Parable of the Brown-Eyed Son

[Soyeong]

Oh, don't give me parodies as some approximation of a legitimate counter-argument. You know as well as I do that the things you mention have no legal force.

Nadine Schweigert, North Dakota Woman, 'Marries Herself,' Opens Up About Self-Marriage

The woman who married herself

Man in India marries dog as atonement

Woman set to marry building undeterred by demolition work

Man marries video game character

Man gets married to a pillow

They may not have much legal force now, but what is to prevent this people from demanding the same "rights"?

[Cerebrum123]

Seriously, soy, you can't think of any other reason to say that homosexuality is genetic? I doubt this. The obvious reason surely must have occurred to you. I simply won't believe you think all scientific inquiry into genetic bases for sexual orientation is driven by ideological or anti-Christian concerns.

We see homosexuality around us, not merely in our species, but in many of our close "cousins" and ask about its origins. Genetics is naturally going to be a leading candidate. Evidence hasn't born out the hypothesis yet, but the search continues, some of it quite suggestive. There is already a reasonable mechanism for propagation of genetic factors if they're found. Women with homosexual relatives tend to have larger families, enough larger for selection if there's anything there to be selected. Better evidence has been found for hormonal influences, but the research is still too fragmentary to prioritize causes.

You've seen the reactions by Christians to comparisons between their beliefs and viruses. Please understand that comparisons between homosexuality and alcoholism are equally denigrating, and to be avoided.

Now you say that warning homosexuals of the dangers of their sinful sexual practices is not hateful. But this can be true only if your assumptions are correct: that these dangers are real and the sexual practices are sinful. If there is no eternal judgment or lesser spiritual dangers, or sexual sin is not what you believe it to be, then these rebukes are merely harmful rather than therapeutic. I wouldn't say they are motivated by hate, but they are objectively hateful.

We don't see these dangers. We don't believe the behavior is sinful. These objections would not occur to us, and are not convincing when we examine their sources. Many of the sexual mores codified in your sacred texts are unthinkable today. As a society, we do not believe virgins should be given as wives to their rapists, or that women found to be non-virgin when taken as wives should be stoned on their fathers' doorsteps. Objectively, we can imagine an ANE society that would benefit from these mores, and mores against homosexuality as well, and so understand their inclusion in texts from the period. But, like biblical cosmology, it is not an accurate presentation of the world around us as we see it today, and thus of little utility as we refine our views of the cosmos or of a functional societal response to variant sexual expressions.

As ever, Jesse

Well, if you are going at this topic from an evolutionary perspective, then homosexuality shouldn't exist per natural selection. Only that which allows you to pass on your genes would make it to the next generation, and homosexuality is effectively dead in the water under those circumstances.

[technomage]

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-...e-sex-marriage

Lots of op-ed, little in the way of specifics.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sask-marriage-...#axzz1z27VZUAw

Marriage commissioners are public officials--if he's not willing to follow public law, he needs to get out of office.

This one is from this year in Kansas:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kan...gs-receptions/

This one is from New Jersey:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jud...n-ceremony-on/

For these two, it's the same, somewhat tricky situation--a church (or church-affiliated organization) rents out its facilities to the general public.

Let me ask you this, Mossy--if a rental facility makes a regular habit of renting to everyone, but refused to rent to a Christian, you'd be quite offended, right? (So would I, by the way.) This is what we are looking at here. In the second case, the court even said something to the effect of "If they had rented only to church parishoners, the plaintifs would have no case."

They didn't however, These places had been regularly renting their hall to anyone who had the money. So all of a sudden, here comes people for an event ... and they are refused. Seems to me that the churches in question were more interested in money (as opposed to doctrine) long before the question of a lesbian couple trying to rent their hall came up.

No, Mossy, these cases hold no water. THe examples you bring are already "of the world," not simply Christians being "in the world." You can be in the world, or you can be of the world--but if you, as a Christian, are already "of the world," then you have already stepped outside of those protections.

[technomage]

I already sked that you not give me parodies--don't give me slippery slopes either.

