“Diversity” Interpreted

"Diversity" Interpreted

click on image to enlarge

Why are so few other “alternative lifestyles” celebrated?

There are more and more stories appearing on our continual slide down this slippery slope…

A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.

Challenging the illegality of consensual polygamy.

Why Normalizing Same-Sex Parenting Inevitably Led to Triple-Parenting

Why Are We Surprised With the Push for ‘Pedophile Rights’?

Advertisements

41 thoughts on ““Diversity” Interpreted

  1. I guess people don’t feel the need to ‘celebrate’ inter-racial relationships any more because they are so much more accepted, though they used to be frowned upon or even outlawed too. Most likely in a few more decades there won’t be a need to ‘celebrate’ gay relationships as they will have become similarly accepted.

    I doubt that relationships such as ‘man on dog’ or ‘woman and child’ will ever be seen the same way as, say ‘Caucasian and Asian’ because we accept that dogs and children cannot give informed consent, thus comparisons with consenting adults are somewhat specious.

    Like

    • “I guess people don’t feel the need to ‘celebrate’ inter-racial relationships any more because they are so much more accepted, though they used to be frowned upon or even outlawed too. Most likely in a few more decades there won’t be a need to ‘celebrate’ gay relationships as they will have become similarly accepted.”

      But you forgot that that attitude went against the Bible and God. Against the very idea that we are “all God’s children.” That God made man in his image–not man with a certain type of skin, hair, and eye color. That we have dominion over other living creatures–not each other. God doesn’t make inferior human beings to be treated as animals (or objects) are.

      So what you are referring to is simply man’s moronic (and un-Christian) rebellion against God and his word. Where man played “God” over other men. And thank God Christian morality did eventually win out over social Darwinism or we may still have slavery or Jim Crow laws today.

      Like

      • “But you forgot that that attitude went against the Bible and God.”

        What, the attitude against gays or the attitude against inter-racial relationships? Go to Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, London. You can listen to a woman called Mary who preaches there for several hours every Sunday on how inter-racial marriages are clearly against God’s will. She’ll happily argue bible verses with you.

        “or we may still have slavery”

        Is this a poe? You are aware that the bible was the principal justification for slavery for centuries, and that abolitionists were accused of being ‘atheist’ for being against slavery? You’re reduced to cherry picking which parts of the bible support your own views and which are embarrassing to them.

        “That opens the floodgates to “informing” children on various acts so that they can give or not give their “informed consent.””

        I find it very disturbing that you believe it would be so easy to establish that children are consenting. If I ever meet you, remind me not to let you baby sit my kids. Or look after my dog…

        Like

      • “What, the attitude against gays or the attitude against inter-racial relationships? Go to Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, London. You can listen to a woman called Mary who preaches there for several hours every Sunday on how inter-racial marriages are clearly against God’s will. She’ll happily argue bible verses with you.”

        Who cares what some nut asserts? You might as well convince that Mormons are also true Christians and that we should all believe in black people being “marked” with the mark of Cain and that we are all aliens from another planet and that magical underwear can protect you.

        >>Abolitionism (from “abolish”) was a political movement in late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that sought to end the practice of slavery and the worldwide slave trade. Its chief impetus came from Protestantism, as most abolitionists, especially in Great Britain and America, were men and women of profound Christian faith who took their convictions from the Gospel that all people are equal before God.<<

        John Brown was just one of many Christian abolitionists who fought to free the slaves. Brown was hanged (martyred as his Christian followers viewed it) for his efforts.

        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

        I'm sure history will soon be re-written and soon John Brown will be a great "secular" hero as well as all the other Christan abolitionists. But at least I will remember learning about notable CHRISTIAN figures in school.

        Like

    • “we accept that dogs and children cannot give informed consent, thus comparisons with consenting adults are somewhat specious.”

      I find it disturbing that not being able to give “informed consent is your only objection to these acts. That opens the floodgates to “informing” children on various acts so that they can give or not give their “informed consent.” To decoding the behavior and barks of dogs so that it is known what they are asking for or “consenting” to. One bark means, “no;” two barks, “yes.” :(

      Like

    • I guess people don’t feel the need to ‘celebrate’ inter-racial relationships any more because they are so much more accepted, though they used to be frowned upon or even outlawed too.

      Which is all the more reason to ask why and go from there.

      So, tell us, why were inter-racial relationships frowned upon or even outlawed?

      And the point is many “alternative lifestyles” are not “celebrated”. Why don’t we teach children that polygamy or polygeny is OK? They’re consenting adults, so what’s the problem?

