Is the Underground Logician a Homophobe?
Someone in blogland has labeled me as a homophobe. In my estimation, he neither knows me nor the Christian view toward homosexuality. He see in me particularly, or in Christianity generally, a hatred of homosexuals.
So, I am willing to discuss this openly, without rage or uncontroled passion. And, if we are to have this discussion, we need to follow a reasonable course. Making an impassioned declaration is not a proof.
Here's how we'll begin. I have below a definition of homophobia, to which we can agree or alter it so that we have an agreed upon definition. Then we'll move to the argument phase, where I, in my niceness, have laid out three arguments that if the premises are true, will prove that I am a homophobe.
Let's begin with the definition according to freedictionary.com:
Homophobia: Fear or contempt of lesbian and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.
If you look at my blogsite, you will see my open contempt towards Hollowwood for their promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism. As a Christian, historian and observer of culture, I literally despise our culture's wholesale acceptance of homosexuality into the mainstream as well as other disorders. I did NOT say homosexuals, but homosexuality. It is an abominable practice according to my faith. You could say I hate homosexuality because it is a sin, with the same abhorrence as beastiality, fornication, child porn, blasphemy, murder and hatred, lying, coveting, dishonoring parents, idolatry, etc. It's a pure contempt for actions and a lifestyle that attacks and destroys the moral fiber of our society. It is THE MAIN CONTRIBUTOR to the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church since homosexuality has been promoted as mainstream in many of our Catholic seminaries. So according to the conventional definition above, I do not hate lesbian or gay men, however I hate homosexuality as a sin.
Since I've made myself clear, pick one of the arguments below, or try all three. If you can prove the premises to be true and if the terms are clear and unambiguous (you can't equivocate), then the conclusions must be true. Here they are:
1) All hatred of homsexuality is towards homosexual people.
Sam's attitude is hatred of homosexuality.
Therefore, Sam's attitude of hatred is towards homosexual people.
Burden of proof: Prove that hatred of homosexuality is towards homosexual people.
2) All hatred of homosexuality is bad
Sam's hatred is hatred of homosexuality.
Therefore, Sam's hatred is bad.
Burden of proof: hatred of homosexuality is bad.
3) All natural human actions are good.
Homosexuality is a natural human action.
Therefore, homosexuality is good.
Burden of proof: Homosexuality is a natural human action.
If you have another argument, fine. However, it needs to be valid, with clear terms and true premises. No direct personal attacks or other fallacies will apply be accepted since they can never prove anything true. I will trash any statements that personally attack. I too, will follow the Common Master as will you. Are any of you game, especially those of you from England?
posted by Underground Logician @ 8:47 PM
49 comments
49 Comments:
I'm with you. I think it's wayyyy too easy to label people as homophobic when all they are is disapproving of the lifestyle. To decide what someone's motivations are (behind the disapproval) is very presumptuous unless there has been a great deal of evidence to uphold that estimation.
Saur:
That is what I'm hoping to discuss with Daniel Hoffman-Gill. Perhaps he is picking up on something I do that rankles him. Hopefully I can find out what that is.
I'm open. I know for sure that I don't hate gays. And I certainly have nothing to fear from them personally. I fear for them which is based on what we believe.
I completely agree with Saur. I become furious when people throw labels around in an effort to discredit someone and/or win an arguement.
Kathleen:
I'd like to let you in on an open secret. Whenever people label you or us in general, it's because they HAVE no argument. It's called an ad hominem fallacy. They're trying to divert attention away from the argument to us personally, thinking that if they can discredit our character, they've proved their argument. Our character has NOTHING to do with the argument. They don't WIN this way, although many unschooled people will think they have won. That's what is irksome; our pride is hurt when others think ill of us.
I guess the question to ask in these situations is, "Do I need the good opinion from these ignorant folks?" (ignorant only in the sense they don't know logic or argumentation, not in a derogatory sense that they're inferior) If we are strong in our self-identities, the whole world could disagree with us and we will still be intact. We will not die if people disagree with us.
I'm not speaking as one who has achieved this yet. I'm weak at times, but, the principle itself will set us free.
Thanks for dropping by and letting me stand on my peach crate!