You completely ignored my statements on "rule of law." Respond to that, please.

[technomage]

Well, if you are going at this topic from an evolutionary perspective, then homosexuality shouldn't exist per natural selection. Only that which allows you to pass on your genes would make it to the next generation, and homosexuality is effectively dead in the water under those circumstances.

This has already been investigated by science--google "evolution gay uncle" (without quotes).

[technomage]

I understand that our society no longer needs to follow the same civil laws as Israel, however, if God considers something to be an abomination, then I don't see how changes in society are able to circumvent that.

You are asking secular law to abide by theocratic conventions. Where is the logic in that?

[mossrose]

Let me ask you this, Mossy--if a rental facility makes a regular habit of renting to everyone, but refused to rent to a Christian, you'd be quite offended, right? (So would I, by the way.) This is what we are looking at here. In the second case, the court even said something to the effect of "If they had rented only to church parishoners, the plaintifs would have no case."

I honestly don't think I would care. I would feel that it is their right to rent their facility to whomever they want to. I don't believe I would be upset enough to take them to court. There are lots of other places that would be willing to rent to me, even if I am a Christian.

And I guess you can dismiss the issues I've brought up as easily as you dismiss the authority of scripture that is MY final authority. But I see in all of these examples the willingness of a society to accept demands placed upon them by a minority, (which really was already equal in the eyes of the law), to the detriment of those whose conscience rights are being eroded.

You know I care about you, very much. Your friendship means a great deal to me, and I am glad that we can discourse together without making too much of a mess.

[technomage]

I honestly don't think I would care.

Terrific! But that's you as an individual--the law is not concerned with whether or not you would care, the law is concerned with whether or not individuals are being discriminated against.

In that situation, you would have been discriminated against, and the owner of the property would be in violation of the law (I don't know the exact terminology when it comes to tort law.)

And I guess you can dismiss the issues I've brought up as easily as you dismiss the authority of scripture that is MY final authority.

The scripture is your final authority--well and good. YOU ARE NOT THE STATE.

What is the final authority of the government in Canada?

[Whag]

As I've said before, I mean no similarities between alcoholism and homosexuality other than the ones I've mentioned. I am not particularly attached to the example, and if you can think of another example that is clearly linked to genetics, has the tendency to lead to a particular sin, and where people are still responsible for their actions, then I would just as happily use that analogy instead.

It's your responsibility to provide a more parallel example, since you're arguing the position.

One of these days, I'm going to learn to stop using analogies because people always miss the point and nitpick them to death.

You didn't think of the analogy. It's the same analogy that evangelicals have used since it became obvious that sexual orientation might be programmed in the womb. I can provide examples of where you might have "borrowed" the analogy if you like.

If there is no eternal judgment, then the warning still comes out of my concern for your soul, the only difference being that I am unintentionally spreading false information. Even if this false information brings you harm, my intention is still good will, so it is not hateful, objectively or otherwise.


I understand that our society no longer needs to follow the same civil laws as Israel, however, if God considers something to be an abomination, then I don't see how changes in society are able to circumvent that.

What about the changes in society that sanctioned the eating of shellfish? That change circumvented the divine prohibition.

[lao tzu]

I'm talking about reasons for saying that homosexuality is genetic within the context of this debate. I'm sure the study could be interesting.

My misreading then. Apologies.

389124_3664637689342_1843745566_n.jpg

A friend of mine I'm planning to visit over Christmas — in Incirlik! — has a house in Colorado Springs, where her wife lives. Most of my attention the past couple of days has been on the fire. I've been dipping in and out of this conversation, mostly because I'm fond of technomage, despite his occasional mis-spellings. (Though I hear they all get better.)

Yes, I can see that used as a justification for hate crimes legislation. In fact, I'd agree it's a logical consequence. I haven't seen anyone proposing it in this conversation, though. I think it's entry is more likely a pre-emptive response to the common argument that gays are gay by choice, not that I've seen much of that here, either.

