouse.)
Homosexuals cannot produce children, therefore cannot benefit from the laws protecting child-rearing. Granting them these benefits wastes money.
Homosexuals can achieve the probate advantages of marriage simply by writing accurate wills. It doesn’t even take a lawyer to do that. It’s simple.
It makes no sense to include homosexuals in the streamlining of probate because you can only streamline by automating the most common instances. While hetero couples with joint property are very common, gay couples would be UNcommon even with liberalized laws (only 3% of gays even express interest in marriage), and research indicates that gay couples are so prone to infidelity and instability that it’s considered that gays are not naturally monogamous. That being the case, including gays within probate laws relating to married couples would probably create more legal tangles than it would solve; it would be better to address these on a case-by-case basis.
If there’s no advantage to be gained by granting the benefits to gays, why change at all?
2) Granting homosexuals married status will be followed in short order by claims that homosexuals should be permitted to adopt children. Since the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual shows a compulsive sexual disorder characterized by extreme compulsivity, grossly inordinate incidence of depression, anxiety, and suicide, alarmingly disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol addiction, extremes of violence and relational dysfunction, and a “marriage” tenure expectancy of around 18 months, allowing a gay couple to adopt a child would be tantamount to criminal negligence.
3) It’s the case that every nation and/or state that has adopted liberalized gay marriage laws has also had a birth rate below replacement level. It’s pretty likely that the low birth rate was not caused directly by liberalized marriage laws; it’s pretty likely, though, that the prevailing social mores of those areas that contributed to liberalizing marriage laws, ALSO contributed to the reduce birth rates. Since willingly dying out is a pretty silly thing for any civilization to do, it behooves us to understand the relationship between these social mores and declining birth rates before we go juking around with laws governing the reproduction of the species.
Note that the birth rates in the more religious areas of developed western nations is still above replacement; in political terms, the birth rate is down in America’s “blue” zones but still pretty healthy in her “red” zones, and this holds throughout Europe as well.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Plumb Bob:
“I believe you’re showing your anti-southern bigotry here.”
Seeing as how I have spent my entire life living in either North Carolina, South Carolina, or Georgia, that’s pretty funny.
I have distinct memories from my childhood of neighbors and relatives spouting that black people were sub-humans or that mixing of the races was a crime against God.
Plumb Bob:
“It took southern states a little while to summon the political will to overturn miscegenation laws in the wake of Loving v Virginia, but most of them did it within about 20 years, including Mississippi.”
Well yes, seeing as how they knew the laws would be overturned if they were ever challenged. Do you think that it would have happened in 20 years if not for Loving v Virginia? It would have likely taken more than 50 years, which would mean some states would still have the laws today.
Plumb Bob:
“ChickenGirl clearly believes that laws defining marriage as “male-female” are unconstitutional. Since the constitution of California contains no language specifying such a thing and avoids mentioning sexual orientation in its non-discrimination language, and the California voters supported “male-female” language in the marriage statute as recently as 2001, she (and you) apparently feel it’s the Court’s job to assess what’s socially and morally right (in your view), and enforce that against the language of the Constitution and the will of the voters. This goes a great deal beyond “interpreting the Constitution.”
Interesting in that the constitution says “People are entitled to A” and the statute says “Some people are not entitled to A” that you don’t see that statute as unconstitutional.
Plumb Bob:
“Note her claim that the purpose of the Court is “to strike down unconstitutional laws, whether “the people” are bigoted enough to be okay with having them on the books or not.” ”
The key word being “unconstitutional”. You are apparently OK with having unconstitutional laws on the books as long as you agree with them.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Plumb Bob: “research indicates that gay couples are so prone to infidelity and instability that it’s considered that gays are not naturally monogamous.”
Liar. What research? Fred Phelps research?
“Granting homosexuals married status will be followed in short order by claims that homosexuals should be permitted to adopt children.”
Yeah. So? Let me guess, because they’re disgusting pieces of filth who can only corrupt the children’s mortal souls.
“Since the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual shows a compulsive sexual disorder characterized by extreme compulsivity, grossly inordinate incidence of depression, anxiety, and suicide, alarmingly disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol addiction, extremes of violence and relational dysfunction, and a “marriage” tenure expectancy of around 18 months, allowing a gay couple to adopt a child would be tantamount to criminal negligence.”
Yeah. Just as I suspected.
As far as replacement levels of reproduction, having reproduction go below replacement levels is a good thing. We can’t produce enough food to feed everybody now. How is continued population growth going to solve that?
May 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
So Plumb Bob, are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? You sound like that would be an ideal church for you.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
KenDenny wrote:
You need to calm down. This is obviously too personal for you to get involved in, since you’re hurling around accusations of “liar” without having the first idea what you’re talking about.
The irony and shame of the issue of homosexuality is that there’s actually a great deal of research about the subject that appears in peer-reviewed medical journals, but the public seldom hears about it because it’s not very flattering to the gay community. People like KenDenny have been sold a bill of goods about how similar gays are to straights, and it’s simply not true.
The specific research I was mentioning — the study that concludes that gays are probably non-monogamous by nature — was actually performed by a pair of gay researchers who did not consider that conclusion pejorative at all. The citation is D. McWhirter and A. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiss-Hall, 1984.) In this study, the researchers were attempting to establish characteristics of long-term gay male relationships. They had some difficulty finding enough of them to make the research meaningful, because the truth is that most gay men are not interested in long-term relationships. The best-reported result of the survey was that of 156 couples, only 7 had maintained sexual fidelity, and none of those 7 had been together 5 years. Of 100 couples that had been together 5 years or more, not one maintained marital fidelity. The authors noted, “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.”
This result is consistent with the results obtained by Alan Bell of the Kinsey Institute in 1981 (”Sexual Preference,” Indiana Univ Press), when he reported that only 2% of homosexuals were either monogamous or semi-monogamous, which he defined rather generously as having had 10 or fewer lifetime partners.
I could produce citations on the psycho-social profile information about gays if I had to; as I said, there’s a wealth of peer-reviewed research available for anybody who wants to know the facts. I don’t hate gays. I don’t even dislike them. I just happen to know a lot of facts about them. It happens that those facts don’t comport well with the current cultural myth about gays being just like straights only with a different preference. I can’t help that; facts are facts.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
KenDenny wrote:
Well, there wasn’t really a worldwide shortage of food until the US government decided to subsidize ethanol to the tune of $.50/ gallon. You might want to read my blog article on the subject. The current shortage is, as is almost always the case, the result of human corruption or stupidity, not the inability of the planet to sustain population.
It’s a characteristic of the policies supported by social progressives that they generally favor fewer humans. Progressives don’t seem to like human beings very much.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
KenDenny wrote:
That’s not what happened in California.
“Marriage” has always meant to create a single, legal family unit with a member of the opposite sex; the Court even admits this. Gays have always been permitted to marry in California (e.g. a gay man could marry any woman he chose); they just didn’t want to. What a small number of them wanted, instead, was the legal right call a relationship with a member of the same sex “marriage,” so they could have the same benefits as marriage.
The situation brings to mind an apocryphal story about Abraham Lincoln, in which he asked somebody how many legs a dog has if you call his tail a leg. His answer was “Four; just because you call a tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.” The point is about language; you can’t change it just to suit your argument. Unless you’re the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court simply announced that “marriage” now means any human to any other human, not a man to a woman. Once they’d changed the definition of the word by fiat, it was easy for them to apply the new definition to the existing Constitution to produce a result the Constitution’s authors never dreamed of.
If that’s not judicial activism, then judicial activism isn’t possible.
Last time, KenDenny: do you believe the Court should be able to invent law out of thin air, in clear opposition to the stated will of the voters, on any topic where they feel it’s morally necessary? That’s what they did; that’s what you’re defending. If you think that’s appropriate, explain on what basis you can claim the Court would be out of line if they decided, for example, that Jews are not “people” as defined by the Constitution, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. You need to, because the power to do the former is the power to do the latter.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I have been quite bothered over the last few days by some of the things that I’ve said in this thread, and on this website in general. In retrospect, I should have avoided this website all together, as it seems to bring out the worse in me.
I could theorize about why this is, but such introspection would not serve a purpose in this forum.
I do have a few final comments[1]. It seems that the major theme from nearly all the theists on this website is to make the point that since atheists cannot identify a source for objective morality, it is not reasonable for them to make any moral judgements what-so-ever.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what the source of my morality is. That doesn’t mean I have absolutely no clue about it.
I do know, for example, that I don’t get my morality from the bible. The bible may reflect a few principles that I agree with, but so does the Tao Te Ching.
I do know that the god portrayed in the bible is pretty evil at times, and if he exists, does not represent something I feel worthy of worship.
If your point is to convert atheists to Christianity, you’re not going to do it by making me believe that morality requires a god. Even if you over come Euthyphro and reasonably prove that this is true, and therefore god must exist, you have not even approached the Christian god. So I become a deist. The task of demonstrating that the Christian god is actually worthy of worship is practically insurmountable as far as I can tell. Who knows, perhaps you’ll prove me wrong in that.
On the other hand, if your point is some ‘emperor has no clothes’ moment, that doesn’t actually accomplish much of anything. Unlike christianity, which does claim to have all the answers, I’ve never heard the claim that atheism or science has all the answers.
In fact, atheists and scientists alike seem to repeatedly emphasize that there is very much we don’t yet know.
Let me for the purpose of this post, concede the point that we don’t know where reason and / or morality come from. Does that make them any less useful? Am I suddenly going to become an irrational mass murderer?
I’m still learning about these topics, and haven’t really formed an opinion on it. I use reason everyday. Wait, let me check for a moment at how many people I’ve murdered today. Whoops, looks like I’ve not murdered anyone. I haven’t raped, stolen, or broken any other law that I know of.
Not knowing these things does not make me a dysfunctional human being, which is what seems to be implied over and over again in this thread and others. And this is done by a group of people who seems to believe that I (and ever other human being that exists or has ever existed) deserves to be tortured forever and ever.
Pointing out my lack of omniscience doesn’t bring me any closer to once again becoming a Christian. It only confirms what I already know: I have much to learn.
[1] I haven’t gone back and counted, but this seems like the 3rd or 4th time I’ve given my ‘final comments’ in this thread. If anyone actually responds directly to my thoughts in this post, then this usage will likely prove to be wrong as well.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Incidentally, we agree with one another on something. It is not my view that morality came from â€Christianity’ either. It is my view that morality came from the one and only, everlasting and almighty God.