To Daniel Hoffman-Gill:
Well...?
I guess this is a no-show. I'm not surprised. People have the chutzpah to label others, but when the challenge is laid to put up or shut up, they shut up.
Why is homosexuality a sin? If it was not deemed a sin would you still hate it?
I guess I'm not much of a logician, but I can't see the logic in making it my business to hate or not what two consenting adults do in private.
I personally hate the southern accent. It is offensive to my ears. There times when I have a hard time separating my distaste for the accent from the person using it. When I hear that sound it reminds me of what the South has stood for and currently supports. This is how I was raised. You could say it is my faith. I am a Yankee Union Man. Among southern "heritage" are some of the things I find most repugnant, but do I find the person with the accent repugnant? Sometimes it is hard for me to tell.
Can I hate the southern accent without hating those who use it?
I don't know.
Hey Yankee!
Well, I think we can hate the accent without hating the person. Your analogy works somewhat, although my reasons for hating anything that ultimately destroys is perhaps different than an accent. I think you'd agree.
The point that I make is that my despising a lifestyle is not directed personally to the homosexual because somehow his or her lifestyle directly affects me. It some ways it doesn't.
The argument that what two people have the "right" to do in private doesn't affect me is flawed in a couple of ways. It denies the effect of this lifestyle on the body politic. It is not just a private matter. Gays have made it public because they want to have all the rights that heteros have in this society in order to live out their lives the way they see fit. This is understandable.
If you have, say, 3 million consenting adults that "do it" with the same sex, their attitudes about "doing it" with the same sex will definitely affect public attitudes about "doing it." Look at public education, media, entertainment, etc. "Doing it" with the same sex is becoming normalized because there are challenges gays face as they seek to norm this practice. If they can affect public opinion, they may be able to gain political objectives to receive health care, just like hetero couples have; they want access into hospitals to see their loved ones just like hetero couples have access; they want the freedom to be "themselves" without being labeled "queer" and become outcasts. Their efforts makes sense logically up to the point of "rights."
To assert rights becomes precarious in that you are now entering the realm of natural law and morality. That's another point in which their argument breaks down. They have no grounding except that they claim that being gay is in the chromosomes or DNA. Therefore, since being gay by birth, they have natural law rights like anyone else. They don't have the scientific backing they think they do and the slanting of the evidence is apparent. Yet, I understand. They want to be found acceptable and mainstream. This is their goal.
So, this is not just a private matter. This is a public matter. And if the spread of this ideology grows, the future of our nation is precarious.
I took a break to catch a breath. As to the future of our nation. The principle natural law reason why our society gives hetero married couples sanction, protection and "perks" with laws is because the family unit is the prime societal unit; the future of a nation depends on them. It is where human beings come from to replace those in our society who die. Sorry, gay couples offer nothing procreatively to our society. They may be able to adopt, but it requires a hetero to do that.
As our population ages, we must have births to replace those who die and those who are aging and infirm. Our young are our future. There are goods and services that must be maintained in any society in order for the society to exist. And, there are duties and jobs only the younger and stronger can fulfill that the elders cannot: military and police to protect us, construction, maintaining our infrastructure, etc. If there are less people to accomplish these necessary tasks, who do we turn to to get them done?
The family unit is also the prime place where the formation of adults take place. We need mature, virtuous adults that are strong enough to face the challenges life throws at us. For example, the challenges of the military to protect our country requires our young people to be high in virute. The presence of this virtue is directly linked to the principles built into their lives from their family experience. Families have it tough enough; they are given the breaks necessary to accomplish this difficult task. Gay couples, though loving according to their own definition, have a very flawed idea of morality. Some have denied moralities claim of accountability on themselves.
I must parenthetically add that this doesn't deny that there are problem heteros in our society who mess things up. I'm not naive. But according to morality in general, a morally relativistic view of life creates more problems down the road, either for homos or for heteros. This is another argument for another time. Suffice it to say, moral relativism in either camp will damage the prime social unit as well.
If in any way the family unit is jeopardized that either alters our society's ability to replace the old and dying, or compromise the development of human beings into strong and capable adults, then the future of our society is in jeopardy.
