Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
To an extent it is. Also Jehova's Witnesses and Southern Baptists. Faith-based medicine is prevalent in the Southeast and the Southwest even if it isn't fundamentally called for in all cases by the religion or clergy or whatever. All of these groups oppose abortion and stem cell treatment, even for life or death cases like Ectopic pregnancy. Jevova's Witnesses have the blood transfusion thing, which is probably what you're talking about, but religious people of all stripes are commonly hostile to science and medicine, even if it is selectively in most cases.
What the religious don't like about homosexuals is the lack of symmetry between homosexual practices and religious practices, unlike with other groups which would threaten them. Traditionally, christianity has made a target of other religions, hence other belief systems. They've done a very good job of this, as evidenced by the prevalence of the religion. One can successfully attack choices and beliefs, and the christian religion has convincingly done so since its inception. If homosexuality is simply an attribute, on the other hand, that puts current christian attitudes towards homosexuality on the same level as attitudes towards slavery, where slavery was justified by biblical scripture through the interpretation that blacks were "children of ham".
The christian insistence on homosexuality being a choice is due to the fact that the christian framework cannot handle opposing evidence, only opposing beliefs. Therefore, factual states of affairs, intrinsic properties of a certain subset of people, are treated as subjective behavioral choices in order to make opposing evidence dissappear (at least from the mind of the christian). That's what virus003's post was about. Even when this strategy manifests as tolerance or political correctness, it is still an attempt to assert symmetry between the form of christianity and the form of potential evidence against christianity, ie, to assert that both stem from belief or personal practice, and therefore submit at minimum that it is reasonable for the two things to be held on the same level, to compete in some way, as opposed to evidence holding priority over belief and favoring the claims and rights of homosexuals over traditional biblical interpretation.
Except in the case of political correctness it's even more pathetic. On some level I think most christians, even the devout fundamentalists, realize their beliefs are incompatible with reality. The whole "homosexuality is a choice but that's ok" shtick is a self-defense mechanism. In this case the goal is not to malign homosexuality, even though this potential is maintained, but to defend christianity. It is still the christians attempt to convince themselves that they are simply practicing a different set of beliefs than homosexuals, which retains for them the ability to criticize homosexuality according to its failure to meet their own beliefs (even if they abstain from this at the moment). The reality, of course, is that christians are vocally and perpetually attacking a minority condition in the name of maintaining their idiotic belief system against all potential impositions by reality.
To an extent it is. Also Jehova's Witnesses and Southern Baptists. Faith-based medicine is prevalent in the Southeast and the Southwest even if it isn't fundamentally called for in all cases by the religion or clergy or whatever. All of these groups oppose abortion and stem cell treatment, even for life or death cases like Ectopic pregnancy. Jevova's Witnesses have the blood transfusion thing, which is probably what you're talking about, but religious people of all stripes are commonly hostile to science and medicine, even if it is selectively in most cases.
What the religious don't like about homosexuals is the lack of symmetry between homosexual practices and religious practices, unlike with other groups which would threaten them. Traditionally, christianity has made a target of other religions, hence other belief systems. They've done a very good job of this, as evidenced by the prevalence of the religion. One can successfully attack choices and beliefs, and the christian religion has convincingly done so since its inception. If homosexuality is simply an attribute, on the other hand, that puts current christian attitudes towards homosexuality on the same level as attitudes towards slavery, where slavery was justified by biblical scripture through the interpretation that blacks were "children of ham".
The christian insistence on homosexuality being a choice is due to the fact that the christian framework cannot handle opposing evidence, only opposing beliefs. Therefore, factual states of affairs, intrinsic properties of a certain subset of people, are treated as subjective behavioral choices in order to make opposing evidence dissappear (at least from the mind of the christian). That's what virus003's post was about. Even when this strategy manifests as tolerance or political correctness, it is still an attempt to assert symmetry between the form of christianity and the form of potential evidence against christianity, ie, to assert that both stem from belief or personal practice, and therefore submit at minimum that it is reasonable for the two things to be held on the same level, to compete in some way, as opposed to evidence holding priority over belief and favoring the claims and rights of homosexuals over traditional biblical interpretation.
Except in the case of political correctness it's even more pathetic. On some level I think most christians, even the devout fundamentalists, realize their beliefs are incompatible with reality. The whole "homosexuality is a choice but that's ok" shtick is a self-defense mechanism. In this case the goal is not to malign homosexuality, even though this potential is maintained, but to defend christianity. It is still the christians attempt to convince themselves that they are simply practicing a different set of beliefs than homosexuals, which retains for them the ability to criticize homosexuality according to its failure to meet their own beliefs (even if they abstain from this at the moment). The reality, of course, is that christians are vocally and perpetually attacking a minority condition in the name of maintaining their idiotic belief system against all potential impositions by reality.
Comment