Whatever loop-de-loop you need to come to sync with me. I also disagree with the idea that morality comes from “God;” I suppose I should’ve been more specific. Although I figured that much was implied, as it is supposedly God who was behind the Bible.
I’m guessing this last statement of mine is where you and I will part ways. I would like to know where you think morality does come from though. You seem very sure in your knowledge about where it didn’t come from. Do you have any thoughts at all about what the standard and source for the morality you subscribe to is? Telling us all where it doesn’t come from doesn’t get us very far. Hopefully you can move us along farther with the source for your standard.
I wouldn’t say “part ways;” it might have frustrated me a couple of years ago, but I’ve heard it asked so many times that I’ve actually begun thinking a lot more about it lately. Although I will humor you, since you asked.
(1) I don’t know where morality comes from. Based on that, I suppose it’s not fair of me to say “I know it doesn’t come from Christianity/the Bible/God/whatever.” Although that does not change the fact that I am not convinced that the original source of morality is some supreme being or another (or God, or the Bible, or Christianity).
(2) I don’t understand my own morality, not entirely. I know that I believe certain things….but my own sense of morality is a lot more basic than most people’s. I know that I agree with some things (like, for instance, “Let’s not go kill a bunch of people!”), and I feel those things make sense to me (i.e. “Why would I want to go and kill a bunch of people? I have no reason to do that, and even if I did….are the few remaining years of my limited existence on this earth worth sacrificing twenty others? It just doesn’t add up!”). Long story short, sometimes they’re logical, sometimes they’re from the gut. I can’t explain it.
(3) In light of 1 and 2, it seems interesting to me that someone I’ve never met and who knows nothing about me can come and explain to me that, in some roundabout way, my own sense of morality is linked to his/her Holy Book (or that Book’s writer/source of inspiration/whatever tet-a-tet switcheroo terminology you’d have me use) and that everything I know is actually from God, even though I don’t know it. I believe morality is a thing that one acquires across great lengths of time—even parents who teach morals to their children don’t communicate the significance of those morals, hard as they try. Their children must realize the significance of morality by seeing it in action. Hence such old parental warnings as, “You’ll thank me for this someday,” administered just prior to harsh punishments. I believe that, at least partially, my morals have come from my life experience. There was no “Dawning Moment” when I realized how I feel about everything; I’m still trying to decide how I feel about some things. Like everything else in the world, I don’t claim to know everything about morality. I’m still working on it.
Homosexuals cannot produce children, therefore cannot benefit from the laws protecting child-rearing. Granting them these benefits wastes money.
However, they can adopt children.
Homosexuals can achieve the probate advantages of marriage simply by writing accurate wills. It doesn’t even take a lawyer to do that. It’s simple.
So why do straight couples need them, if it’s so simple? Let’s just take away all straight couples’ probate advantages. If what you say is true, they don’t need them, anyway—right?
2) Granting homosexuals married status will be followed in short order by claims that homosexuals should be permitted to adopt children. Since the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual shows a compulsive sexual disorder characterized by extreme compulsivity, grossly inordinate incidence of depression, anxiety, and suicide, alarmingly disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol addiction, extremes of violence and relational dysfunction, and a “marriage” tenure expectancy of around 18 months, allowing a gay couple to adopt a child would be tantamount to criminal negligence.
This paragraph is so wrought with incorrect statements, I don’t even know where to start….I’ll come back to this in a bit.
3) It’s the case that every nation and/or state that has adopted liberalized gay marriage laws has also had a birth rate below replacement level. It’s pretty likely that the low birth rate was not caused directly by liberalized marriage laws; it’s pretty likely, though, that the prevailing social mores of those areas that contributed to liberalizing marriage laws, ALSO contributed to the reduce birth rates. Since willingly dying out is a pretty silly thing for any civilization to do, it behooves us to understand the relationship between these social mores and declining birth rates before we go juking around with laws governing the reproduction of the species.
And so you argue that gays getting married somehow causes people who are straight and already intend to have children to suddenly decide not to have children.
Look, people who are going to reproduce are going to reproduce. People who aren’t, will not. It’s as simple as that; I can tell you that I’m not going to tell my girlfriend tomorrow, “Let’s not ever have kids. Didn’t you hear—gays are getting married!”
I’m just so glad people who think like this aren’t on California’s supreme court. Even better….I can’t wait until ten or twenty years from now, when we can all look back on this foolishness like we now view the bigots who were opposed to equal rights for blacks and women. It’s just so depressing….
May 19th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Since the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual shows a compulsive sexual disorder characterized by extreme compulsivity, grossly inordinate incidence of depression, anxiety, and suicide, alarmingly disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol addiction, extremes of violence and relational dysfunction, and a “marriage” tenure expectancy of around 18 months, allowing a gay couple to adopt a child would be tantamount to criminal negligence.
(I’ve always wanted to try this approach….)
It’s going to seem like I’m being rude here, but that’s not really the case; I’m just expressing my ‘love’ for everybody. That’s what Christians call it when you say horrible things about people who are condemned by the Bible, right?
(1) If you actually believe what you’ve said here about gays, I feel sorry for you. You obviously aren’t friends with any homosexuals who aren’t completely emotionally unbalanced and unsure of who they are. I would recommend that you get to know some who are more in control of their own tendencies; then you might get to know the kind of people they are beneath the facade of “homosexuality” people like you so often use to get out of actually having to interact with them.
(P.S. I hope your homosexual “friends” can work out whatever problems they’re having so they’re not so weird and crazy as you’ve described them to be, I honestly do.)
For reals, though….I have a couple of gay friends, and neither of them match the description you’ve just given me. Where did you get this statistic of the “average homosexual?” That’s really cool that you have statistics and all, but I tend to judge more based on the actual people I meet than numbers. Not that I particularly disbelieve that such a statistic exists….just that I doubt it’s very accurate. Either that, or my gay friends are just really cool minorities. But whatever.
P.S. Just a side comment, not part of my “argument;” I believe the racists and sexists said some very similar things about black people and women, back during the civil rights/suffrage era….about how they were immoral, that the very fact of their “blackness” or “womanliness” would somehow compel them to be compulsive or violent (in the case of blacks), or promiscuous or immoral (in the case of women), and all these other things….and well would you look at that, I know a couple of black people, too—and several women, on top of that—and none of them are like that at all! Weird….
Seems morality’s not the only thing you learn from actual life experience. Maybe you should get out more and quit reading so much?
May 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Tim,
I’m glad your experience with your friends has been better than the statistics. But if the research into the homosexual lifestyle is accurate (and there are several studies which suggest it is), then anecdotal evidence of your two friends does not change the truth about the overall homosexual population.
If anecdotes did change the overall truth, then my experience would cancel yours. One childhood friend of mine got involved in homosexuality. We buried him at the age of 36– dead from AIDS.
It is not hateful to state the truth. I maintain it is hateful to hide it, especially when you’re hiding bad news might help people change their destructive behavior.
Thanks for your posts.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
If anecdotes did change the overall truth, then my experience would cancel yours. One childhood friend of mine got involved in homosexuality. We buried him at the age of 36– dead from AIDS.
(1) I am in no way stating such “anecdotal evidence” as a means to convert anyone else from their way of thinking. I am stating it, however, as a means to explain why I am simply not convinced that homosexuality kills people or shortens their lifestyle in any way that cannot also effect a heterosexual person. All the “evidence” to this point can also be applied, in the same manner, to “blacks” or “women” or “straight people.” For example; I could easily tell you about a close friend’s distant relative who died from AIDS not too long ago, and I could attribute that AIDS death to that person’s heterosexuality. But that wouldn’t make any sense, because both straight people and gay people can get AIDS.
(2) AIDS also kills straight people. Therefore, I see a serious flaw in your reasoning that this person’s contraction of AIDS was due to his/her homosexuality. AIDS is not a result of homosexual behavior; it is a result of having sexual intercourse with someone who has the disease. Women and men are capable of contracting and spreading the disease, to people of both genders. It is the responsibility of the parties involved to discern whether or not the other has a disease before engaging in sexual activity, and if the persons involved fail to do so, then a failure of responsibility is to blame—not one or the other’s sexual preference.
It is not hateful to state the truth. I maintain it is hateful to hide it, especially when you’re hiding bad news might help people change their destructive behavior.
And I don’t doubt that you really believe that you’re “stating the truth.” However, I am frustrated and disillusioned with the increasingly false (or, in some cases, outright stupid) claims that people are making about homosexuality. I want to see the paper trail from one of these “studies” that “inconclusively proves” that homosexuality causes people to die—as a direct result of that person’s homosexuality, and in such a way that it cannot possibly be attributed to some other cause, such as AIDS/VD or hate crime/murder.
It is seriously depressing to me that anybody could go through so much effort to support a cause that is deliberately opposed to other people’s civil rights, based on such faulty information. Granted, I believe in personal choice—that people should be allowed to choose their beliefs and lifestyle—but I reserve the right to be disillusioned with humanity as a whole when the vast majority of our nation decides that gays getting married is the most important issue on America’s plate today.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Yes about AIDS, I hope you’re aware that the majority of women who get AIDS get it from men. In fact lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS of all demographics.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Check out the article below for a large amount of evidence showing the negative health effects of practicing homosexuality.
http://www.battlefortruth.org/.....asp?id=235
May 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Tim,
[CAPS for emphasis only.]
You are continually arguing from association and making associations that are not valid. Comparing homosexuality to race or gender is comparing apples to cars. No one chooses race or gender. Everyone that participates in homosexuality chooses homosexuality. To make laws establishing rights for a GROUP of people that make a “choice” is not the same as making laws establishing rights of INDIVIDUALS without regard to a property of being they have no control over.
The decision of the California court is utterly outside of the bounds of its power and the will of the people. No longer do they serve the people but command, and that is a government that needs to be overthrown.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Josh,
Thanks for your candor. I appreciate it more than you might know.
You are right in saying that it is very difficult for one to jump directly from atheism to believing in the God of the Bible, Jehovah. Smaller steps may be required for most. Dr. Antony G.N. Flew started down that path. In September of 1976 he debated Dr. Thomas B. Warren. Going into the debate he decided to defend the strong atheistic proposition “I know that God does not exist.” He left the debate an agnostic. In recent years (since 2004) he has publicly claimed to be a deist (and denied being a Christian).
One last thought for you based on your statement:
“I do know that the god portrayed in the bible is pretty evil at times”
You claim to know this. My question is HOW do you know this?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ernie said “To make laws establishing rights for a GROUP of people that make a “choice” is not the same as making laws establishing rights of INDIVIDUALS without regard to a property of being they have no control over.”
