The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
My only response is that, as an open society, we can't make everything that has the potential to adversely affect children illegal. Where would it end?I am sorry that the blogger had a bad childhood and no male model to look up to. But it doesn't matter whether his mother married the other woman or not. Their marriage would not have changed anything. How many people surveyed who were raised in traditional families would not come up with bad experiences as well. It's just not enough data to make the government prohibit gay marriage.
Maybe it would end with actually, gee, being humanists as well as secular? An open society is not necessarily a good thing- it is against the rule of law itself, and thus, against civilization.By that I mean the one thing that always puzzled me about secular humanists; they always choose ethics that harm humans. You are correct that there isn't enough data there to prohibit gay UNIONS- which shouldn't be illegal to begin with, and should be a model for secular heterosexual unions for a wide variety of types. But to make the jump to gay MARRIAGE- to the special union that supports the creation of new citizens from natural conception to age 18- is a logical leap too far.Having said that, I think homosexual activists have unwittingly done the rest of us a huge service. We're actually having conversations about not only child welfare, but homelessness, discrimination, survivorship, and the right of property ownership because of it. All of these are most certainly side issues- but they are IMPORTANT side issues, none of which require actual discrimination against anybody.Saying that a child is best off with both a mother and a father and parents who are sexually mature, as opposed to the sexual immaturity shown in the more promiscuous subcultures, is not discrimination, it is simply fact.Saying that a gay couple should not be allowed to rent the apartment or house next door to you IS discrimination and SHOULD BE OPPOSED.Do you understand the difference?
I understand the difference. I still don't see sufficient justification for the government to prohibit same sex couples from marrying and raising children.
You don't see neurobiology as an objection? See, this is where I have my doubts as to your commitment to science. You are unwilling to follow the data when it leads to conclusions you personally don't like, and you've bought a little too deeply into the idea that physical/behavioral gender differences are just imaginary (despite being backed up with MRI data).You see no objection because you no longer understand the difference between men and women; thus two men raising a child is equal to two women raising a child is equal to a man and a woman raising a child to you; when in reality, these are three very different and unique scenarios of child development.Two of which are so rare that the data is not statistically significant- which *should* indicate caution and a high risk of confirmation bias.
I should differentiate between what would be ideal and what I have no right to oppose. I would say that, up to when my mother died leaving four children to be raised by their father, I had the ideal family. However, I have no right to tell gays and lesbians that they should not marry and raise a family. There may be situations where I could say that a certain marriage should have never happened and even that it should be dissolved by divorce. But that could be any kind including traditional.
If we are to have one single culture, and one ideal morality, then *not* telling people within our culture what the culture expects as an ideal is equivalent to excluding them from our culture. The ironic thing about this is that teaching celibacy for gays is INCLUSIVE. It presumes that they have the moral capacity to obey the rules sufficiently enough to be included.You can't tolerate what isn't a sin.
"If we are to have one single culture, and one ideal morality..."That's not going to happen because Catholics want to impose their morality and no one else wants it imposed on them.
" no one else wants it imposed on them"I know I didn't want it imposed on me. Then over time, over and over, mere consequences of action banged it into my head that what the Church taught, was actually *RIGHT*.The church actually IMPOSES nothing. The Church *offers* the wisdom of the ages, ignore that wisdom at your own peril, and you don't have to wait for hell either. The long term consequences of sin always outweigh the short term gains, and the destructive nature of sin always catches up in the end, especially when government has to get involved to protect other citizens from the ignorance.
The Church tells its members how to vote on ballot questions in an effort to impose its rules on Americans. It also subtly (so as to not lose its tax exempt status) tells its members who to vote for as in the last presidential election. The wisdom of the ages is overrated.
Both of those, though, are data based attempts to make the world a better place.
I don't think that the Church is out to make the world a worse place for all but it certainly does for some.
The people it makes it a worse place for, were already making the world a worse place for somebody else.
Not necessarily. The victims of the Inquisition were not. Gays aren't. Pregnant women who choose to get abortions aren't. People using birth control aren't.
1. The Victims of the Inquisition: who were handed over to the Inquisition because they were *traitors to the crown* who had *harmed their communities*. Nobody was ever handed over to the Inquisition for the fun of it, and yet still 98% of them were rehabilitated and returned to society.2. Gays are worse of being homosexual than celibate according to the secular data of the CDC- and by spreading homosexual acts, they spread disease. Not exactly victimless themselves.3. People using birth control are cheating society of the next generation- and are the reason the first world is below replacement rate demographically. Which is likely the entire point. Remove procreation from sex, and the elites have more resources to grab.
None of those three examples are benign to the happiness of others. Can you find me somebody who was oppressed who *isn't* attempting to destroy instead of create?
"still 98% of them were rehabilitated and returned to society." Is that toung in cheek, or are you being serious?
Of the 75,000 or so cases tried by the Inquisitions, only 1500 were executed in over 700 years. The huge majority were tried and either found innocent, or went ahead and did what was necessary to change their lives to better fit into the culture around them.That is a pretty bad conviction rate if the purpose of your court is convictions, but the purpose of the Inquisition was to bring justice to a system that was previously handled by direct royal fiat and vigilante justice.Even Galileo was let out from his house arrest to go to church.
"Even Galileo was let out from his house arrest to go to church."Why was he under house arrest in the first place?
Mainly for insulting the Pope, who previous to that, had been arguing Copernican system against his new Galilean system (oddly enough NEITHER of them promoted heliocentrism, and BOTH had their mathematics just wrong enough to not have enough data to support their positions). So the Pope sic'd the Inquisition on him. His official sentence was house arrest and patronage for his research- which lasted the rest of his life.
Post a Comment
by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.