"It is a repressive, medieval myth that homosexuality is a perversion of human nature. There is no such thing as an 'essential human nature'. Homosexuals ought to be able to marry each other; to demand otherwise is a violation of their basic human rights. Homosexuality is as essential a part of human nature as heterosexuality is. Homosexuals are free to do whatever they like, sexually, since they are genetically determined to be gay. They are just trying to be who they are by nature."
7 comments:
Great contradictory assertion! Who made it?
Holopupenko:
Who made it? The point is that no one in particular said it, since more or less everyone in the gay (and guilty para-gay) movement makes these kind of statements. If there is no human nature that homosexuals (and, for that matter, heterosexuals who are in to bestiality, sodomy, masturbation, contraception, etc.) must respect as some kind of natural law, then it follows that there is also no homosexual nature that critics of gay activism must respect. But if there is a human nature, then the battle is half won in favor of natural law ethics. As long as nature is the way nose plaything of humans, then anything goes. But as soon as you start admitting the human person can actually embody moral and spiritual truth, you are on a happily slippery slope upwards to the theology of the body, and related natural law values.
There are humans and we have natures. By that I mean we each have certain tendencies. For the most part, when it comes to morality our tendencies overlap. For example almost everyone agrees that murder, theft, and rape is wrong.
But then it gets fuzzy. Is polygamy wrong? What about slavery? If you consult ancient Christian writings the answer is quite clear.
But now we find that the moral zeitgeist has shifted. Most people agree that slavery and polygamy is wrong. Even most Christians agree on this.
But then we have things like interracial and homosexual marriage. Some use something called "natural law" to claim that such relationships go against nature and are therefore immoral.
I think that's just kind of silly. Who is is the victim when a white man marries a black woman?
I shall make a prediction: you guys are on the wrong side of history concerning gay marriage. In the not too distant future, most people will look at your view and be as disgusted as you feel today about slavery.
I might be wrong about that. Perhaps we will return to a dark age.
Just curious: do you guys have any gays or lesbian family members?
Did you listen to that Radiolab link?
unBe:
Thank you for a fine specimen of the fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
Let us now listen as history echoes:
SS Kommandant: "You guys are on the wrong side of history concerning Jewry. In the not too distant future, most people will look at your pro-Jewish view and be as disgusted as you feel today about the Inquisition."
Kneeling Atheist Resistance Fighter: "Fortunately for us, the measure of right and wrong are not who wins. Truth is not decided by vote."
No, I didn't watch the podcast yet. I'll get to it, thanks.
Don't be an asshat.
If I had said:
"In the future, most people will support gay marriage, therefor gay marriage is moral."
That would be the fallacy you accused me of.
But, as you should know by now, I would not say something so idiotic.
Any student of history knows that what is considered "moral" in one age is considered "immoral" in another age. That has nothing to do with what is "objectively" right or wrong, but rather is just a comment about history.
I am simply making a prediction about the future. My prediction has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage.
Happy Easter.
ps. I invoke Godwin's law. This thread is closed. I win. You lose.
"Asshat." Borrow that one from "Forever in Hell" by any chance?
Re: Godwin's Law–– it worked! The thread is closed just in time for you to have the last word. ;)
Re: winning and losing–– "Who is in a contest here?" ;)
I hereby coin the Law of Godwin's Law: As soon as an interlocutor is refuted by means of invoking Godwin's Law, rational discourse is at an end.
To be more conventional, however, I'll just remind you of Leo Strauss's fallacy called argumentum ad Hitlerum. Search my blog or google.
Poo-pooing anti-homosexual morality on the grounds that it will be a historical embarrassment is a fallacy. It is a foregone conclusion that you endorse the morality of gay sex. So it is just a question of shaming those who don't as historical fossils in the making.
I got "asshat" from Jeff Dee and Matt Dillahunty.
Post a Comment