So it’s OK to discriminate against Christians. After all you chose to be a Christian. You can have your rights if you choose to be an atheist. But so long as you choose to be a Christian I am going to deny you your rights.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Josh:
“I do know that the god portrayed in the bible is pretty evil at times”
Ernie:
“You claim to know this. My question is HOW do you know this?”
Ken:
Because he ordered his people to murder children. Murdering children is wrong whether it’s a personal choice or it’s ordered by Stalin, Hitler, or God. It’s indefensible. Oh yeah I forgot, it’s not wrong since God did it. I wonder how you’d feel if God ordered someone to murder you or someone you loved.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
~~~~So it’s OK to discriminate against Christians. After all you chose to be a Christian. You can have your rights if you choose to be an atheist. But so long as you choose to be a Christian I am going to deny you your rights.~~~~
I don’t read of any special rights granted to the group “Christians” by the Constitution. If you want to persecute Christians, well, I accept that as part of being Christian. Actually I take joy in that fact, but that’s another matter.
My point still stands. Groups do not have rights according to our Constitution. The word “Christian” is not in the Constitution and that specific group has no special rights.
~~~~Because he ordered his people to murder children. Murdering children is wrong whether it’s a personal choice or it’s ordered by Stalin, Hitler, or God. It’s indefensible. Oh yeah I forgot, it’s not wrong since God did it. I wonder how you’d feel if God ordered someone to murder you or someone you loved.~~~~
I’ll ask again, please define “murder”.
I’ll give you a start…
murder (noun) - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
[from - dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder]
…you can work from this if you like or provide your own definition.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Ernie, I’ve already answered the question you posed to me, so I’m not going to go around the bush any more.
Anyone who feels they can defend the proposition that there is absolutely, positively no god has left the path of reason and science.
For someone who is aware of the story of Flew, using him as an example is not a very good idea. I am such a person.
There has been evidence discovered that has linked homosexuality to genetic causes. So I would like to offer this question:
If homosexuality is actually caused by a person’s genetics, how would that information change your opinion?
May 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Josh,
We’re all born with an orientation to bad behavior. We all seem to be genetically bent that way. But that does not excuse the behavior or mean that we should endorse it through law. The law is concerned with behavior not feelings.
If someone has a genetic predisposition to violence, would that make gay bashing OK for him? Should we endorse gay bashing because of a genetic predisposition to it?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 20th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post; it includes copious footnotes, which you may skip if they don’t interest you.
Tim D observed my comments about the psycho-social profile of the average homosexual, and said this:
I must have confused him thoroughly, because he proceeded to write an entire comment about that one paragraph — but failed to mention even one statement in the paragraph that he found to be incorrect. All he did was posit his own personal experience with gay individuals — two of them — whom he felt did not fit the profile I described.
I’m can’t dispute Tim’s experience with his two friends. I do want to ask, though: have you ever had those two friends describe their sex life to you, list the number of partners they’ve had, list the number of one-night stands, list the activities they engage in? Do they discuss their depressions or anxieties with you? Do you have access to their medical records? If the answers to the above questions are “No” — and I’m assuming that they are, as most of us refrain from sharing this sort of private detail with our friends — then you actually have no idea whether your friends fit the average profile or not. They might, and you’d never know it.
Here’s a whirlwind tour of just a few health statistics relating to homosexuality: homosexual males engaging in anal sex have as much as 4,000% greater likelihood of contracting anal cancer than the population at large(1); homosexual males are uniquely susceptible to Hepititis A as a sexually transmitted disease(2); homosexuals are vastly more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, experience major depression or anxiety disorders, or take illegal drugs than heterosexuals(3); AIDS strikes homosexual males 430 times more often than heterosexuals in the population at large(4); unsurprisingly when considering the disease statistics, lifespan among gays could be as much as 40% less than for heterosexuals(5).
This is related to the unusually libidinous behavior of the average male homosexual, who were found in one study to average roughly 30 times the number of sex partners that the average heterosexual has in a lifetime.(6) Female homosexuals seem to have considerably fewer partners, but still several times higher than the average heterosexual.
The general profile of homosexuality includes an abnormal sexual desire, compulsivity, depression and/or anxiety, high-risk behaviors, and significant relationship dysfunction. This same profile appears in individual suffering a general category we call “compulsive sexual disorders,” including pornography addicts, sex addicts, pedophiles, bestials, fetishists, transvestites, sado-masochists, etc. The only reason homosexuality is no longer included in the same category is that it’s politically unpopular to do so; the scientific evidence — and there’s a great deal of it, it’s a heavily studied topic — all points to homosexuality as a compulsive sexual disorder. The reason that statements strikes so many people as outrageous is that the American population has been subjected to a 30-year whitewash of homosexuality, to convince us all that it’s normal and harmless. It is neither; homosexuality is a life-threatening abnormality.
For the record, I’ve known plenty of gays personally, and been friendly with them. I’m also a recovering (hetero) sex addict myself, so I’m actually closer to the problem than most people. To me, homsexuality looks an awful lot like what I’m recovering from, especially the parts about “trying everything to change it, but finally admitting that it’s just who I am.”
Notes:
(1) See Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp.190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no.16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et.al, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases“; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan’s statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp
(2) See, for example, Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 1980302463-4; also http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=1432868.
(3) See Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L., 1999: Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.; Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T., 1999: Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.; Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel, 2001: Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, pp. 85-91.; Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880. Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874. “Not Afraid to Come Out: A celebration of freedom from homosexuality,” by Matt Kaufman, Boundless webzine, Focus on the Family, September 30, 1998.
(4) See Sartinover, Jeffrey, MD, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Hamewith Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996, p 57.
(5) From a footnote found at Americans For Truth: Mr. Trey Kern, President of the Citizen’s for Parent Rights, in Pasadena, Maryland has collected an impressive amount data on studies documenting the diminished lifespan of active homosexuals. Studies include: (G. Tardieu, 1858; M. Hirschfield, 1914, Kinsey, 1930’s, 1940’s; Mattachine Society, 1950’s: Berger, 1960’s, Kinsey Institute, 1969; Spada Report 1978; M. Mendola, 1979; Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, 1994; Hogg, R.S., et. al, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997; Cameron, P, Cameron, K, Playfair, WL., Psychological Reports, 1998. I don’t doubt that Paul Cameron’s name will generate some heat; however, what he reports, while methodologically assailable, is consistent with what we’d expect given the other public health information (indeed, it would be remarkable if not true) and clearly deserves further research. The Americans For Truth footnote includes a reference to a document called “Homosexual Myths: Homosexuals Live Long Lives,” at http://www.cprmd.org; however, I have been unable to find any documents at that site. If anyone knows where I can obtain this document, I’d like to read it.
(6) H. Meyer-Balburg et al, “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 1: 3-27.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Frank,
Ernie had advanced the argument that:
“You are continually arguing from association and making associations that are not valid. Comparing homosexuality to race or gender is comparing apples to cars. No one chooses race or gender.”
Race and Gender are both decided by your genetics, hence my question.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
My point still stands. Groups do not have rights according to our Constitution. The word “Christian” is not in the Constitution and that specific group has no special rights.
So I guess we’re looking the other way on the whole “Tax-Exempt status” issue? Churches get tax breaks. I’m pretty sure they choose to form a church.
I’ll ask again, please define “murder”.
That’s funny, I’ve always understood “murder” as a legal term which means, “To intentionally kill someone/end someone’s life.” Now, granted, I first heard of “murder” as a legal term, and I do agree with that definition. For what reason? I do not know. It is a moral that I have come across, have seen tested in action, and still agree with. Thus, I have adopted it. I agree that “murder” by this definition is wrong, and I hope you do, as well.
We’re all born with an orientation to bad behavior. We all seem to be genetically bent that way. But that does not excuse the behavior or mean that we should endorse it through law. The law is concerned with behavior not feelings.
To bring up racism again, in a different context….
It’s funny that you say we tend towards evil. Racism seems to be quite the opposite; a learned hatred. Children don’t grow up naturally hating people with different skin colors. They learn to hate people based on what their parents (or church, in the case of homosexuals) tell them to hate (remember, even if you call it love, it’s still hate…).
If someone has a genetic predisposition to violence, would that make gay bashing OK for him? Should we endorse gay bashing because of a genetic predisposition to it?
You’re comparing homosexuality with violence as two equally reprehensible acts, and on that I beg to differ. We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree, here, but I’ll tell you right now that we won’t get anywhere if you insist on proceeding based on the assumption that the two are one and the same (or even remotely similar).
I’m can’t dispute Tim’s experience with his two friends. I do want to ask, though: have you ever had those two friends describe their sex life to you, list the number of partners they’ve had, list the number of one-night stands, list the activities they engage in? Do they discuss their depressions or anxieties with you? Do you have access to their medical records? If the answers to the above questions are “No” — and I’m assuming that they are, as most of us refrain from sharing this sort of private detail with our friends — then you actually have no idea whether your friends fit the average profile or not. They might, and you’d never know it.
That would put you and I in the same boat. Thus rendering your opinions just as invalid—actually, moreso, as I have personal contact to stand upon—than mine with regard to my friends.
As for your “statistics,” there is no reason to link these things to homosexuality—what’s this, all white people die? Well, that means being white is bad! See, it simply doesn’t follow through.
As for getting ass cancer more easily….I imagine that women who have lots and lots of sex probably also have a worse risk of getting vaginal cancer, too. What’s your point?
This is related to the unusually libidinous behavior of the average male homosexual, who were found in one study to average roughly 30 times the number of sex partners that the average heterosexual has in a lifetime.(6) Female homosexuals seem to have considerably fewer partners, but still several times higher than the average heterosexual.
You claim to know this….and yet, you still support banning marriage for these people, something which (according to Christian theology) is supposed to be aimed at settling two people down and narrowing their sexual activity to a single partner? It seems that gay marriage would actually help in this respect.
It is neither; homosexuality is a life-threatening abnormality.
I’m so sad that you actually believe this….
For the record, I’ve known plenty of gays personally, and been friendly with them. I’m also a recovering (hetero) sex addict myself, so I’m actually closer to the problem than most people. To me, homsexuality looks an awful lot like what I’m recovering from, especially the parts about “trying everything to change it, but finally admitting that it’s just who I am.”