      Joshua

      Like

      • “And the point is many “alternative lifestyles” are not “celebrated”. Why don’t we teach children that polygamy or polygeny is OK? They’re consenting adults, so what’s the problem?”

        Excellent point, Joshua.

        Like

      • synapticcohesion:

        “I find it disturbing that not being able to give “informed consent is your only objection to these acts. That opens the floodgates to “informing” children on various acts so that they can give or not give their “informed consent.” To decoding the behavior and barks of dogs so that it is known what they are asking for or “consenting” to. One bark means, “no;” two barks, “yes.” ”

        Josh:

        “And the point is many “alternative lifestyles” are not “celebrated”. Why don’t we teach children that polygamy or polygeny is OK? They’re consenting adults, so what’s the problem?”

        And hey, while we’re using the ‘we-give-informed-consent’ card to justify homosexual acts, let’s make some room for consenting mother-son or father-daughter or brother-sister (amongst other incestuous) couples, I’m pretty sure they would want their causes to be heard as well.

        And out of curiousity, on exactly what basis would a gay activist deny these people their ‘right’ to “informed consent” while claiming his?

        Like

  2. “And out of curiousity, on exactly what basis would a gay activist deny these people their ‘right’ to “informed consent” while claiming his?”

    Excellent question, GA. A question that I am pretty sure will never get an answer.

    As long as incest couples use protection so that they don’t produce cyclops children with two heads–what’s the problem?

    Like

  3. It’s odd to so quickly discount the concept of ‘consent’. It’s the difference between rape and not-rape. The difference between marriage and forced marriage. If you prove non-consent, you don’t even need a divorce – the marriage didn’t legally occur in the first place. In fact no contract is enforceable if you can’t show consent.

    So it’s a poor objection to effectively say that consent is not an important distinction between one kind of conjectured marriage and another. Presumably then you would have to argue against normal marriage – straight non-related marriage – as it’s a slippery slope to allowing arranged marriage. After all, the only difference is consent, which you’re now saying isn’t a good enough reason on its own to object.

    Like

  4. “Who cares what some nut asserts?”

    Who’s deciding who are the nuts and who are the true believers? Calling Mary a nut doesn’t affect my point one whit. Her biblical justifications for opposing inter-racial marriage sound no more nutty to me than your biblical justification for opposing gay marriage.

    You can point me to Christian abolitionists – and thanks for the wiki link but I already read a whole book on Brown – but that doesn’t avoid the point that the vast majority of slavers themselves were also Christians, and all the justifications offered for slaving were biblical, and those who opposed it were accused of being atheists. The bible clearly condones slavery. Look up Benjamin Palmer – I’ll post separately about him next.

    “I’m sure history will soon be re-written and soon John Brown will be a great “secular” hero ”

    Right, and I’m not the first person to predict that fifty years from now Christians will be taking credit for the inevitable move to allow gay marriage!

    “and that we should all believe in black people being “marked” with the mark of Cain and that we are all aliens from another planet and that magical underwear can protect you”

    Right, or we should believe the Catholics that a LITERAL, not metaphorical, transformation happens every Sunday where bread and wine quite LITERALLY turn into actual flesh and blood of someone who died 2000 years ago. Or that God sacrificed himself to himself to act as a loophole for a law that he created. None of that sounds crazy at all!

    Like

    • This is all a quote, but I’m not putting quote marks round it to avoid confusion with quotes within:

      Benjamin Palmer was born in Charleston in 1818 and became one of the preeminent Christian preachers of the antebellum era. He served as Moderator of the first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. – the highest elected position in that body – and wrote several works on theology which, according to the Southern Presbyterian Review, are still in print. When he died in 1902, a Christian magazine, The Interior, eulogized that “Dr. Palmer served God and his generation as a symbol of the immutability of the great essentials of our religion” and praised “his faithful witness to Jesus Christ in the word of his preaching”, which “gave him such power… as few of the Lord’s ambassadors have ever wielded in any age of the church”.

      “But Palmer was known for one other thing as well. In November 1860, just days after Abraham Lincoln’s election, he gave a famous sermon at his church in South Carolina. In that sermon, he said that “I have never intermeddled with political questions,” but that he was compelled to speak on politics because “we are in the most fearful and perilous crisis which has occurred in our history as a nation”. Since Palmer was the representative of “a class whose opinions in such a controversy are of cardinal importance”, namely the clergy, he felt that it was now his obligation to speak out.
      And what vital message did he have to impart?

