« New Podcasts | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

October 28, 2010

Comments

Their temperaments may be a closer match and therefore responsible for a similar response.

How is something that is 'responsible for a similar response' different from a 'cause'?

You are willing to say that the causes of their 'temperaments' can have biological component. How do you exclude sexual orientation (or same sex attraction) from 'temperament'?

All the things you list fall in this same category...all of them are spiritually deadly to an equal degree.

I know you believe that - or things like that. But they are 2 very different categories. Having a gay neighbor doesn't harm me (or you). Having a murderous neighbor would. You really think harm is not morally relevant?

We haven't defined 'tolerance'. I will serve: "live and let live'.

RonH

Results can. Since results are being claimed, then it seems reasonable to provisionally claim justification.

No. Making a claim doesn't confer justification on the claim.

Louis,

If you agree with me that gay people are just as moral as strait people, then I don't see how the essence of "being gay" could be anything other than morally equivalent/neutral. There always exists the possiblity of being an immoral gay or straight person -- both of which happen far too frequently as you implied. It seems to me, you must believe that the act of homosexual love and romance and intercourse is inherently immoral, otherwise there really is no tangible reason you can have a problem with gay people. And there isn't any argument I can think of that would prove the "behavior" is immoral.

Therfore, so long as straight behavior is morally neutral, gay behavior is morally neutral. (As an aside, I take a nuanced position and believe that many things in the "gay community" are outrageous and immoral -- or just distasteful. From the tactics at certain festivals, and so on. However, that says NOTHING about the morality of individual gay behavior, and must remain out of he equation. Because, for obvious reasons, I can show how the "straight community" does the same thing).

The reason I do not believe it is a category error is because so long as "being born X color" and being born with "X trait" have the same causative/etiologic nature, then they must be treated the same. And homosexuality is now recognized as falling in that group. You can't really objectively argue with that. You can incessantly try to poke holes in the data, but that's not "following the evidence where it leads" -- an expression that Christians tend to boast about. It is always possible to make up your mind beforehand and be impermeable to whatever evidence one throws your way. That is why flat-earthers, young-earthers, etc. still exist.

I can anticipate you will still shout, "Category error!," because having a trait (blackness or gayness) and acting on it are two different things. That distinction falls apart, or simply is trivial and unimportant. Mostly because certain behaviors CAN be morally neutral, and it is simply a matter of how one acts on them. And homosexual intercourse/love/romance is one of them (Honestly, I hate making this about sex, because it ignores the fact that the problem some people have centers around all things gay -- and the idea that two adults of the same sex could be deeply moved in a loving, caring, and romantic way toward one another is found to be immoral and corrupt).

Simply put, there are some behaviors that are always immoral, like rape -- whether it is gay or straight, or sociopathic behavior (aha! -- I didn't miss that one). Other things, like swinging a baseball bat, can be moral or immoral, depending on whether it's at a ball or child respectively.

I fully understand your argument, but I think you have no compelling reason to believe that the homosexual condition is not on the same etiologic grounds as other morally neutral traits, and further, that the behaviour itself is not morally equivalent and neutral.

Pseudo-Dionysius

"If you agree with me that gay people are just as moral as strait people, then I don't see how the essence of "being gay" could be anything other than morally equivalent/neutral. There always exists the possiblity of being an immoral gay or straight person -- both of which happen far too frequently as you implied."

Sin is sin and we are all sinners. Some saved by grace, others not.

"It seems to me, you must believe that the act of homosexual love and romance and intercourse is inherently immoral, otherwise there really is no tangible reason you can have a problem with gay people. And there isn't any argument I can think of that would prove the "behavior" is immoral."

Moving away from what God intends for man is immoral, because what God intends for man is only good. That intent is expressed in the way that God created man and woman to complement each other and complete each other in a union that has the purpose of creating a family. To be fruitful and multiply, which is the expressed wish of God for man, this type of union is essential. To go against the will of a God who is the source of all moral good, is to separate yourself from that moral good. Doing so, what have you left but immorality?

"Therfore, so long as straight behavior is morally neutral, gay behavior is morally neutral."


Where do you get this idea that the behavior of either is morally neutral? The fact that both engage in immoral behavior does not get either off the hook. They are both in trouble and I think that that was the point of my previous post. Just because both sin, does not excuse either side, nor does it somehow make their actions morally neutral as if the fact that they both do it somehow neutralizes the sins.

I have never said, to my knowledge, that behavior is morally neutral. Even swinging a bat to play baseball can be a good thing and is not morally neutral(if you are good at it, it is better of course).

The only reason that the homosexuality issue comes up so often is because of the militant way that gay activists insist those who find this kind of rebellion against God deeply offensive be in support of their insurgency against God by placing our stamp of approval for it. I think that I speak for many Christians when I say that we categorically refuse to join the insurgency against God in any culture we find ourselves in. We have made a choice to stand at the side of our sovereign when we chose Christ. Social coercion (the pressure for political correctness) will not make a difference in that choice.

RonH

"Results can. Since results are being claimed, then it seems reasonable to provisionally claim justification.

No. Making a claim doesn't confer justification on the claim."


If you are saying that the results claimed are lies, you will have to prove that. I simply have no reason to believe that the individuals making them lied. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to hear them.

RonH

" Their temperaments may be a closer match and therefore responsible for a similar response.

How is something that is 'responsible for a similar response' different from a 'cause'?"

Perhaps I should have phrased it a bit better. Such as this: " Their temperaments may be a closer match and therefore responsible for a similar response to a given situation."

Sorry if I was not clear on that.
If twins have a temperament predisposed to respond in a similar way in a particular situation it does not mean that the influence of that temperament cannot be overcome. In the case of cause and effect, the link cannot be thus separated. The cause must, by necessity, lead to the effect or it is not a cause. Since I have already indicated that the influence of one's temperament can be overcome, it is not the same thing as a cause.

The comments to this entry are closed.