It’s still wrong to judge people. “I know someone, so I automatically understand who they are and what problems they’re struggling with.” Even I don’t try to second-guess my friends; it’s terrible to assume the worst in a person like that, just because the “evidence” to support your judgment is not immediately available. I am sickened by this tendency in Christians.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Josh,
~~~~If homosexuality is actually caused by a person’s genetics, how would that information change your opinion?~~~~
Lets grant for a moment that you are right, that it could be and is a genetic mutation. Since the Bible condemns it as sin (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9) and it would be unjust to condemn based on a genetic property, then I must conclude that the Bible is untrue and that God does not exist. I would immediately become a deist such as Thomas Jefferson (as the gods of all other religions I know to be false but the evidence for the existence of a First Cause Mind is, to me, adamantine in nature).
Now, the reasons I answered this are two-fold. 1) I don’t want you thinking there are questions of yours I won’t answer. 2) A similar question was asked by CrossExamined of the other side in the “What If the God of the Christians Was Real” blog and it is only fair.
The truth is, if homosexuality was in any single case actually caused by a person’s genetics (in essence it was a mutation), then, by virtue of natural selection, it would have bred itself out after the first generation (or the first few of we account for any unwanted heterosexual reproductive activity on the part of those bearing those genes). It is just flat impossible for it to be a genetic mutation and no “gay gene” has ever been discovered,. only hypothesized.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 20th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ernie,
You’re way behind the times on the science, as there is quite a bit of preliminary evidence for homosexuality having a genetic cause. But it’s not my purpose to go through that evidence with you.
You’re point about homosexuality disappearing due to natural selection doesn’t hold up, either. Due to *social* pressures to not only appear heterosexual, but to also reproduce, such a gene could continue to exist.
Secondly, phenotypical expression is not as simple as a single gene here, and a single gene there. There could be a number of genes that work together and have a number of effects, one of which is an attraction to the same sex.
Basically, the science about the causes of homosexuality, and whether or not it could persist over the years is much more complicated that what you give it credit for.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
~~~~So I guess we’re looking the other way on the whole “Tax-Exempt status” issue? Churches get tax breaks. I’m pretty sure they choose to form a church.~~~~
I wasn’t aware that tax-exempt status was a Christian-only thing. It certainly isn’t offered only to a specific or special group and it isn’t even a right accorded to any group. I really don’t understand your point here.
~~~~That’s funny, I’ve always understood “murder” as a legal term which means, “To intentionally kill someone/end someone’s life.”
Now, granted, I first heard of “murder” as a legal term, and I do agree with that definition. For what reason? I do not know. It is a moral that I have come across, have seen tested in action, and still agree with. Thus, I have adopted it. I agree that “murder” by this definition is wrong, and I hope you do, as well.~~~~
I am totally confused as to what you believe murder is. This paragraph doesn’t make any sense to me. Are you saying you agree with the definition I posted?
~~~~It’s still wrong to judge people.~~~~
Heh, so stop doing it!
…or maybe…
Are you judging him as being wrong for judging?
…or maybe…
Tell it to the judge.
Humor aside, its actually not wrong to judge people. It’s certainly not condemned by the Bible. You can’t go through life without judging.
What the Bible teaches against, and what simply makes good logical sense, is that it is wrong to judge hypocritically. I ought not to condemn you for homosexuality if I am having sex with men. It’s wrong for me to condemn you for murder if I am going around killing people unlawfully. And so on.
Just thought I’d point that at. Bob is doing a great job of answering all these points you folks are bringing up so I’ll leave the rest to him.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 20th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Josh,
~~~~You’re way behind the times on the science, as there is quite a bit of preliminary evidence for homosexuality having a genetic cause. But it’s not my purpose to go through that evidence with you.~~~~
Perhaps you’d care to point me to a specific study or two that you’d like me to read on my own time? Since there is quite a bit of evidence it should not be difficult to provide a specific study or two that has provided that evidence. I don’t mind reading that in lieu of asking you to post it all yourself.
Thanks.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 21st, 2008 at 8:29 am
Murder is the intentional killing of another person who does not pose an immediate threat to you or another person.
What immediate threat did the Medianite children pose to the Israelites?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Numbers 13:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
So he orders his people to murder all the males and all the females who were not virgins and says keep the virgin females alive for slaves. And I’m supposed to look to this guy for moral guidance.
I DON’T THINK SO!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
~~~~Murder is the intentional killing of another person who does not pose an immediate threat to you or another person.~~~~
I appreciate your efforts to answer the question here concerning what murder is. However, I have some problems with your definition.
Traitors and murderers on death row do not pose an immediate threat to anyone (they are bound in prison) yet they are still killed intentionally. Are you stating that the government of the U.S. murders those it executes by law?
I must reject your definition because it does not incorporate the concept of law. There are instances of intentional killing of those who do not pose an immediate threat to those that kill them that are not cases of murder. You must refine your definition.
Responding to specific examples at this time is not something I can do because we have different definitions of murder.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Fine. What crime did the Medianite children commit that earned them the death penalty?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Are you accepting my definition of murder?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 21st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Josh,
I missed something. What is your question?
Tim,
You said “it is wrong to judge people.” Then why are you judging Ernie for judging?
What is your standard of morality? Why is it wrong to judge? And what tendency in Christians do you hate? Is it the tendency to make judgments? Because if so, you are doing just as much judging.
In one sense, however I agree with you. We are to make judgments but not with a judgmental “holier than thou” attitude. We are all sinners. A Christian should consider himself a sinner who simply wants to show other sinners where the forgiveness is.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Yes Ernie. I’ll accept your definition of murder. Now tell me why killing the Medianite children was not murder.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Heh, so stop doing it!
…or maybe…
Are you judging him as being wrong for judging?
…or maybe…
Tell it to the judge.
Hah, ha…..i c wut u did thar lol
That’s another thing that annoys me about Fundies. Constant smart-assery. If you’re gonna be a douche about something, just come out and be a douche about it, like me—don’t try to play nice and pepper your posts with condescending remarks. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, ya know~
What is your standard of morality? Why is it wrong to judge? And what tendency in Christians do you hate? Is it the tendency to make judgments? Because if so, you are doing just as much judging.
(1) I’ve already explained to you; I do not have a Good Book I go to to explain morals to me. Morality is not a said-and-done process; it is very specific, accustomed to each particular situation. It is a job that is never “done.” Once you decide, “okay, this is *always* moral,” or vice-versa, that’s when you’ve stopped thinking about things—you’ve just accepted a given. And I’m not comfortable with that.
(2) I hate the tendency of Christians to decide that it’s more important to illegalize acts with which they disagree (on a religious basis) and discriminate against others, when *according to their own religion* they are all sinners and should not judge hypocritically.
Are you a sinner? Great. Stop judging other people who sin. You’re a hypocrite for that. Like you, I admit that I am not perfect….but then again, I’m not trying to illegalize your lifestyle.
(3) Whatever you want to call it. I’m calling your bluff because you think it’s so important to ban gay marriages, when *by your own admission* you are an imperfect sinner, and therefore a hypocrite (because you judge others and make horrible claims based on the idea that you are morally superior to them, and that they just aren’t seeing something that you are), and you tell me not to judge you. It’s despicable to me that you can make excuses for this sort of hypocrisy.
Please note; despite the criticisms I’ve received here, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I already know you’re not going to change; you’ve already made up your mind to blindly follow the words of someone else from thousands of years ago, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. I don’t care about that; but if you’re going to go around casting stones at gays, I think you should make sure you’re 100% perfect (or damn close) first. Gays have never done anything to warrant the sick stereotypes being perpetrated here.
I am totally confused as to what you believe murder is. This paragraph doesn’t make any sense to me. Are you saying you agree with the definition I posted?
Read it again, then. I posted my definition, and I said that I agree with the definition I posted. It’s not that hard….
Traitors and murderers on death row do not pose an immediate threat to anyone (they are bound in prison) yet they are still killed intentionally. Are you stating that the government of the U.S. murders those it executes by law?
I’m disturbed that your Bible allows you to believe it’s okay to kill people in that situation. The murderers and rapists and horrible criminals are locked away to keep them away from society, not to kill them. They have been deemed unfit for society by a jury of their peers and have been sentenced to prison time. Why is the step of killing them necessary? So yes, I believe that is murder. What ever happened to the life sentence?
May 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Tim,
I apologize if it sounded condescending. I’m just pointing out that some of the things you were saying were self-defeating. We all make judgments. The only question is, are we making the RIGHT judgments?
If you don’t have an objective standard of morality (as you have admitted), then it is impossible to make objectively right judgments, including whether the government should endorse same-sex marriage.
BTW, we don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong. Nature’s Law (the Moral Law) upon which our country was founded is sufficient to know right and wrong on the big issues. Now Nature’s Law is still based on God’s Nature, and is consistent with the Bible, but the laws we enact in this country are not religious laws. There is a difference between religion and morality. No one is legislating religion, but everyone is legislating morality, including same-sex marriage advocates (See my previous post here: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=12).
Also, you seem to think that endorsing same-sex unions would have no adverse effects on society. I think that is mistaken and will be posting on that soon. In the meantime, take a look at Greg Koukl’s article in the post above this one.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
[CAPS for emphasis only. I have not taken the time to learn how to do italics and the like on this blog yet.
]
I appreciate that, Ken.
Here is the definition again so that we may be clear:
Murder - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Murder is according to law. Since according to God’s law, God has the authority being the Creator of all that is, of the one who gave life to all humans, to take life as He sees fit. Since the killing is authorized according to the only applicable law, God cannot be condemned for murder according to that law.
Furthermore, God cannot be subject to human law because human law is inferior being finite in perspective, scope, and power whereas God is infinite in all of these properties.
So, the killing of the Midianite children (Num. 31:17-18) was not murder because it was authorized by the highest authority.
Additionally, the taking of the life of those children actually benefited them. Remember, death from God’s perspective is just a transition. Those children who died before an accountable age, before they could commit sin, were kept from ever doing so by that death. They automatically will go to Heaven at the end of time.
These deaths also prevented those boys from growing up to be men who sinned by bringing war against Israel or corrupting the Israelites with their idol worship.
The young girls who were taken as servants were taken into the service of God’s people where they were given the opportunity to learn of God and grow up knowing truth and service to Him. Properly educated, they would not draw Israelite men away into idol worship because they would not be idol worshippers. Neither would they hold positions of authority like men do so they would not ever be in a position to bring war against the nation of Israel.
In summation God has the authority and the right to take the life of who He wants when He wants because He Created life. It is impossible for God to commit murder.
In the killing of the Midianite children God did that which is good and right and by definition not murder.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
~~~~That’s another thing that annoys me about Fundies. Constant smart-assery. If you’re gonna be a douche about something, just come out and be a douche about it, like me—don’t try to play nice and pepper your posts with condescending remarks. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, ya know~~~~
Tim, I apologize if that came off wrong. I was only attempting a bit of humor to lighten things up a bit. It was not meant to be condescending at all. Please forgive me if it sounded so to you.