So, "doing it" is never JUST a private matter. It may look like that initially. However, after decades of "doing it" privately, we have a huge and well funded movement that wants to normalize itself in our society and culture. It is through rhetoric that they intend to accomplish this norming process. It is also here where I raise my feeble Socratic voice. Consequently, because I find their sophistry repugnant is one reason why I am labeled homophobic. I do have fears, but not in the range of unhealthy or irrational phobias. The thing I fear is the potential destructive influence of any immoral movement seeking normalization in our culture. This is NOT a phobic reaction. In light of what is at stake, it is quite rational, and necessary.
So, to promote this movement in entertainment (as Hollowwood does) or to appease this movement politically (as liberal politicos do) or to remain passive about this(as many busy Americans do) allows them to have their way. Our lack of action is totally irresponsible to our progeny.
Sorry for being so longwinded.
I don't visit your blog because I try not to visit blogs whose content is so utterly disagreeable, it ends up messy, hence I had no idea you'd posted this until you visited mine.
I don't know how you can challenge my definition of you as homophobic when you think that being gay or lesbian is a sin, that you don't want anyone promoting it as a life choice and you think it is the root of a great deal of evil.
The fact you're homophobic is a given here, you cannot beleive this things and then have your cake and eat it by saying you're not homophobic.
I wll not get bogged down in semantics either, you think that homosexual acts are wrong and thus you are a homophobe.
Rather than weedle out of it, wear it with pride and remember that God hates fags.
Also, you strutting and crowing that I had not visited your site to respond is as funny as it is sad, I never visit here unless I have to.
I care little for you and your blog.
Also, you strutting and crowing that I had not visited your site to respond is as funny as it is sad, I never visit here unless I have to.
I care little for you and your blog.
I guess I have to disagree that homosexuality "ultimately destroys." It has always been with us and humans are thriving as a species.
I believe that the gays have made their cause public because they have been discriminated against and abused. If the "body politic" had allowed them to choose their own path, I'm avoiding using the word "rights" because we don't share a common definition, their would be no movement toward public acceptance.
I'm at a loss to understand how acceptance of the gay lifestyle is a threat to the "family unit" in any way. As to procreation, your argument is as much an indictment of those who choose to remain childless as it is against homosexuals. Quite frankly there are far too many people being born currently and a slow down in birth rate would have nothing but a positive effect on the society and the world in general. Furthermore the percentage of gays, if at the high end of 10%, of a given population is not significant enough to cause the extinction due to non-procreation. It hasn't yet and they have always been here.
Is procreation the only way people can contribute to society?
For example, the challenges of the military to protect our country requires our young people to be high in virute.
Please. I spent the bulk of my adult life in the military and lets just say "virtue" is not its strong point. Setting aside my "virtue" was one of the things that made me good at what I did.
Who said this -
Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.
Daniel, snerf, sniff, does this mean you don't like me anymore?
And don't give me this "I'm surprised" BS. I didn't side-swipe you. At PC's blog, you called me a homophobe, remember? And I invited you to my blog to discuss in a civil manner why you think I am a homophobe, remember? And you said you were on, remember? I even told you I had a spot on my blog for you. Sooooooo, this is no surprise. Quit your sniveling.
I have described homosexuality as a sin since for several thousand years, it has been considered as such. I'm not making up anything as a product of some psychosomatic fear of queers. Homosexuality is sin and hardly serves the natural functions of penises and vaginas.
You have made the assertion that I'm a homophobe. If you want to argue this, then the burden of proof is yours to have. I've shown it to be a sin. You have to show that I do it out of fear.
Maybe I shouldn't expect this of you, Daniel. Maybe this is too hard for smart-ass bully boys like you. It's always easier to be a smart-ass, entertain your friends and call me anything you want. It's much tougher to back it with proof. I think you're afraid you're wrong and you haven't the guts to face it.
Now are you up to the challenge, Daniel or are you going to be an intellectual wimp. You decide what you want; I'll decide what I'll do accordingly.
What is a sin? Why should I consider it a sin when it I consider it a private issue that does not affect anyone other than those involved? Why is a sin wrong? When does a sin become wrong? Should everything you consider a sin be illegal? A billion people in the world consider it a sin to draw cartoons of their prophet. Should that be illegal? Another billion consider it a sin to eat beef. Do you like steak?
