Friday, April 05, 2013

How to make a valid secular case against cultural endorsement of homosexual behavior.

http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

9 comments:

  1. I didn't find the arguments to be strong at all because they did not include context. That context being that monogamous homosexual relationships are not encouraged by society especially when same-sex marriage is prohibited. Put heterosexual relationships in the same context and see if there is an increase in disease.

    The real point is whether we will confront homosexuality with the law or the Gospel or both. Please note that when the Church chooses to use the law to stop homosexuality, it is rightly seen as persecution and draws sympathy and supporters to its side even from those in the church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day

      “I didn't find the arguments to be strong at all…”

      Gee, what a surprise.

      “…because they did not include context.”

      They’re just pointers–not full-blown arguments.

      “That context being that monogamous homosexual relationships are not encouraged by society…”

      i) Actually, monogamous homosexual relationships aren’t encouraged by *homosexuals*.

      ii) And even if homosexuals were monogamous, so what? Devotion to evil is still evil.

      “…especially when same-sex marriage is prohibited. Put heterosexual relationships in the same context and see if there is an increase in disease.”

      You’re trying to shoehorn homosexuality into a heterosexual paradigm, but when homosexuals are candid, they admit that monogamy is not a natural fit for homosexuals–especially homosexual men.

      “The real point is whether we will confront homosexuality with the law or the Gospel or both. Please note that when the Church chooses to use the law to stop homosexuality, it is rightly seen as persecution and draws sympathy and supporters to its side even from those in the church.”

      Do you apply the same complaint to pederasty?

      Delete
  2. Steve,
    Most of the gay friends I have are in monogamous relationships. Half are married and half aren't. Yeah, it anecdotal but it is enough to contradict your statement #i as well as some of your other statements. So perhaps you could provide documentation for why you say what you say about homosexuals.

    As for your last point, since any form of pedophilia consists of an abusive and already illegal relationship between adults and children, I find the two incomparable. Thus, pederasty must be confronted by criminal law and the Gospel.

    You know, if you hate gays, you will find it difficult to share the Gospel with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day said:

      Most of the gay friends I have are in monogamous relationships. Half are married and half aren't. Yeah, it anecdotal but it is enough to contradict your statement #i as well as some of your other statements.

      Most of the homosexuals I know are in promiscuous relationships. If your anecdote is "enough to contradict" a statement, then my anecdote should be enough to contradict your statement.

      So perhaps you could provide documentation for why you say what you say about homosexuals.

      Perhaps you could "provide documentation" for what you say as well. Many of your assertions lack documentation. Take our most recent debate over healthcare in Alan's combox here.

      As for your last point, since any form of pedophilia consists of an abusive and already illegal relationship between adults and children

      You're attempting to change the definition of what's legal and illegal with regard to same-sex marriage. So "already illegal" in this case doesn't cut it either for the pederast could argue to make it legal.

      You know, if you hate gays, you will find it difficult to share the Gospel with them.

      Actually, what's more hateful to gays is when you lend support to them in their sin.

      Delete
    2. Curt Day

      “So perhaps you could provide documentation for why you say what you say about homosexuals.”

      http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks#axzz2OwGPskF0

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-stafford/monogamish-two-is-company_b_2664725.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

      http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Many-gay-couples-negotiate-open-relationships-3241624.php

      http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after

      http://crgs.sfsu.edu/research/gaycouples.htm

      “As for your last point, since any form of pedophilia consists of an abusive and already illegal relationship between adults and children, I find the two incomparable.”

      i) The APA is inches towards normalization of pedophilia.

      ii) To say you oppose pederastic marriage because it’s currently illegal is hypocritical. You yourself are lobbying to legalize homosexual marriage, which currently illegal in most states.

      “You know, if you hate gays, you will find it difficult to share the Gospel with them.”

      You hate Jewish and Christian businessmen who will be prosecuted for violating the “civil rights” of “gay couples.”

      You hate junior high and high school students who will be suspended for expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality.

      You hate Christians who will be fired for expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality.

      You hate foster children who will be socially malformed when they are placed in the hands homosexual adoptive “couples.”

      You hate children who will be abused when they are subjected to homosexual Boy Scout leaders.

      You hate the innocent, you hate the god-fearing.

      Delete
  3. Patrick,
    You made a kind of statement that is easy to disprove with counterexamples but difficult to prove with examples. When you say Homosexuals do not approve of monogamous relations, one counterexample, let alone the number of people I know, disproves the statement regardless of how many examples you find to support your statement. That is a simple rule of logic with regards to universal quantifiers.

    If you made the statement in general, then you would have to show scientific studies that have the statistics to back your point. Examples would not suffice since the context, that same-sex marriage is not allowed, provides some explanation for gays who have had multiple relationships. Then you would also have to compare that with heterosexuals. Are heterosexuals more or less promiscuous and how does that change the meaning of your statement?

    What have I said about gays which needs documentation? If I have anecdotal data, should I mention people by name? Should I list the states that prohibit same-sex marriages? Should I document statements such as "Put heterosexual relationships in the same context and see if there is an increase in disease?" List the assertions you want documentation for besides the anecdotal data I used where I would have to list names and I will see what I can do.