If saying Christianity is like a virus in certain aspects is the most convenient example to make a point, then I have no problem with you saying that. I can disagree with your point, but I'm not going to get caught up nitpicking your analogy. On the other hand, if you're trying to compare me to Hitler because we both have the same hair color, then it is clear that you are trying to associate me with the worst example.

As I've said before, I mean no similarities between alcoholism and homosexuality other than the ones I've mentioned. I am not particularly attached to the example, and if you can think of another example that is clearly linked to genetics, has the tendency to lead to a particular sin, and where people are still responsible for their actions, then I would just as happily use that analogy instead.

One of these days, I'm going to learn to stop using analogies because people always miss the point and nitpick them to death.

Yeah, analogies are ripe for misrepresentation. Good ones are hard to pick. And admittedly, alcoholism has far less stigma than other analogies I've seen applied. You could have a go with eating bacon, if you think you can withstand the firestorm.

Oh, and lay off the hair, kid. I've still got plenty ... even if it's growing best where wanted least.

If there is no eternal judgment, then the warning still comes out of my concern for your soul, the only difference being that I am unintentionally spreading false information. Even if this false information brings you harm, my intention is still good will, so it is not hateful, objectively or otherwise.

I hear you. But still, with exceptions, as in Good Samaritan laws, we don't allow an actor's intent to determine whether a crime has been committed. People who were just trying to text a friend are still charged with manslaughter when they run down a pedestrian. People can justify nearly all of their actions, and do. We judge based on the consequences to the victims, often enough even when the victims choose to forgive their transgressors.

And please do understand that the harm here is far from hypothetical. It's not just a question of marriage rights, or even some amorphous social stigma. Gay teens commit suicide at a rate far above that of their peer group. There is a host of other, less critical, but quite onerous damages, financial and social. I teach at an art school. I'm surrounded, all day long, by students whose families have disowned them because of their orientation, almost always because of religious traditions. We can say that's a bad thing, and even call it an un-Christian thing, but at the end of the day all that matters is that's it's a real thing.

And yes, it's also about marriage rights. My friend, above, for instance, had had to "don't tell" about her relationship for the past 15 years, and was obliged to leave her own country to be married, crossing over the border into Canada in search of a jurisdiction with minimal risk of annulling her nuptials.

I understand that our society no longer needs to follow the same civil laws as Israel, however, if God considers something to be an abomination, then I don't see how changes in society are able to circumvent that.

Allow me to offer a suggestion then. Society is capable of encompassing diversity. Consider keeping your religiously motivated sexual mores within your religious community, without seeking to have them applied to those who do not agree with your religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs forbid you from marrying someone of the same sex, even if that was your wish, then don't, and allow those whose religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs convince them otherwise to follow their own consciences, if for no other reason than to set a precedent for tolerance in return.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Well, if you are going at this topic from an evolutionary perspective, then homosexuality shouldn't exist per natural selection. Only that which allows you to pass on your genes would make it to the next generation, and homosexuality is effectively dead in the water under those circumstances.

You've made a heroic effort to engage with the science of evolution elsewhere, C, but you've a long way to go before you can make claims about evolutionary theory without fear of getting it dead wrong. Technomage gave you a hint on where to get started:

This has already been investigated by science--google "evolution gay uncle" (without quotes).

Now that example is highly specific to the current topic, but it's emblematic of a larger principle. Passing on your genes doesn't require you, personally, to have children. Your genes are shared with your relatives, and they can be passed on via your relatives.

This is the logic of drones in social insects. Workers don't pass on their genes themselves, but they contribute to seeing them passed on by supporting those who do. More, if the queen was not capable of producing drones, she would be at a competitive disadvantage in reproduction. Now, if she only produced drones, her genes would not continue, so there's a balance, much like there must be a balance in our own species' production of homosexuals.

Social insects breed so prodigiously that only a tiny fraction need be sexually fertile. We breed far less, and so require a higher fraction, but it's far less than all. Most of us have maiden aunts and bachelor uncles hanging somewhere around the family tree without keeping our own parents from having grandchildren.