The fact that you consider something a sin is irrelevant and is quite frankly illogical. To end an argument, or even support it, by saying, "because the magic man in the sky said so.." is weak at best.
Your assertions to the social effect of homosexuality are not grounded in any fact. I believe the burden is on you to support you assertion with facts.
By dismissing a sexuality as a sin and unnatural, that makes you a homophobe, it is that simple and it makes the Catholic faith overtly homophobic.
Why are you arguing this? You can't have the cake and eat it!
Daniel:
You're asking why am I arguing this? Listen, your view or the ones you represent are not the definitive view simply because you want it to be. You're acting like a typical liberal elitist. You already know what is right, why should you prove anything to us provincials. We need to catch up to you all. Phooey!
You have defined homophobia to include those who consider homosexuality as a sin. You have NOT shown how it is a phobia. You all have transformed the term "homophobia" into an idiom that has no connection to what we actually do, and then you apply it at will. We we may despise the lifestyle, but do not hate the person.
I know that gays would love to have their lifestyle accepted as normal. I also know that they take great offense when we do not accept it. Two things, just because they take offense doesn't mean we reject them personally. And second, just because they take offense, I'm not obligated to change to make them feel better. If the latter IS the case, then why don't you take stock of my feelings of offense when you call me homophobe? I don't hate homosexuals and don't lump me in with those who do. Analyze how the homo-haters use labels and caracatures and learn from them; don't use the same tactics on me or other Christians simply you don't like the fact we call it sin.
Now, if you want to enter the world of reason with your declarations of what is homophobia, fine. If you want to continue your elitist dogma, then it's better we end future discussions. They'll be meaningless. And if you continue to use labels, be sure that I will bark.
Cranky:
If you have a belief in God, then the rest falls into place. If your wanting logical grounding for sin, then you need to look at the grounding for moral theology which is the existance of a moral god who places requirements on us. This is beyond logic and requires revelation from the deity.
However, faith is not completely beyond reason. You have Aquinas' five ways to prove the existance of God. You have Anselm's Ontological proof and Henry of Ghent's metaphysical proof. You have C.S. Lewis' moral proof.
Modern philosophers deny the possibility of knowing the metaphysics of anything like God or anything else; they hold to epistemology as the basis of philosophy. All we can know are the ideas of what we see around us, not the actual things. Subsequently, any idea or proof of God is meaningless for we cannot know what anything is truly in and of itself, including God. If that's what you think, then asking for proof for the reality of sin, requires the proof of God's existence which you don't think can be known in the first place.
To counter, I assert that to state that our inability to know things as they truly are is based on our ability to know the metphysics of our mind. This statement is self-refuting called the fallacy of stolen goods. You deny the metaphysics of things except the metaphysics of what we know how we know.
To come to grips rationally, that I know that a god exists, I can know a posteriori, that if I go back in time, I have received existence from my parents, who received existence from their parents, etc., that somewhere there is someone or something that exists necessarily, not depending on anyone or thing else for existence. If not, it becomes an infinite regress which is an absurdity, since our existence is in time; time must have a beginning or else it would be impossible for us to be here. Time ticks onward from one moment to the next; it has to have a previous moment or starting point in order to move.
I've said alot. Feel free to ask me what I just said!
I know exactly what you are saying, but being able to contruct a proof of a prime mover does not prove the extension to a specific definiton of morality or sin.
Additionally, I do not deny the metaphysical. I deny the limits, definitions and exclusions you place on it.
UL: you can use semantics to neuter words all you want but you can't tolerate homosexual behaviour which makes you anti-homosexual which makes you homophobic and a bigot to boot.
Cranky:
Initially, you said it was irrational and illogical to state that homosexuality is a sin and placed the burden of proof on me to show otherwise. And yes, finding a prime mover doesn't mean the prime mover is moral. There is no way to understand the nature of God unless God speaks or communicates to us.
This is where faith in the revelation of God in Christ and the scriptures comes in. And, thereis no logical enterprise that can judge whether this revelation is logically true or not. It is beyond logic.