~~~~(2) I hate the tendency of Christians to decide that it’s more important to illegalize acts with which they disagree (on a religious basis) and discriminate against others, when *according to their own religion* they are all sinners and should not judge hypocritically.
Are you a sinner? Great. Stop judging other people who sin. You’re a hypocrite for that. Like you, I admit that I am not perfect….but then again, I’m not trying to illegalize your lifestyle.~~~~
Actually I do not believe Christians are all sinners. I believe that a faithful Christian was once a sinner but has since changed, has turned away from that sin and received forgiveness for it. So that eliminates the idea that we are judging hypocritically. In fact, that some of us may have been guilty at one time of the sin and been able to come out of it gives a stronger position to explain why it is wrong and help others change their life away from it too. That’s not hypocrisy, its just experience.
~~~~Please note; despite the criticisms I’ve received here, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I already know you’re not going to change; you’ve already made up your mind to blindly follow the words of someone else from thousands of years ago, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. I don’t care about that; but if you’re going to go around casting stones at gays, I think you should make sure you’re 100% perfect (or damn close) first. Gays have never done anything to warrant the sick stereotypes being perpetrated here.~~~~
Stoning is not required by the New Law (Testament) so there would be no need. But 1 Cor. 6:2-3 and John 7:24 among many others not only say that Christians have the right to judge others, but a large majority of what we are called to do (seek and save the LOST) demands it.
~~~~I’m disturbed that your Bible allows you to believe it’s okay to kill people in that situation. The murderers and rapists and horrible criminals are locked away to keep them away from society, not to kill them. They have been deemed unfit for society by a jury of their peers and have been sentenced to prison time. Why is the step of killing them necessary? So yes, I believe that is murder.~~~~
By what standard? Your personal opinion is not an objective standard and it is certainly not one I am bound to. Why is the step of killing these people wrong? And how do you know?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I apologize if it sounded condescending. I’m just pointing out that some of the things you were saying were self-defeating. We all make judgments. The only question is, are we making the RIGHT judgments?
And I believe you’re no more capable of knowing what is “right” than I am. For one, you use altered definitions of words such as “right;” to you, “right” just means whatever God wants. To me, that’s not the case; to me, “right” means what’s best for everyone, what hurts the fewest people possible (preferably none) and what benefits the most.
And this right here:
If you don’t have an objective standard of morality (as you have admitted), then it is impossible to make objectively right judgments, including whether the government should endorse same-sex marriage.
It’s no more possible for you to do so. You claim that “God’s” judgment is right….but how do you know that? Because the book told you. Forgive me if I’m not as trusting of the book as you, and forgive me in turn if I think it’s hubris to claim you have access to the One And Only Universal Moral Compass. That’s a load; you don’t know everyone, and you can’t judge every situation individually. To you, “morality” is some simple rule that just always applies to everybody. It’s insulting to me that you claim to have superior moral judgment, solely because you got your morals from a book (or a God, or a church, or a religion, or whatever you want to call it; I’m in no mood for semantics, you know what I mean). How am I supposed to know that your “God’s” morals are correct? According to you, the only way we’ll be able to tell if you’re right or not is when it’s too late to change our minds.
Why gay marriage, that’s what I want to know? People who are gay, are going to be gay. People who are going to have butt sex are going to have butt sex. There’s nothing you can do about that—you can make it a crime, but there’s no way to enforce such a law short of breaking down random homes unnanounced to make sure nobody’s having butt sex. If you ask me, what’s going to bring this country down is not stupid causes like Homophobia, but rather the efforts of people who support the Homophobic movement. They’re going to become so paranoid that somebody somewhere might be having butt sex, they’re going to start blaming gays for everything that goes wrong. But in any case….don’t you think there are many, many, many more important problems facing the world today than homosexuality? Do you really think we’ve fixed society to the point where we can start focusing on little silly details like whether Jimmy puts his penis into his girlfriend or his boyfriend? And really, what business is it of yours?
I guess terrorism has already outlived its usefulness as a tool to push one’s political agenda…?
BTW, we don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong. Nature’s Law (the Moral Law) upon which our country was founded is sufficient to know right and wrong on the big issues. Now Nature’s Law is still based on God’s Nature, and is consistent with the Bible, but the laws we enact in this country are not religious laws.
Yeah, I also hate the tendency of Christians to resort to wordplay. Whatever dot-to-dot way you put it, you believe that God is ultimate and final and great and all that, and that our laws are in some way or another derived from/connected to the “truth” you call the Bible.
I’ll tell you one thing….I never cared about gays or any of this until I saw the way Christians treat them. It made me angry; I have friends who live this way, and here people like you are calling them “immoral” and “compulsive” and making claims that they’re going to bring down society. It made me want to stand up for my friends who are gay. I can’t stop you from saying bigoted, horrible things about people, and even if I could I don’t think I would, because I respect your right to do so….but I take these sort of comments very seriously. You’re basically telling me that the kind of people I’ve known and associated with since I was basically a baby are going to somehow bring down society if they get married? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
No, no, I’m not trying to get on my high horse (though I may have done just that in effect). I just want to let you know what effect people like you are having on people like me. You’re not swaying me at all; you’re not converting me to Christianity, you’re not making me want to consider Christianity and Biblical morality as a lifestyle. You’re inspiring me to oppose you and people like you. You’re inspiring the belief that Christians are mindless zombies who will stop at nothing to blindly spread their “gospel,” no matter whose feelings are hurt or whose lives are ruined or disrupted in the process. And that probably offends me more than any of the other outrageous claims you make, because I also know some fine Christian folk. My mother’s a Christian, and I thank whatever powers that be that she didn’t raise me to think like you. I know Christians can be better people than this….and that depresses the hell out of me.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Actually I do not believe Christians are all sinners. I believe that a faithful Christian was once a sinner but has since changed, has turned away from that sin and received forgiveness for it. So that eliminates the idea that we are judging hypocritically. In fact, that some of us may have been guilty at one time of the sin and been able to come out of it gives a stronger position to explain why it is wrong and help others change their life away from it too. That’s not hypocrisy, its just experience.
So you’re perfect, then? You’ve fixed everything about your life that can possibly be fixed? There’s nothing left for you to work on, or better, or improve?
Do you mean to tell me that the simple act of acknowledging Jesus Christ as the son of the God that you say created the universe somehow excludes you from the repercussions of judging other people?
My great grandfather (a Christian) once told this to my father, after a negative experience at a church: “A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.” Do you agree with this statement?
Stoning is not required by the New Law (Testament) so there would be no need. But 1 Cor. 6:2-3 and John 7:24 among many others not only say that Christians have the right to judge others, but a large majority of what we are called to do (seek and save the LOST) demands it.
For the record, I used “casting stones” here as a metaphor—a reference to the axiom, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
And I have no respect for a book that tells you you have the right to judge me because you are Christian and I am not. You call me a hypocrite for judging you, but you’re just magically exempt—because you’re Christian. Right.
By what standard? Your personal opinion is not an objective standard and it is certainly not one I am bound to. Why is the step of killing these people wrong? And how do you know?
You asked me what I believed, not why you were bound to what I believe. I don’t expect you to bow and acknowledge my moral superiority; that’s where you and I seem to differ.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Josh Charles wrote:
I’m glad you used the word “preliminary,” but that doesn’t take you far enough in the right direction. The evidence suggesting even a genetic influence on homosexuality is paper thin, and the simple fact is that a genetic cause of homosexuality has been ruled out entirely by anybody who reads the research impartially.
Very simply, a study of identical twins examining the incidence of a characteristic that is caused by genes will show a coincidence rate approaching 100%, as identical twins have identical genes. Eye color is an example; an identical twin always has the same eye color as their twin, because eye color is caused by genes.
There have been three such studies addressing homosexuality; in none of them did the coincidence rate approach 100%. In fact, it didn’t reach 50% in any of the studies. The one study of homosexuality that attempted to use identical twins that were separated from birth (which allows the researcher to rule out environmental factors) had a coincidence rate of ZERO — but the sample size was too small to be conclusive.
So, no, Josh, there is not a genetic cause of homosexuality. That’s plain from the evidence. It’s possible — not likely, but possible — that there are genes that influence homosexuality. That’s a very different thing — and in no way suggests that homosexuality is a) good, b) natural, or c) immutable.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Tim,
You wrote:
And I believe you’re no more capable of knowing what is “right” than I am. For one, you use altered definitions of words such as “right;” to you, “right” just means whatever God wants. To me, that’s not the case; to me, “right” means what’s best for everyone, what hurts the fewest people possible (preferably none) and what benefits the most.
My reply:
You are correct, I’m no more capable than you. We all have the Moral Law prescription written on our hearts which means someone must have written it there. I’m simply asking you, outside of your personal opinion, WHY is hurting people wrong? Why was HItler objectively wrong? If you say, he hurt people, you are arguing in a circle.
Now the bigger picture: We are discussing issues and trying to use reason to come to a conclusion. I’m sorry if this type of discussion causes you to hate Christians. Why should such an emotion have any place in a discussion about whether or not something is true? Do you think I am being unreasonable, and if so, do you think I’m doing it deliberately?
BTW, I don’t believe Christianity blindly, hence the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” I’m happy to discuss whether or not my reasons are correct, but I don’t want to annoy you. If it is going to upset you to even discuss these issues, then it leads me to believe that you have an emotional or volitional resistence to Christianity. Only you know for sure.
If you’d rather continure this discussion off the blog, let me know and I’ll send you an email.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Tim D wrote:
This is a thoroughly disingenuous argument. The same people arguing this way are working their fingers to the bone trying to stamp out racism by way of public discussion, law, and social stigma. It has worked to a surprising degree, although some racism simply goes underground rather than disappearing.
Yet, on other issues, they refuse to even make the attempt to extinguish some other social malady, claiming it’s impossible to stop people from doing what they do.
The truth is, these folks only use the “it can’t be stopped” argument for social practices they’d prefer not to extinguish. It’s smoke screen to avoid the debate regarding why we should or should not extinguish the behavior.
Social stigmas, education, and public awareness have strong effects wherever they’re applied. If we as a culture agreed that homosexuality was a compulsive sexual disorder requiring treatment, many more homosexuals would get free from their life-threatening, self-destructive patterns than do now. Claiming they can’t be changed is a disingenuous cop-out.