    BTW, I am not attempting to change the definition of what is legal/illegal with regards to same-sex marriage. I am just surprised that you see same-sex marriage being more comparable to any form of pedophilia than to heterosexual marriage. To me, any kind of adult-child sexual relationship is abusive and thus cannot be tolerated. And if it cannot be tolerated, then you must confront it legally. Are you saying same-sex marriages is automatically abusive?

    Finally, am I supporting sin when I believe that people should have the right to practice other faiths than Christianity? Am I supporting sin if I believe that the state should not prosecute heresy? Should we have laws to imprison every adult who has consensual sex with other adults with whom they are not married?

    To say something should be legal imply that you are supporting it? If you believe that you must make an act illegal or you are supporting it, you are taking a similar approach that Martin Luther took to Judaism late in his career. He wrote that either society must punish the Jews or be complicit in their unbelief. Realize that the difference between Luther's approach to the Jews then and Hitler's was one or two actions. In fact, Luther's approach to the Jews strengthened Germany's anti-semitism throughout the centuries and we know what happened as a result.

    But hatred can also be seen by how you describe people. And looking at what you consistently compare same-sex marriage with, I would say there is evidence pointing to the possibility that you might hate homosexuals though I hasten to say there is no conclusive proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day said:

      When you say Homosexuals do not approve of monogamous relations

      I never said that. I just said the homosexuals I know are promiscuous. And that was in response to you saying your homosexual friends are monogamous and claiming your anecdote somehow disproved Steve's point.

      If you made the statement in general, then you would have to show scientific studies that have the statistics to back your point.

      Oh, you mean I can't just do what you do and use anecdotes? :-)

      If you made the statement in general, then you would have to show scientific studies that have the statistics to back your point. Examples would not suffice since the context, that same-sex marriage is not allowed, provides some explanation for gays who have had multiple relationships. Then you would also have to compare that with heterosexuals. Are heterosexuals more or less promiscuous and how does that change the meaning of your statement?...If I have anecdotal data, should I mention people by name? Should I list the states that prohibit same-sex marriages? Should I document statements such as "Put heterosexual relationships in the same context and see if there is an increase in disease?"

      As I pointed out to you in a previous thread, if you want a starting point for how scientific research is done, then you can read what I wrote here.

      What have I said about gays which needs documentation?... List the assertions you want documentation for besides the anecdotal data I used where I would have to list names and I will see what I can do.

      Well, if you must know, it's not just what you've said about gays and same-sex marriage, but in fact pretty much everything else you've said. You make one assertion after another without documentation or argumentation.

      Howver I'm not going to go thru every unfounded assertion you've made and re-list them for you. That'd be a waste of my time.

      Instead, interested people can read your previous comments in previous threads and see that for themselves: here, here, here, and of course this thread.

      BTW, I am not attempting to change the definition of what is legal/illegal with regards to same-sex marriage.

      Yes, you are. You're arguing for same-sex marriage. If it transpires, then, that, in itself, would involve a legal change in what constitutes marriage. For example, homosexual "marriages" would be recognized as legal, whereas it'd be illegal for heterosexuals to demur from the definition. Heterosexuals could be prosecuted, as is already happening, which Steve has cited in a previous thread.

      I am just surprised that you see same-sex marriage being more comparable to any form of pedophilia than to heterosexual marriage.

      I am just surprised you don't read let alone interact with what we say since Jason, Steve, and I have already explained this to you in past threads.

      Delete
    2. To me, any kind of adult-child sexual relationship is abusive and thus cannot be tolerated. And if it cannot be tolerated, then you must confront it legally.

      That's unresponsive to the actual argument. You're just repeating yourself.

      Are you saying same-sex marriages is automatically abusive?

      No, not automatically.

      Finally, am I supporting sin when I believe that people should have the right to practice other faiths than Christianity?

      If same-sex marriage became legal, then Christians who opposed same-sex marriage could be legally prosecuted. As such, there'd be grounds for intolerance of Christians who oppose same-sex marriage. Such Christians wouldn't be able to practice their faith in freedom.

      Am I supporting sin if I believe that the state should not prosecute heresy?

      If same-sex marriage became legal, then the state could prosecute Christians who opposed same-sex marriage.

      Should we have laws to imprison every adult who has consensual sex with other adults with whom they are not married?

      What does imprisoning people for premarital sex have anything to do with the arguments for or against same-sex marriage?

      If you believe that you must make an act illegal or you are supporting it

      Since I don't believe "you must make an act illegal or you are supporting it," then this is irrelevant to me.

      But hatred can also be seen by how you describe people. And looking at what you consistently compare same-sex marriage with, I would say there is evidence pointing to the possibility that you might hate homosexuals though I hasten to say there is no conclusive proof.

      It sounds to me like you're reading your own biases and prejudices into my words.

      Delete
    3. But hatred can also be seen by how you describe people. And looking at what you consistently compare conservative Christians with, I would say there is evidence pointing to the possibility that you might hate conservative Christians though I hasten to say there is no conclusive proof.

      Delete