Parable of the Brown-Eyed Son

[Darth Executor]

For me to be able to accept that my argument is a straw man, I must ask you to elucidate precisely where my analogy is not parallel to the original. I see no flaw ... but sometimes a second pair of eyes is needed to see an error.

Your argument is not only a straw man, but even if I went along with the straw man your argument would collapse due to your holding a rather warped (but common) view of reality.

There was once a rich man who hated people with brown eyes.

Translation: God hates gay people.
Strawman 1: God does not hate gay people.

Now, this man was so rich that he could afford to genetically engineer all of his children, so all of them had blue eyes ... except for one son. The rich man specifically chose for that son to have brown eyes.

Translation: God could make all gay people straight. This is true.

Translation: God specifically chose to make gay people gay.
Strawman 2: The fall (regardless of whether it is allegorical or literal reality) is responsible for mankind's troubles. At best it could be said that God allowed people to turn gay.

Every day, the rich man reminded the son how much he hated brown eyes. Every day, he expressed his offense.

Translation: God reminds gay people he hates them every day.
Strawman 3: It is possible that you are capable of receiving broadcasts directly from God and are thus more informed on this subject than I am, but I have no recollection of God hating gay people, let alone broadcasting it daily.

Finally, when his son came of age, the rich man kicked the brown-eyed son out of his house, and said "You can come back only if you promise to keep your eyes closed for the rest of your life."

Translation: God imposes standards that are very hard for gay people to follow. This is also true.

Now, to answer within the context of your strawman:

This rich man had the authority to do so, I suppose. But did this rich man love his son?

No. However, within the context of your starwman love is not necessarily a virtue and loving the brown eyed son most definitely is not a virtue.

Was the rich man worthy to be called "Father"?

Father denotes a supreme authority, so yes.

[Jedidiah]

An inaccurate parable. Perhaps not even a parable, just a veiled slam at the misguided picture you have of God.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, he certainly is--he can keep his eyes closed for the rest of his life.

But is the rich man moral to ask that of his son?

Yes. The rich man's law is supreme in your straw man. Anything he deems to be is and all who stand against it are not.

Ultimately, this is a question of whose moral opinion carries weight. God's does. His opinions carry consequences that are carried out without fail, thus transcending mere opinion and becoming indisputable law. If God were to actually hate gay people and declare them irredeemable and forever damned this would be the immovable moral law that governs all reality that concerns it. It most certainly does not follow that the unenforceable opinion of some guy on the Internet carries more weight.

[Carrikature]

Translation: God specifically chose to make gay people gay.
Strawman 2: The fall (regardless of whether it is allegorical or literal reality) is responsible for mankind's troubles. At best it could be said that God allowed people to turn gay.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily something is discarded on the pile of "The Fall did it" and left to rot. What was a bare bones curse has been extrapolated to an ever-widening umbrella which covers all that any person may find unpalatable.

Now, I don't agree that God chose to make gay people gay. However, simply chalking it up to the Fall is as poor a treatment as what was originally given.

[technomage]

If people with brown eyes are seeing the world differently than they should, then the father is right and how they see is a defected. While people with brown eyes are not able to change the eyes they see with, they still are able to use lenses to correctly see the world.

"Different than they should"? Is that somehow preferable than seeing the world as it is?

[Leonhard]

His opinions carry consequences that are carried out without fail, thus transcending mere opinion and becoming indisputable law.

Might makes right?

[technomage]

Now, I don't agree that God chose to make gay people gay.

Then you deny both your Bible and science in one fell swoop.

[technomage]

(Removed - duplicate post)

[technomage]

If people with brown eyes are seeing the world differently than they should, then the father is right and how they see is a defected. While people with brown eyes are not able to change the eyes they see with, they still are able to use lenses to correctly see the world.

"Different than they should"? Is that somehow preferable than seeing the world as it is?

[Darth Executor]

Might makes right?

Absolute might makes absolute right to be more specific. There are shades when lesser powers are involved.

[Darth Executor]

Then you deny both your Bible and science in one fell swoop.

Science says God made people gay?

[Soyeong]

"Different than they should"? Is that somehow preferable than seeing the world as it is?

"Different than they should" is the same as "other than it is."

(Removed - duplicate post)

By the way, when you edit a post, you can also choose to delete it instead.

[Darth Executor]

It never ceases to amaze me how easily something is discarded on the pile of "The Fall did it" and left to rot.

It is "left to rot" because I was compiling a list of straw men in Technomage's post. I didn't elaborate on any of the points because they were beyond the scope of that post. Maybe I should have included a video of myself doing the chicken dance, a treatise on communism and a recipe for lemon squares as well to better insulate myself from your objections?

[Carrikature]

Then you deny both your Bible and science in one fell swoop.

Do tell.

[Leonhard]

Absolute might makes absolute right to be more specific. There are shades when lesser powers are involved.

Alright, just wanted to make clear that this is where you were coming from.