If you decide to answer, address the fact - and fact, it is — that 75% of individuals claiming they’re gay while between the ages of 15 and 24, revert to heterosexuality after the age of 25. Explain why these individuals could not be spared the risk and social stigma of promiscuous homosexuality through public education programs.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I want to know how many other Christians agree with Ernie that when God commits murder it’s not really murder because God did it.
I’m also not buying that murder is only murder when the law says it is. Murder is murder regardless of what the law says. According to Ernie’s logic Hitler didn’t murder anyone because killing Jews was legal under German law.
I wonder how a murder defense of “God commanded me to kill him” would go over in a US court of law.
I also can’t buy Ernie’s argument that each and every one of those Medianite boys would have grown up to be an evil person. It certainly would have been possible for the Israelites to adopt some of them and raise them up to serve God. But no they never got that chance because they were MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD BY GOD’S COMMAND.
Besides why did God have to place such a burden on the consciences of the Israelites. He could simply have given all of them cancer or something and killed them himself. Why did he have to command the Israelites to do his dirty work for him?
May 21st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Frank wrote “WHY is hurting people wrong?”
This makes the tenth or so time I’ve answered your question. Because not hurting each other is necessary to the survival of the human species. And survival of the human species being a good thing is SELF EVIDENT. No matter how much hand waving you do to try to deny it.
Survival of the humans species being a good thing is SELF EVIDENT.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
You know I used to be a Christian before the internet. And it wasn’t the arguments of atheists that drew me into the atheist camp it was the arguments of Christians.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:49 pm
stealing our jobs,” or whatever pea-brained ideology comes next. We are merely placing restrictions on these practices; a degree of personal choice is ultimatley responsible for the ensuing gap.
Claiming they can’t be changed is a disingenuous cop-out.
I suppose you fully understand the mindset of a homosexual person, in every respect and in complete detail? I suppose you completely understand the thoughts that go through their minds? I don’t see homosexuals coming to places like this and telling you that Christianity is a disease, or that you’re hurting yourself and others (even though you might well be, perpetrating ideologies like Homophobia).
And tossing in those assertive bits about their “self-destructive, life-threatening” habits isn’t helping with the convincing part.
If you decide to answer, address the fact - and fact, it is — that 75% of individuals claiming they’re gay while between the ages of 15 and 24, revert to heterosexuality after the age of 25. Explain why these individuals could not be spared the risk and social stigma of promiscuous homosexuality through public education programs.
I suppose we’re just going to—no pun intended—blow off the other 25%? Just because a subculture has poseurs doesn’t mean it’s not valid; everything from punk rock to Christianity has poseurs. Whenever something gets popular in the mainstream, people try to emulate it. What, are we going to shoot down Christianity because there are terrible Christians? No; we blame the people who are terrible for their own actions. That’s a poor argument you have there.
You know I used to be a Christian before the internet. And it wasn’t the arguments of atheists that drew me into the atheist camp it was the arguments of Christians.
Sadly, I can relate to that in a distant way….I didn’t really consciously deconvert, or anything; I just realized one day that I wasn’t going to get the answers I was looking for. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, being amazed, wanting to understand it….and then finding out it’s just all smoke and mirrors. I was really disappointed, once I realized that, if you interpret things differently, it turns out that the “truth” of the Bible isn’t so obvious or apparent anymore.
Of course, that’s just a person feeling that I’ve learned to reconcile with regard to the faith(s) of my friends and family. It’s actually through their spiritual support that I’ve learned that there really are good, caring people out there who happen to be Christian. They’re just the ones who aren’t shouting from the rooftops that gays are going to bring down American society, all while our President sends our families off to die on foreign soil and the world is slowly turning against us for our own pretensions.
[/rant]
May 21st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
(dammit….disregard that last one…)
You are correct, I’m no more capable than you. We all have the Moral Law prescription written on our hearts which means someone must have written it there. I’m simply asking you, outside of your personal opinion, WHY is hurting people wrong? Why was HItler objectively wrong? If you say, he hurt people, you are arguing in a circle.
I’ve already tried to explain to you that I do not fully understand my own sense of morality. What I can’t seem to communicate to you effectively is that this does not automatically mean I will sway to your side of the debate—that “since I don’t know where it comes from, that must mean that God wins by default.” I’m not quite that desperate for an answer just yet.
Now the bigger picture: We are discussing issues and trying to use reason to come to a conclusion. I’m sorry if this type of discussion causes you to hate Christians. Why should such an emotion have any place in a discussion about whether or not something is true? Do you think I am being unreasonable, and if so, do you think I’m doing it deliberately?
More wordplay; I’m not going to answer that until you re-read the post you’re describing. I never said I hate christians. I said I hate certain things that Christians do, and certain tendencies that the more unpleasant ones have (at least, that I have dealt with). This type of discussion does not cause me to “hate” anyone; it angers me because people who share your view on homosexuality don’t question their own morals and values in the same light that they question others; you ask me questions like, “how do I know?” and I answer you by posing the same question to you—if you’re so sure, then prove it to me. Give me a good, solid, irrefutable reason to believe that a person to whom I have been close to since my kindergarten years—one of the only three people I feel I can really, truly trust in every sense of the word, I feel I know this person so well—is going to bring down society with this tendency you describe on paper. You point me to scientists who ask “reformed homosexuals” questions about their “past lives;” clearly, if they consider themselves “reformed,” then they were not okay with who they were. And while that in itself is fine, it means this person did not enjoy the lifestyle of a homosexual—it wasn’t who they really were. It’s an insult to my intelligence (and that of every homosexual, as well) to say that, because one person decided they didn’t like who they thought they were, and decided to find out who they really were, that everybody else must feel the same way. The only person who can know who he or she really is is that person, him- or herself.
It calls forth an argument Christians use a lot: “He’s not a real Christian.” How do you know these people were “true homosexuals?” How do you know they had not simply believed they were, or been mislead to believe that they were, only to find out that they were not?
BTW, I don’t believe Christianity blindly, hence the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” I’m happy to discuss whether or not my reasons are correct, but I don’t want to annoy you. If it is going to upset you to even discuss these issues, then it leads me to believe that you have an emotional or volitional resistence to Christianity. Only you know for sure.
Yes, yes, I understand that you see me as a statistic—that if I’m not Christian, or if I react harshly to what I perceive as ill intentions against people with whom I can personally relate, then there is clearly something wrong with me. Right.
As I’ve tried to explain, I am not against Christianity. I am not opposed to Christianity in any way. If someone feels a certain way about something, I believe he or she has the right to express that feeling. What I do despise, and what I am opposed to, is the idea that, because a person is Christian, he/she is free to do and say hurtful things to people that those people are not allowed to do in return—the idea that “being Christian means I’m right, and that’s just that.” If you feel that way, fine, but it’s not a convincing argument, and all you do when you invoke it is muddy the waters.
although some racism simply goes underground rather than disappearing.
That’s a step in the right direction; at least then it’s not permissible in the public eye. We’re never going to stamp out racism entirely—we have no chance, not any moreso than we have a chance of stamping out “terrorism.” It’s an ideology, a way of life; you can’t destroy that as long as somebody holds the idea somewhere. Ideas can’t just be gunned down or outlawed; they have to be done away with willingly, and until every single person in the world contributes to that cause, racism (and sexism, and homophobia) will always exist. Just as homosexuality will continue to exist. Unless we pull of a 1984 thought-controlled “utopia” world, people will always escape to the shadows to do whatever they do. And as long as what they are doing involves causing willful harm or risk to others, I fully support driving it into the shadows.
Yet, on other issues, they refuse to even make the attempt to extinguish some other social malady, claiming it’s impossible to stop people from doing what they do.
Who is this “they?” I hear a lot of people talk about this person. Bill O’Reilly, George Bush, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity….they all seem to have some problem with this “They.” I’d like to talk to this person and get the real story….I’ve never actually seen or heard him (or her?).
The truth is, these folks only use the “it can’t be stopped” argument for social practices they’d prefer not to extinguish. It’s smoke screen to avoid the debate regarding why we should or should not extinguish the behavior.
It’s no smokescreen; do you really think we’re going to wake up one day—even if we dedicate the rest of the span of human existence to “destroying terrorists”—and find out that, “Oh, gosh, all the terrorists are gone! Everyone loves us again!”? That’s not going to happen. Same deal with racism; even once it’s publicly accepted that racism is wrong, there will always be people who exist outside the mainstream continuum of thought who disagree and think “the blacks are taking our nation one gas station at a time,” or “the Mexicans are stealing our jobs,” or whatever pea-brained ideology comes next. We are merely placing restrictions on these practices; a degree of personal choice is ultimatley responsible for the ensuing gap.
Claiming they can’t be changed is a disingenuous cop-out.
I suppose you fully understand the mindset of a homosexual person, in every respect and in complete detail? I suppose you completely understand the thoughts that go through their minds? I don’t see homosexuals coming to places like this and telling you that Christianity is a disease, or that you’re hurting yourself and others (even though you might well be, perpetrating ideologies like Homophobia).
And tossing in those assertive bits about their “self-destructive, life-threatening” habits isn’t helping with the convincing part.
If you decide to answer, address the fact - and fact, it is — that 75% of individuals claiming they’re gay while between the ages of 15 and 24, revert to heterosexuality after the age of 25. Explain why these individuals could not be spared the risk and social stigma of promiscuous homosexuality through public education programs.
I suppose we’re just going to—no pun intended—blow off the other 25%? Just because a subculture has poseurs doesn’t mean it’s not valid; everything from punk rock to Christianity has poseurs. Whenever something gets popular in the mainstream, people try to emulate it. What, are we going to shoot down Christianity because there are terrible Christians? No; we blame the people who are terrible for their own actions. That’s a poor argument you have there.
You know I used to be a Christian before the internet. And it wasn’t the arguments of atheists that drew me into the atheist camp it was the arguments of Christians.
Sadly, I can relate to that in a distant way….I didn’t really consciously deconvert, or anything; I just realized one day that I wasn’t going to get the answers I was looking for. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, being amazed, wanting to understand it….and then finding out it’s just all smoke and mirrors. I was really disappointed, once I realized that, if you interpret things differently, it turns out that the “truth” of the Bible isn’t so obvious or apparent anymore.
Of course, that’s just a person feeling that I’ve learned to reconcile with regard to the faith(s) of my friends and family. It’s actually through their spiritual support that I’ve learned that there really are good, caring people out there who happen to be Christian. They’re just the ones who aren’t shouting from the rooftops that gays are going to bring down American society, all while our President sends our families off to die on foreign soil and the world is slowly turning against us for our own pretensions.