Now I place the burden of proof back on you. Are you so certain of the power of logic that you can determine if revelation is true or not? If so, you have made assertions as well that are beyond the powers of logic to prove. Even logicians know the limits of logic and why. Do you? Think about it.
By the way, I'm enjoying our discussion. I hope you are as well.
DHG:
First, I will be clear about this topic and then I will address your latest belch with a worthy response.
Your constant use of homophobe is false. The term denotes an unhealthy and unnatural fear of something that shouldn't be feared. The assumption: homosexuality is normal and natural and the fear of it is unhealthy. Two men going at it is hardly natural, however, in some social circles very normal. But I digress.
Two, the term CONNOTES a meaning that homophobes hate the homosexual person. If that be the case, so be it. It doesn't apply to me. So for clarity, you can call me a homosexual-ITY hater and I will not argue with you. Call me a homosexual person hater, you'll be labeling me incorrectly, as you would with homophobe.
Now as to you last comment, I have nothing to say to such idiocy. Have a nice day.
UL - Are you so certain of the power of logic that you can determine if revelation is true or not?
I don't believe it can, but that does not make it so. Regardless, all revelation from the Orcale at Delphi to Joseph Smith have been based on trusting the word of the one to whom the revelation was made. There is no observable evidence that a revelation was from any superior being, be it aliens or a prime mover.
So, then logic IS the end all for knowing the truth of all things. Welcome to Rationalism, Yankee. You must think that if anything is to be known, whether natural or supernatural knowledge, logic will prove or disprove it to be true.
I'll let you in on an open secret, logic doesn't make truth claims, people do. And to make logic the end all is a truth claim that can't be proven by logic. The claim becomes a matter of faith.
Now logic helps our thinking locate the truth; we must do the work of knowing truth.
So, then logic IS the end all for knowing the truth of all things.
I never said that> Your words not mine. Read what I wrote and this time think.
I never said anything about "truth." But if I did I would say that "the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." - Wiki I really don't have a problem with rationalism, in case you didn't notice. Logic is your word not mine.
UL: This discussion was over a long time ago because you don't accept homosexual acts as natural and you think they are a sin. This makes you a homophobe. You place them as a lower act, a sinful act and this is unacceptable and once again you bang on about how un natrual they are, this is deeply offensive language to me and anyone of my gay friends. The fact you can't grasp this exposes your homophobia.
As I said and you keep making me repeat, fuck the semantics and see that your beliefs (from your God) are rooted in hate of another's means of love and that is frankly fucking disgusting.
So yes, you are a homophobe.
This discussion was over at the beginning since you haven't tried at all to convince me. You gave up before it began. You just rolled over and repeated the rant over and over and over again ad nauseum.
As to your frustration, let me give you some perspective. Who am I that you should get so angry? I am the provincial one; you are the enlightened one. Be thankful you're not like me. Besides, you don't need my good opinion to be happy, do you? You don't need me to agree with you, do you? Your friends feelings aren't hurt because I disapprove, are they? I mean, I'm just a blip. My negative thoughts won't stop your gay friends from going home to each other each night. My thoughts aren't hurting them in the least.
So, in the same manner that the actions of gays in private have no affect on hetero marriages, my personal disgust of homosexuality has no effect on what gays do in private. Right? This is the argument for gay marriage, right? That there is this disconnect that exists where no one is getting hurt, right? Here's proof: Elton John had an enjoyable wedding and is still a happily married husband (or is he the wife, I can't tell) though I disapproved of it from the moment I heard about it.
So, chill out, Daniel. We'll just disagree. I will continue to think that anuses are for shitting, and you can think it a "natural" place for penises, hamsters, or whatever.
Cranky says:
"There is no observable evidence that a revelation was from any superior being, be it aliens or a prime mover."
The question, CY, is: what would the evidence look like that would indicate that a revelation WAS from a superior being? You have to assert that you know what the evidence looks like in favor of revelation by a deity if you know in fact that there isn't any. You are assuming a truth claim, CY. Can you tell me?
Logic, whether inductive, as you are putting it, or deductive only shows you how to arrive at the truth. People make truth claims. So, the truth claim about what revelation from a deity looks like is what?
