Eve Tushnet comes up with the very intriguing point that due to the sexual revolution, us heterosexuals have forgotten how to have friends. She claims that we need homosexual Catholics to teach us that Agape, Phileos, and Storge are just as important as forms of love as Eros.
I would tend to agree, though I'm at a point in my life where I blame Eros for a large portion of why I went astray in my 20s and didn't recover until my 40s.
And here's a post on why gay marriage is irrational- written by a homosexual man.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
19 comments:
The man who wrote that post appears to have been bisexual and was able to enter into a heterosexual marriage and therefore does not really represent real gays or lesbians. They have every right to marry and raise children. No one should try to deny them of that right.
Considering he and his wife are infertile and celibate (their children are adopted), I don't understand why you claim he's bisexual.
If anything, he's proof that where there is a will, there is a way *within* the rules (including the divorce and reconciliation).
What are "the rules"?
Traditional marriage if you want to be a father or a mother, of course.
It is only YOUR generation, for the first time in 2000 years, that choose to reject the rules, and broken families are the result.
The truth of the matter is that there are no rules other than those imposed by our governments. Religious people can choose to follow religious rules, but they don't apply to everyone, nor should they.
There are the rules implied in our physical biology, Bill, that you are ignoring.
By your own argument in the other thread, it would be a mercy to abort homosexuals before they are born.
I don't support that level of bigotry against them, but by everything you've said, you would.
So they're the elites in your mind, worthy of being born, when people with Asperger's aren't?
And in that you are pretty Neurotypical. And yes, you can take that as an insult.
"No, I think you are woefully inconsistent, given that homosexuality is a hereditary mental illness. "
That's hilarious. I'm starting to think that you are not all there. My son is gay and I think he would crack up laughing if I tried to tell him that he has a hereditary mental illness. He'd probably have me committed. Do you ever laugh, Ted. You seem to live a dark life.
I laugh at idiots like you who don't understand genetics and where genes come from. If homosexuality has a genetic cause- if people are born with it- then of course it is hereditary.
Yes. But is it a disease?
"Any break between the mental and physical world, is a mental illness."
Religion more clearly meets that criteria than homosexuality. I'm not sure I should argue with someone who sees homosexuality as a disease. I don't think many sane and rational people still persist in that once erroneous belief. Psychology has made incredible progress since that belief was held by psychologists.
Traditional religion in sexuality fits human gender.
Homosexuality does not.
I think THAT is very clear indeed.
Yes, the bribe to Dr. George Weinberg was very worth it, it succeeded in brainwashing an entire country- but third worlders in Africa laugh at you.
"but third worlders in Africa laugh at you."
I don't go by what they think, do and say. I'm giving up on curing you of your homophobia. If the shoe fits, wear it. Bribe or not, the word is perfect when applied to you. No need to discuss human sexuality with you any further.
In other words, once again, you're ignoring 98% of the experience of humanity in favor of the 2%.
I'm not sure what ignoring the majority of evidence is called, but there should be a fallacy for that.
At least when I look at human sexuality, I look at NORMAL human sexuality, not the 1st sigma tail end of the bell curve.
"In other words, once again, you're ignoring 98% of the experience of humanity in favor of the 2%."
I don't know how I can explain this to you. I am not ignoring heterosexuals in favor of homosexuals. You simply can't discriminate against the minority. This is not about percentages. We are talking about real people with real human rights, even if you insist on calling it a disease. It doesn't matter what you call it. They have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and you refuse to admit that its true. I don't want to discuss it anymore.
Not allowing other more novel households to get tax exempt status is indeed discrimination.
Ignoring the First Amendment to force the government into the Sacrament of Marriage is indeed discrimination.
Not allowing other more novel forms of the family medical rights is indeed discrimination.
Not allowing non-traditional households to rent or buy housing, forcing them to become homeless, is indeed discrimination.
Bashing their brains out because they don't agree with you, painting swastikas on Churches, throwing bricks through stained glass windows, dragging the opposite side behind pickup trucks and tying them to fenceposts to die of exposure, is most certainly discrimination.
Granting them the dignity of celibacy if religious and civil unions if not (and encouraging *other* sexualy non-traditional groups to regularize with a cheap and easy civil union system that requires a *minimum* of bureaucratic support at the same time) supports dignity and lowers our taxes because of the lowered necessity for some bureaucrat to decide who is able to get a civil union contract and who isn't. Could even be automated- there is no need to only have two spouses on a standard form anymore.
Not allowing them Sacramental Marriage when every study properly done suggests that children need both a mother and a father to grow up sane, is common sense, and to allow Sacramental Marriage in a situation where it is not logically possible is an affront to human dignity of anybody born of a man and a woman.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same. And by failing to recognize that one of them is *vastly* different, yes, gay activists who see homophobia in every dark corner of theology, are indeed practicing heterophobia, to the detriment of the *very real* issues this debate has brought up, is undignified in the extreme.
You couldn't to begin with- as I said in the *very first post*, hard atheism requires a denial of inconvenient data to the point that discussion becomes impossible.
I don't know why you even attempted it when you *should have known the outcome from the beginning*.
Post a Comment