[/rant]
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
~~~~So you’re perfect, then? You’ve fixed everything about your life that can possibly be fixed? There’s nothing left for you to work on, or better, or improve?~~~~
I am sinless thanks to the continuous washing of the blood of Christ as long as I am walking in the light of His word (1 John 1:7). This is not to say that I have never sinned (because I have) nor is it to say that I cannot sin (because I can and do from time to time…less often the longer I walk with God).
But if I turn to walk in darkness, that is to say if I choose to become a sinner again, then I would be in trouble. The blood of Christ would no longer cleanse me continuously. I would be in the position described in James 5:19-20. For me to walk in darkness, to completely turn from God and then condemn others who are walking in darkness…that would make me a hypocrite. There is a distinction. And to judge someone in the former state does not make me a hypocrite.
~~~~Do you mean to tell me that the simple act of acknowledging Jesus Christ as the son of the God that you say created the universe somehow excludes you from the repercussions of judging other people?~~~~
Actually, that is not what I believe at all. To be saved one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believe it (Mark. 16:15-16), confess their faith in Christ as the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32), repent of their sins — that means to turn from sin and towards God — (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1), and finally one must be immersed in water into Christ for the purpose of remission of sins (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.). Then I am saved.
Then of course I must live faithfully (Rev. 2:10; 1 John 1:7) as I mentioned above. But there are no repercussions for judging someone righteously, only for judging hypocritically. In fact we are commanded to judge righteously for such is our duty (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 6:2) in order to fulfill our purpose to seek and save the lost.
Even you, a sinner, may judge righteously. In that you do not murder, you may un-hypocritically judge another who murders. Romans 2 gives a good look at what hypocritical judging looks like.
~~~~My great grandfather (a Christian) once told this to my father, after a negative experience at a church: “A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.” Do you agree with this statement?~~~~
No, I do not.
~~~~For the record, I used “casting stones” here as a metaphor—a reference to the axiom, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”~~~~
You did not understand the lesson Jesus was teaching there in John 8 nor the purpose of my comment. The point is that under the NT, God calls us always to seek and save the lost, not destroy them as under the OT, though they deserve death for their sins as I did when I was a sinner.
~~~~And I have no respect for a book that tells you you have the right to judge me because you are Christian and I am not. You call me a hypocrite for judging you, but you’re just magically exempt—because you’re Christian. Right.~~~~
Actually Romans 2 says something about that as well. Romans is a great book if you ever get the opportunity to read it. If you do not murder, who are a sinner, and I as a Christian murder, then you have every right to condemn me for that murder. In fact our judges here in America, who may or may not be Christians, make this kind of non-hypocritical judgment all the time. I have no problems whatsoever with you judging me. I don’t know of an adult human who can go through life without judging others. All humans just need to make sure we aren’t holding people up to a standard that we ourselves aren’t living by. Since I am living by the only objective standard available, I have no qualms about judging other humans by that same standard. In fact I must to fulfill one of the main purposes of being a Christian.
~~~~You asked me what I believed, not why you were bound to what I believe. I don’t expect you to bow and acknowledge my moral superiority; that’s where you and I seem to differ.~~~~
But it is not my moral standard. I did not come up with it. I could not. Furthermore, you have the freedom to choose to live by God’s moral standard or not. I’m not going to hold a gun to your head and force you live by that standard. It wouldn’t work anyway because repentance and obedience to God’s will requires an inward change. A person convinced against their will is of the same mind still.
If you had not come to this site and begun discussing these things with those of us who defend Intelligent Design (and Creation as I do) then chances are you would never have been spoken to by any of us here. Most every person in the world who claims to be a Christian will approach you once and then if you say you aren’t interested they’ll leave you alone. But keep in mind, Tim…you came to us.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
~~~I’m also not buying that murder is only murder when the law says it is.~~~~
So you lied. What purpose would be served in continuing an “honest” discussion with you, Ken, when you aren’t honest?
~~~~Murder is murder regardless of what the law says. According to Ernie’s logic Hitler didn’t murder anyone because killing Jews was legal under German law.~~~~
German law is not the highest law. As was stated at the Nuremberg trials, Hitler and his commanders were in violation of a higher law, a law above the transient (time) and provincial (space). Hitler’s men (Hitler himself was already dead) were successfully convicted based on this point. So bringing up Hitler and the law of man is irrelevant to the point. According to that higher law, Hiter’s killings were unauthorized, unjust. That higher law always supersedes the laws of earthly government.
Another example of this is that in the U.S. the murder of millions of unborn children is perfectly legal (thanks to Roe vs. Wade), but it is still murder according to that higher law.
~~~~I wonder how a murder defense of “God commanded me to kill him” would go over in a US court of law.~~~~
It depends on if you can actually prove that God did in deed command you to kill ‘him’. The death penalty is a perfect example of this defense. Governments have the right to execute those in violation of the law (so long as those laws are in accordance with the higher law mentioned earlier). So when someone asks government officials what right they have to execute a murderer, they are perfectly legitimate in stating that God said they could.
~~~~I also can’t buy Ernie’s argument that each and every one of those Medianite boys would have grown up to be an evil person. It certainly would have been possible for the Israelites to adopt some of them and raise them up to serve God.~~~~
This is beside the point. The point I was making is that they would not have the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, as I said, death is not the end for them. Each of those young boys transitioned from a life almost certain to lead them to eternal destruction to a state of Paradise and eventually Heaven. Yet you call this evil.
~~~~Besides why did God have to place such a burden on the consciences of the Israelites. He could simply have given all of them cancer or something and killed them himself. Why did he have to command the Israelites to do his dirty work for him?~~~~
To teach them of course.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Ken: ~~~I’m also not buying that murder is only murder when the law says it is.~~~~
Ernie: So you lied. What purpose would be served in continuing an “honest” discussion with you, Ken, when you aren’t honest?
Ken: Sorry if I misunderstood your definition of murder. I mistakenly took you example of executing a criminal to be saying that killing as punishment for a crime was another example of killing that was not murder, which I agree with.
Ernie: “So bringing up Hitler and the law of man is irrelevant to the point. According to that higher law, Hiter’s killings were unauthorized, unjust. That higher law always supersedes the laws of earthly government.”
Ken: How do you know they were unauthorized. Hitler claimed to be doing God’s will. How can you claim to know otherwise? Why is Hitler’s claim that exterminating the Jews was God’s will any less credible than Moses’ claim that exterminating the Medianites was God’s will?
Ken:~~~~Besides why did God have to place such a burden on the consciences of the Israelites. He could simply have given all of them cancer or something and killed them himself. Why did he have to command the Israelites to do his dirty work for him?~~~~
Ernie:To teach them of course.
To teach them what? That God is an evil SOB? I suppose so.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
But if I turn to walk in darkness, that is to say if I choose to become a sinner again, then I would be in trouble. The blood of Christ would no longer cleanse me continuously. I would be in the position described in James 5:19-20. For me to walk in darkness, to completely turn from God and then condemn others who are walking in darkness…that would make me a hypocrite. There is a distinction. And to judge someone in the former state does not make me a hypocrite.
Actually, you’re still a hypocrite. I don’t care whose blood you’re bathing in, if you criticize someone else for not being completely perfect by your own standard, when you yourself are no moreso, then you are a hypocrite. You admit that you do things you call “sins,” but then you turn around and say, “but it’s okay, because I’m Christian. I repent!” Bull. If that works for you, great, but it doesn’t fly with me at all.
Actually, that is not what I believe at all. To be saved one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believe it (Mark. 16:15-16), confess their faith in Christ as the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32), repent of their sins — that means to turn from sin and towards God — (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1), and finally one must be immersed in water into Christ for the purpose of remission of sins (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.). Then I am saved.
Yeah, yeah, I know all that, I was paraphrasing.
Then of course I must live faithfully (Rev. 2:10; 1 John 1:7) as I mentioned above. But there are no repercussions for judging someone righteously, only for judging hypocritically. In fact we are commanded to judge righteously for such is our duty (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 6:2) in order to fulfill our purpose to seek and save the lost.
And that is why the “outside world” (i.e. everyone else) sees people like you as pretentious, self-righteous white-bread politicians.
No, I do not.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I figured.
Actually Romans 2 says something about that as well. Romans is a great book if you ever get the opportunity to read it. If you do not murder, who are a sinner, and I as a Christian murder, then you have every right to condemn me for that murder. In fact our judges here in America, who may or may not be Christians, make this kind of non-hypocritical judgment all the time. I have no problems whatsoever with you judging me. I don’t know of an adult human who can go through life without judging others. All humans just need to make sure we aren’t holding people up to a standard that we ourselves aren’t living by. Since I am living by the only objective standard available, I have no qualms about judging other humans by that same standard. In fact I must to fulfill one of the main purposes of being a Christian.
Don’t get me wrong, here—I oppose hypocrisy as well—but that’s not all there is to it. You’re not free from being criticized just because you act a certain way and criticize everyone else for not acting that same way. On top of that, it’s silly to expect everyone else to live exactly the same way that you do.
And before you even start with the moral crusade again, I’m not talking about things like murdering or not murdering. That’s a separate discussion altogether. I think there’s a chance that you and I would agree on several basic “moral” rules, such as the murder deal (though obviously not in every respect); and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. But when you turn the gun on homosexuals simply for being homosexual, that’s where you lose me. You start talking about how “homosexuality is wrong,” and what I basically get out of that is, “it’s only wrong because the Bible says it is/I can criticize them because I’m not gay/*insert random attempt at ’scientific proof’ that homosexuality is wrong*.”
I don’t understand the idea that there has to be a final, ultimate law about everything. First it’s said that murder is always wrong; then the question inevitably comes up, “well, what if it’s done to protect someone, or to save a large number of people whose lives are being endangered by a single person?” To which the response is often something like: “Oh, that’s not murder, then, because murder is killing a person with ill intent,” or whatever exact definition one wishes to use. That’s a word game—don’t kill because all life is sacred. So this doesn’t apply to people who kill for any reason? No, it does apply to people who kill for certain reasons, or under certain conditions. So then, all life is not sacred.
Either all life is sacred, or only some is, or none is. If the answer is “all,” then it’s impossible to hold a standard to that. If the answer is “some,” then there is a logical loophole; if the answer is “none,” well, then we’ll have to find a different way to give life value than by turning to religion. That, of course, is where I come in
But it is not my moral standard. I did not come up with it. I could not. Furthermore, you have the freedom to choose to live by God’s moral standard or not. I’m not going to hold a gun to your head and force you live by that standard. It wouldn’t work anyway because repentance and obedience to God’s will requires an inward change. A person convinced against their will is of the same mind still.