How do you verify it? What is the nature of the deity in question? Compare it to what you have called a lack of evidence. What's the difference?
This discussion was over a long time ago because you don't accept homosexual acts as natural and you think they are a sin.
homosexuality is not natural. If you don't believe in God, perhaps you believe in evolution? If you do, homosexual relations do not produce offspring and therefore, homosexuality is unproductive and not condusive to furthering the species.
This makes you a homophobe. You place them as a lower act, a sinful act and this is unacceptable and once again you bang on about how un natrual they are, this is deeply offensive language to me and anyone of my gay friends. The fact you can't grasp this exposes your homophobia.
Do you know what a phobia IS?
As I said and you keep making me repeat, fuck the semantics and see that your beliefs (from your God) are rooted in hate of another's means of love and that is frankly fucking disgusting.
Why do you care? You sound pretty hateful yourself. That's some big language. Sounds like you are intolerant of Christians who believe in following God's word. UL isn't making this stuff up; it's in the Bible and if you don't care than stop acting like you do.
So yes, you are a homophobe.
Um, no--he's not. You are just afraid of people who don't believe as you do--what does that make you?
By the way, I'm enjoying our discussion. I hope you are as well.
Not any more - you lost me with that evil post about those of us on the left hoping for more death of Americans in Iraq.
I think I hate you now, you degenerate scumbag. Go back to your pedophile church and fanatsize about the alter boys. Creep.
CY:
Obviously you missed the sarcasm of my latest post and if you look at my comments, you'll understand WHY I posted what I did.
You don't have an argument here. You invent an offense, create a red herring and get mad at me. Typical liberal pseudo-intellectuals.
UL: The proof of your homophobia is in your words and in your faith; what's great is that the more you write the more you expose your homophobia.
Rejoice in your bigotry rather than run like a coward from your hate of millions of people.
Sadie: again, the fact you consider homosexuality unnatural means that you're homophobic, the fact that animals and humankind has been practicing homosexuality since the beginning of time means that it is an natural as killing each other, masturbation, love and arguing and all the other joys of human existence.
And like UL you are bogged down in the semantics of the word phobia, homophobia is the correct term for someone who is anti-homosexuality.
This whole pointless exercies and waste of lifetime was because UL exposed his homophobia on a blog so I outed him as homophobic, as title he has resisted and being relentless in the pursuit of prejudice and bigotry I argued the point until it has virtually disappeared.
Daniel, Don't waste your time. They are on a lower intellectual plane. It's their own sick version of wingnut group-think. They take comfort in the simple answers their feeble minds can grasp. This guy understands philosophy and logic about as well as he understands the bible, not very...
It's typical they pick and choose the nuggets that support their warped mindset. Homosexuality is reference three times in the bible while Christ's entire body of work is about acceptance, forgiveness and love. What part to they tout? See? It's almost sad.
Well, Daniel and Cranky, talk amongst yourselves. You both don't know how to formulate a cogent argument, so just sit where you are and stare at the shadows on the cave wall and speak ad nauseum.
Sadie: You are right to think that homosexuality is unnatural. To gay men, the anus is a sexual organ or a place to store hamsters, or a window to show the rectum. To a straight person, an anus is for eliminating excrement. Plain and simple; something CY and DHG will never get.
Really everyone, logic is critically examined common sense. Some people have it, others don't.
Daniel:
Semantics?
...
You do realize how childish someone looks when he uses words that he obviously doesn't know the meaning of, right?
A phobia is, by definition, an irrational FEAR of some sort. You have failed to show how exactly UL has a FEAR of homosexuals or homosexuality, let alone how this may be irrational.
Oh wait. I forgot. Using a definition is considered semantics. Right. I'll be sure to use smaller words next time.
UL: The very language you use to denegrate the act of love between gay men (you seem to have bypassed lesbians) exposes your homophobia and bigotry. Thank you for proving the point again.
Not so innocent right wing bystander: thanks for stopping by and proving my point. I mentioned semantics because UL and now you, are hung up on the components of the word homophobia, so that you pick out phobia and go: HEY, I'M NOT SCARED OF FAGS! I JUST HATE THEM.
Homophobia does not only mean a fear, it means a hatred and also I'd argue that UL and you clearly, are scared of homosexuality, otherwise you wouldn't want to see it's destruction.
