Comments Posted By thinker from seattle
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments
JDM: I'm not sure what your post means, but if you took offense, I'm sorry, I didnt mean to give any--just attempting to engage you in theorizing from a philosophical standpoint.
I too have a gay family member to whom I'm very close. I'm also very fond of the partner. Doesn't mean I approve of all his choices. I certainly don't approve of all mine either! And honestly, my own "poor" choices bother me a whole lot more than anyone else's choices. Did not mean to insult or offend you!
Comment Posted By thinker from seattle On 14.09.2008 @ 20:25
Brooks says: "Now, I’m certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It’s patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody’s going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value 'the Bible says it so it must be true.' Break that argument down, and you’ve got 'it’s true because it’s true,' and it doesn’t take much brainpower to see why that doesn’t go anywhere. But if I wanted a “just because” argument for truth, thanks but no thanks—I’ll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents."
Brooks, I didn't say any of these things, I'm just pointing out a flaw in logic. I could also say that just because something is "natural" doesn't make it "optimal". For example, it is natural that many women die in childbirth. Does that make it optimal? Does that make it a good thing?
My point is that even if the scientific community discovers that "gay gene", it doesn't make a moral or value judgment. That is all I said.
And, I did state that there has never been a "gay gene" established. The primary scientist who reported the existence of such, later reported the findings as completely erroneous. But, in the end, it doesn't matter.
The argument of what is optimal is not the same as the argument from origin.
Comment Posted By thinker from seattle On 14.09.2008 @ 20:11
JDM Re: "So what she was born that way"--just for the sake of intellectual argument, let's say that alcoholism turns out to be caused by a particular gene, are we going to tell the alcoholic: "Okay, you can't help it, go right ahead, drink as much as you want, let's celebrate your alcoholism, who cares if you drink yourself to death?, go ahead, get my 14 year old son intoxicated, have a parade about your being an alcoholic, there's nothing you can do about it."
This is something to think about. The genetic factor, even though it has zero scientific evidence to support it, is not valid reasoning for any particular behavior. It may help explain, but it does not exempt the individual from responsibility.
Comment Posted By thinker from seattle On 14.09.2008 @ 18:49
A few more points directed to you, Rick. To quote your article:
<>So, are you telling us that Christians who take the Bible seriously are interfering in some way with your life? How so?
Government by definition imposes its values on everyone. What do you think laws are? Have you really thought through any of the implications of what you are espousing?
The public school system is a monopoly system, funded through government enforcement, with the ability to impose its agenda, whatever that may be, on the youth of the nation.
At the moment,a pro-homosexual agenda is being promoted by the state school system. Christian groups and parents have every right to object to this type of manipulation--after all, their tax dollars are supporting the schools too. There is no way you can have a values-neutral education or government.
I also don't want the government imposing things, which is why I support school choice, school vouchers, etc., ie anything which allows parents to choose the value system they espouse.
I still don't have a clue what you think is so threatening about Christian groups such as the FRC. Come on, what's your worst fear?
Comment Posted By thinker from seattle On 14.09.2008 @ 18:33
This is an embarassing, disqualifying comment from you, Rick. There's no way this is not a complete paranoid overreaction. I see nothing here from the FRC indicating burning of witches---just your knee-jerk reaction because you disagree.
Re: "The American Psychiatric Association decided back in the 1970’s that homosexuality was not a mental disorder or disease" --you neglect to add that this was done after acute pressure from homosexual activist groups. Are you naive enough to think that what a group of eccentric MDs decide in one decade establishes truth and reality for all time, especially when it goes against the common wisdom of thousands of years of human history in every people group?
Your intolerance of Christian belief is just staggering. Who made YOU the sole arbiter of what people are supposed to believe as "contemporary reality"? What is the basis for your own confidence in what is right and wrong? Is it just decided by popularity contest?
So just what is YOUR value system? And why should anyone consider YOUR value system normative for them? If each person is the only one deciding what is right and wrong, then, in effect, there is no such thing as morality, and therefore no basis for your outrage.
I don't see a lot of Christians out there doing anything other than praying with people, trying to support healthy family life, and helping the suffering. Why do you think Communist Chinese academics come over here to find out what Christianity is about? They're coming here to find out what works, because they actually UNDERSTAND that it is part of the underlying philosophy that makes for healthy, productive family life, as well as a free, vigorous profitable market system.
Rick, if you yourself ever become a part of a hated minority group, who is it who you think will defend your right to life? It will be Christians, most likely. Check the world track record on which countries have the largest numbers of people trying to immigrate to them? Do you think it's just a coincidence that people are not losing their lives trying to come to Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist nations, but rather to those that have a long history of Christian faith? You are the one who is sadly out of touch, and you are also out of touch with what is happening in the rest of the world.
All I can see in this paragraph from the FRC is that they are opposed to normalizing homosexuality. "opposed", (I don't see that that means denying them basic civil rights much less "burning at the stake!")DUHH--that is what everyone thought before the gay activist onslaught, which has made people who are easily led insecure of their opinions. So, these people are not allowed to have their own point of view because you don't share it? If this is libertarianism, you can keep it!!
The other thing I get is that they have compassion for the suffering that homosexuals have. Where's the problem here? There is no question that rates of suicide, disease, alcoholism etc. are higher in the male homosexual community. Should one not have compassion for this? What is your problem?
More importantly, what is it that so frightens you about the FRC? Let's be honest here.
Comment Posted By thinker from seattle On 14.09.2008 @ 16:19