It may not be your standard, but you accuse others of being “wrong” if they don’t abide by it, do you not? That’s no different. If you agree with it, then it is the standard by which you live—”your” standard.
If you had not come to this site and begun discussing these things with those of us who defend Intelligent Design (and Creation as I do) then chances are you would never have been spoken to by any of us here. Most every person in the world who claims to be a Christian will approach you once and then if you say you aren’t interested they’ll leave you alone. But keep in mind, Tim…you came to us.
When did I ever accuse you of coming to me?
Look, I know wading into the foul waters of Fundamentalist Christianity is a hopeless endeavor. I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind; I know I’m not going to make anyone think about anything differently. I know how Fundamentalism works; I’ve been there and done that. It’s a perfect little pretzel of logic that people trap themselves in, a world where the standard for “reality” is “what the Bible says,” to the extent that if something happens in reality that either contradicts or casts the Bible in a less-than-perfect light, then it must be wrong, or Liberal Propaganda, or Teh Gays.
However, I can’t seem to get over this fascination I have with the way people like this site’s host react to questions of or assaults on their beliefs; the use of the idea that “my beliefs are right, and that’s just a given” as a defense. No question, no contest. People like this go so far as to push their ideas on others—in the form of legal action—on the grounds that, “I’m right, and you should just accept that, because the Bible says I’m right.” Excuse me if I don’t have enough confidence in “the Bible” to live that way.
Keep in mind, the Bible is not ingrained into our consciousness. We are born as biological creatures with no knowledge of any world, this or others. That is when religion comes in and tries to sell us whatever propaganda they’re peddling; Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever new non-Judeo-Christian cult is big this week….and from where I stand, you’re no more than a peddler, trying to sell his wares on the street, trying to convince me that it’s worth my time and money to buy your book because the book itself says that to do so would be wise.
I guess what I’m getting at is, you’re on the internet. I’m on the internet; I find your page, I read what you say, and I disagree. So I argue with you~ Of course, I believe that debate is at the heart of a healthy society, so naturally you and I are going to disagree on this.
So when someone asks government officials what right they have to execute a murderer, they are perfectly legitimate in stating that God said they could.
To you they are right. But that’s because you believe God’s law is the right law. What reason do you have to believe this? What makes this objectively “right?” Because God said it? How do we know God is right? Because he said he is? How do we know—assuming he’s even real—that he is the moral standard of everything, objectively?
The list goes on and on; the point of morality has not been proven, not by you or by anyone else. We have laws based on morals that we all agree upon, with variances that account for the difference in philosophies. Every now and then, some fundie activist group will come along and try to make the claim that because many of our laws agree with God, that we’re a Christian nation, or that our laws come from God. Which is wrong, of course, for anyone who’s paying attention: gays can marry, and I’m pretty sure the Christian God wouldn’t like that, based on what you’re feeding me. Abortions are legal, and that’s not a Christian philosophy. So the evidence is clear—our laws are not Christian, and do not come from God, any more than the ones that agree with other religions come from those respective religions (as, you know, most religions have a law against murder—that’s not just christianity).
To teach them of course.
What a delightfully empty excuse.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
This is a very good line of reasoning to start the average person’s consideration of whether or not morality can be legislated or not… the truth is; it is common knowledge that law is not law without moral clarity, and that law itself is is moral . Legality [however] doesn’t have to be based on morals at all, but more [or less] what is expedient to that culture or class of people, or [in short] permissiveness. So the equation is:
Lawful = Moral, just, right, clear and enforceable
Legal = Permissible - allowable by legislative proxy
“…Political process aside, I’d like for you to weigh in on the following four questions:
1. For what secular purpose does the state endorse traditional marriage (i.e. what benefits does the state experience from traditional marriage)?
My Answer: The livelihood and longevity of the state is based on the procreation of the next generation, ergo - the reason they license marriages. Homosexuality is a bio-illogical behavioral proclivity that is antithetical to the purpose of procreation and therefore need not even be considered in equivocation. It isn’t equal and no one has a right to be gay.
2. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in traditional marriage?
My Answer:
a) Lower crime rate
b) Higher birth rate
c) Larger tax base - to lower taxes over all and make up by volume
d) Healthier national identity
e) More vibrant & healthier economy
f) Greater individual self esteem and self value w/o Hollywood’s help
g) Stronger isulation against liberal social indoctrination
3. What would be the results to society if every adult lived faithfully in same-sex marriage?
My Answer:
a) Shortened generational life span
b) Higher suicide rates
c) Unimaginable health care costs - even for pricate sector
d) Lower birth rate
e) Disasterous effect on the economy
f) Erase the sanctity of marriage and the gender distinction for children
g) The cost of espadrille’s would go through the roof
4. In light of your answers above, should the state legally equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships by endorsing same sex marriage?
My Answer:
No, the institution of marriage had preempted any and all forms of government. In God’s ultimate wisdom put marriage before civilized government - So, what is He saying - YOU CAN”T HAVE ANY GOVERNMENT IF A MAN AND A WOMAN CANNOT COMMIT TO EACH OTHER OR EVEN PROCREATE HOW CAN THEY REPRESENT OTHERS? - look at the time line literally, without marriage society would not exist. The union of marriage builds characters and forces the genders to deal with our differences, sexism and gender discrimination are farm more prevalent in liberal societies than in family centered societies. To loose that would spell the end of America.
This is a no brainer - but we had it coming when we took an isolationist position and let the left browbeat us with political correctness and allow a voice to force a dialog on a subject that needn’t be discussed by any same individual. To preserve marriage is to preserve the union.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
a) Lower crime rate
b) Higher birth rate
c) Larger tax base - to lower taxes over all and make up by volume
d) Healthier national identity
e) More vibrant & healthier economy
f) Greater individual self esteem and self value w/o Hollywood’s help
g) Stronger isulation against liberal social indoctrination
You want to talk about indoctrination? I’ve seen more Christian propaganda on TV in the last week than I’ve seen of “liberal propaganda” in the last ten years. Every time a TV figure that identifies as “Christian” opens his mouth, there’s nothing but stupidity and misguided attempts and “fact”-citing—why, just the other day, Mr. Dobson attacked Barack Obama for suggesting that we should find a moral grounds on which all people, not just Christians, to agree that abortion should be avoided. He somehow twisted it into an accusation against Obama that “he said it’s un-democratic to fight for Biblical principals!” Which he clearly did not.
You want to talk about propaganda? Christian radio and television is nothing but propaganda. I’m not even sure what people are talking about when they say “liberal propaganda,” unless it’s like the definition you use here—”anyone who disagrees with the Bible.”
Somehow, that means you’re liberal. Go figure 0_0
a) Shortened generational life span
b) Higher suicide rates
c) Unimaginable health care costs - even for pricate sector
d) Lower birth rate
e) Disasterous effect on the economy
f) Erase the sanctity of marriage and the gender distinction for children
g) The cost of espadrille’s would go through the roof
(a) homosexuality does not shorten life spans, contrary to Christian indoctrination/propaganda
(b) homosexuality does not cause suicide, contrary to Christian indoctrination/propaganda
(c) this doesn’t even make any sense, what you’re saying here
(d) again, I guess we’re looking the other way on straight couples that don’t want to reproduce (like us)
(e) generalization with no factual base
(f) if your child can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman just because society doesn’t have prominent religious-based gender roles, then I’m sorry, but your child is an idiot
(g)…..
No, the institution of marriage had preempted any and all forms of government. In God’s ultimate wisdom put marriage before civilized government - So, what is He saying - YOU CAN”T HAVE ANY GOVERNMENT IF A MAN AND A WOMAN CANNOT COMMIT TO EACH OTHER OR EVEN PROCREATE HOW CAN THEY REPRESENT OTHERS? - look at the time line literally, without marriage society would not exist. The union of marriage builds characters and forces the genders to deal with our differences, sexism and gender discrimination are farm more prevalent in liberal societies than in family centered societies. To loose that would spell the end of America.
It’s saddening to read things like this. You really can’t look beyond the idea that “the Bible says this, so this is true, and I refuse to examine it any further.” You really can’t consider any alternative; that’s really sad, because you’ll never know what it’s like to think for yourself, or to have to face difficult questions of right and wrong.
This is a no brainer - but we had it coming when we took an isolationist position and let the left browbeat us with political correctness and allow a voice to force a dialog on a subject that needn’t be discussed by any same individual. To preserve marriage is to preserve the union.
The union of Christians, maybe. I don’t want a world where Christians get to decide what’s right and wrong. I want a world where people realize there is no finite, always-the-case right and wrong—where people recognize that there are things called “moral gray areas,” instances in which it’s not simply cut-and-dry, as the Christian propaganda would have you believe. I want people to have real, systematic answers to morality and spirituality and making wise choices in life, instead of just saying “do what the Bible says, and like it, and even if it doesn’t make any sense, just trust the invisible man in the sky and it’ll be alright.” I want a world where people want to actually solve world problems, instead of act like sarcastic asswipes and just slap Jesus on everything—Rod Parsely actually said, the other day, that “we don’t need healthcare reform/we need Jesus!” How is it that we can afford to shy away from actually saving lives by improving the state of healthcare, opting instead to slap a Jesus sticker on the problem?
I really don’t believe Christians want to solve any problems. I don’t think Christians care about world problems at all; I think they use world issues as a smokescreen to spread their faith. In the end, even if they destroy the world with their idiotic bickering, they won’t care, because if they get to make everyone think like they do (or at least pretend to, for fear of retaliation by extremists like the homophobes), then that’s good enough. Never mind if we actually solve problems; just assert the same empty ritualistic nonsense over and over again, never presenting any positive results, never showing any progress. Just assert, assert, assert.
But I digress….you say you care about people “dying” from some mysterious homosexuality-related problem, which you have yet to provide any evidence of. Cigarettes kill more people than homosexuals every year, by a strong margin; why do you not attack smoking? It’s a self-destructive habit.
I guess what I mean is, once you’ve succeeded in defeating all of the other things that we can actually verify to have a negative impact on humanity, then I might be inclined to listen to you rant and piss and moan about how denying some people civil rights is going to preserve America’s already predominantly non-Christian culture.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
To those concerned that Christians who oppose this sinful and adultress generation are the trouble makers need to realize that
when we are gone destruction will soon follow. Hear the voice of the Lord Jesus now as your heart may be to hard to hear His voice later. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ now.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:50 am
When ever homo sexuals can bear children then I will agree they can marry. This means exactly what I have written. THEY and NO ONE else. Marriage is GOD’s plan for humans to propugate.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:51 am
There is no moderation.