Daniel:
I'm done arguing with you, in case you haven't noticed, both here and at your blog. You cannot form a logical argument. So now I am turning to reproof. That is what your words and actions deserve.
You are bound and determined to think that "I hate fags." You haven't a shred of evidence to show it. You morph what I say about my views of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle into a hatred of gay people. YOU HAVE NO LOGIC AT WORK INSIDE YOUR HEAD. I've put much more time with you on this topic than it deserves.
You are a smart-ass bully boy.
smart-ass, yes
bully, no.
*LOL*
Daniel:
OK! I'll drop bully. My mistake.
Barnaby:
Welcome to my school. One of the first things you need to learn is that if you spout off about things you don't know, YOU are the one that looks foolish.
Now, let me tell you about how I treat gays. While I was a protestant pastor, I had a gay friend who died of AIDS. His name was Dean. I watched him slowly deteriorate, visiting him daily, sometimes eating gyros together if he was hungry, which wasn't often, but when he was, it was a treat to watch him enjoy food and not throw up. Interestingly, every time we did eat gyros together, he never threw up! When he finally ended up in the hospital and entered his death throws, it was heart rending.
The Christian community back in 1994 didn't know what to do with him or his parents. The local church shut them out, placing a stigma on them they couldn't escape. So I do admit that by the definition Daniel uses, homophobes exists out there. It's not just the lifestyle; it's AIDS.
Now Dean understood my thoughts about homosexuality but he was not put off by it. I'm not going into details because I want to keep things that are personal private from the blogging community. Suffice it to say that Dean, a homosexual and I, a heterosexual, were friends, and he died a Christian.
So, I'm giving you fair warning. I don't screen those who care to comment if they want to. On this site, I can get fiesty with those who want to rumble. As you may have seen between Daniel and I, we tussle pretty good. But it is in this scrap that if ANY dialogue is going to happen, will happen. Don't start repeating what you read and talk expertly when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You treat me fair; I treat you fair. Sound off on me, and this cave is going to quake.
Deal?
Homosexuality is reference three times in the bible while Christ's entire body of work is about acceptance, forgiveness and love. What part to they tout? See? It's almost sad.
How odd. I know a few homosexuals and they won't become Christians because of the whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing. So who is making a mountain out of a molehill?
If Jesus is all about acceptance, forgiveness and love, why aren't more homosexuals Christians?
It's not like UL and I are acting like the gospel is all about converting homosexuals into straight people. Also, the times that homosexuality IS mentioned, it talks about how unnatural it is.
"trading natural relations for unnatural relations"
I'm sorry if that's offensive to some people but God didn't send Jesus to make friends. He came to save you from your self.
Christianity, like many relgions, is inherently homophobic and bigoted.
Computer: working.
Analyze sentence:
1. Highest probability: "Type one" enthymeme, major premise. Detect an assumed conclusion.
2. Naked Assertion fallacy
Structure of syllogism for a valid enthymeme:
Minor premise: "anything inherently homophobic and bigoted is bad.
Conclusion: Christianity, like many major religions is bad.
Valid or invalid: Valid
Truth factor: Zero.
Rhetoric: inflammatory and ad nauseum. Subject repeating same thing with no results.
Strategy of Commentor:
Highest probability: loves to agitate. Immature and defiant. Loves to hear himself talk or read what he wrote. Malicious.
Lowest probability: idiot, out of touch with reality according to some mental defect.
Best opposing strategy: Ignore. In ten years, potential for subject to mature. 50% potential for subject to remain defiant or get worse: 50%
Christianity deems homosexuality a sin and something that is wrong and that the person should be punished for practicing it.
This is a homophobic attitude, for reference please see the bible and Gods Hates Fags.
Ad nauseum.
Indeed.
Quite, quite.
There you have it, folks. A totally useless exchange that went nowhere. Sometimes logic works to convince others, most of the time people just don't care. Rhetoric without the hard work of reason is the great time-saving and mind-warping device. Just borrow a few techniques from the MSM and try them out on your friends. You'll be amazed as to how easily people will bend to your will.
Post a Comment
<< Home