As ever, Jesse

[David Hayward]

Well, if you are going at this topic from an evolutionary perspective, then homosexuality shouldn't exist per natural selection. Only that which allows you to pass on your genes would make it to the next generation, and homosexuality is effectively dead in the water under those circumstances.

See my previous post and the link's introductory blurb:

Here's a link to a BBC program about homosexuality in wild animals: The Hunt for the Gay Whale. (Link will expire soon.)

The introductory blurb includes, "Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University catalogued hundreds of varieties of what she categorises as "homosexual" behaviour amongst animals for her book Evolutions Rainbow... Classic Darwinian theory posits that sexual activity is procreational in nature and serves the needs of evolution... Animal sex is seen as having one purpose: breeding... To that end, Darwin dismissed or recategorised animal sexual behaviours which did not seem to meet the procreational model... Roughgarden claims to have discovered regular same sex contact in 450 different species, proving, she says that homosexuality, far from being an anomalous condition which seems to be an evolutionary dead end, is an adaptive trait that has been carefully preserved by natural selection."

David

[Darth Executor]

Were this question not a logical fallacy, it would still be a nonsensical request. Do you consider the Fall literal or allegorical?

I have no opinion on that, nor does it matter.

If it is literal, do you suppose that there were no people other than Adam and Eve?

Not before the fall, no.

If there were other people, how would you know their sexual orientation?

I wouldn't (though you apparently do). I would derive it from the fact that there was no way to sin but one (eat of the forbidden tree). Other sins were impossible (nominally or literally). That would include gay sex.

This is pre- Knowledge of Good and Evil. If it existed, would it even have been a sin?

Homosexuality is not and never was a sin. Gay sex is, and given that God created woman to be a companion to man it would make no sense to introduce physically incompatible romance. So there is no "if it existed".

If there was no one other than Adam and Eve, is it impossible that there would be homosexuality within one or two generations?

That would be post-fall.

Were there no animals prior to an evolved humanoid that was homosexual?

I am separating this from your next series of drivel because it stands out in particular. What does it matter if there were homosexual animals? Animals can't sin. Sin is specific to humans. Animals can kill each other for fun and it wouldn't matter one bit.

If it's allegorical, do you consider there to have been other humans? Is it impossible that any early human was homosexual?

The allegory stands for a humanity with no troubles committing a sin and then being exposed to all the world's problems as a result of that sin.

How would you prove any of this? So much assertion, so little time.

I could explain how, but it would be pointless because it doesn't matter. Even if there was homosexuality before the fall, it would not lead to sin until after the fall because the only way to sin before the fall was to eat from the forbidden fruit. If your claim that homosexuality existed before the fall was true it wouldn't matter one bit.

So why bring it up? Nothing you've said here indicates any relevance of the Fall to homosexuality. You could just have easily ignored the Fall altogether and taken the stance that God allows certain things to come about.

Technomage has chosen not to pursue a conversation along those lines (as far as I can tell, I have some catching up to do).

[Darth Executor]

Are you able to understand the word in the context I am using it?

Yes, you are using it as a blanket term for "they can't switch it on and off at will". You should've left it at that, your arguments would be seriously flawed no matter what pedantic contortions you engage in. The parable you use in the OP need not apply only to homosexuality. It can apply just as well to serial killing or pedophilia* or anything else, moral or immoral, that is being done due to being unable to resist one's mental programming.












*Before some jackass starts whining with the usual "why are you comparing homosexuality with pedophilia" drivel, I'm not, I am applying the argument used by technomage to something that we both consider to be a bad thing so he can understand that if his argument can justify moral and immoral action alike then his argument really isn't very useful.

[technomage]

your arguments would be seriously flawed no matter what pedantic contortions you engage in.

Considering that you have the temerity to compare disability or child support with a violation of the 14th amendment, you've put yourself so far outside the realm of honest discourse that I take the above as high praise.

Don't worry about it, Darth. Go back to your regular habit of namecalling. It's every bit as honest, and suits your personality and maturity far better.