      Palmer he was convinced that God was on the South’s side in this struggle, since after all, slavery was “recognized and sanctioned in the scriptures of God”.
      “Without, therefore, determining the question of duty for future generations, I simply say that for us as now situated, the duty is plain of conserving and transmitting the system of slavery, with the freest scope for its natural development and extension… My own conviction is, that we should at once lift ourselves, intelligently, to the highest moral ground and proclaim to all the world that we hold this trust from God, and in its occupancy we are prepared to stand or fall as God may appoint. If the critical moment has arrived at which the great issue is joined, let us say that, in the sight of all perils, we will stand by our trust; and God be with the right!”

      And if God was on the side of the slaveholders, then what motivated the abolitionists? Well, Palmer had the answer to that one too:
      “…in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and religion. The abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type.

      He continues:
      “Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law.
      …This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air — “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted mean bondage, confiscation and massacre.”

      We see this pattern repeated throughout history: every social or political reform movement is demonized by the religious conservatives of its day as sinful, heretical, atheist – and then when the good guys win out and the cause is triumphant, the believers of the next generation claim that it was a religious movement all along. (This is exactly what happened with the U.S. Constitution, to name another example, and there are others.)

      Like

    • Who’s deciding who are the nuts and who are the true believers?

      Certainly people who read the Bible and take it seriously are in more of a position to do this than those, like yourself, who merely treat religion in general and Christianity specifically as bad jokes.

      Her biblical justifications for opposing inter-racial marriage sound no more nutty to me than your biblical justification for opposing gay marriage.

      I’m sure they would sound nutty to a disinterested third party that doesn’t really care either way anyway. And what was her justification, Andy? Tell us.

      Joshua

      Like

      • “Certainly people who read the Bible and take it seriously ”

        Like Mary then. Or me. I read the bible and I take it seriously. So did all those pro-slavery campaigners in the 19th century. So do the Phelps family. Who is this strawman group you’re dismissing?

        “like yourself, who merely treat religion in general and Christianity specifically as bad jokes”

        Cite please. When have I ever compared any religion to a bad joke, or treated it as such?

        Like

      • “And what was her justification, Andy?”

        The same justification you guys are offering: her moral compass, claims that it ‘just is’ wrong, and the bible.

        Like

    • “You can point me to Christian abolitionists – and thanks for the wiki link but I already read a whole book on Brown – but that doesn’t avoid the point that the vast majority of slavers themselves were also Christians, and all the justifications offered for slaving were biblical, and those who opposed it were accused of being atheists. The bible clearly condones slavery. Look up Benjamin Palmer – I’ll post separately about him next.”

      I wouldn’t say he majority of slavers were Christians–no more than the majority of today’s human traffickers are Christians. Or politicians (included many claiming to be Christians for votes) are actually Christian. You see, long before Darwin’s work was used to give supposed legitimacy to the idea, there was a drive to convince everyone (including Christians) of the secular concept of racial superiority and inferiority based on everyone NOT being human as the Bible asserts) but some being closer to animals than others. These growing ideas that were even back then cloaked in the guise of “scientific research” were gaining popularity and non-religious and religious alike were being influenced by these pseudoscientific ideas. Ideas that made genocides and land grabs (as opposed to cooperation with your fellow man) all the more easier when you view other human beings as nothing more than animals to be hunted.

      Christians such as Benjamin Palmer was no doubt influenced by the propaganda of his time–something easy to do when influential authority figures and proclaimed scientists were touting pesudoscience as legitimate scientific discovery. All 19th century (and earlier) quotes on “atheism” are viewed with doubt as I find it difficult to believe that they had even had this word at the time. Yes, I have looked up the supposed etymology of the word, but I still have my doubts. People are making up quotes left right these days, and it is often difficult if not impossible to confirm the authenticity of these quotes without access to primary resources.

      Like

      • Matt Dilahunty IS an expert. He trained as a minister, he knows the bible back to front. I’d wager he knows it substantially more than you.

        Like

    • Weak, slightly dishonest argument. It can be dispelled by actually reading the Bible in modern English. It says:

      “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

      Why didn’t Matthew or the caller read it from a modern translation, like the NIV? Well, the point that God condones the slow, tortured death over a period of days for slaves would have been seen for what it is: an empty argument. If the slave dies, whether immediately or after a couple of days, guess what? The slave owner is punished. What punishment would Israelites receive for killing any person? What is it? Tell us.

      But even Matthew himself doesn’t see slavery as all that bad. It was also interesting that Matthew ends up at the 9:00 mark saying, “Slavery can be beneficial to the slaves as well…You’re in a situation where you have regular work and food and everything else…” Right. What else could you do to solve poverty, relieve debts, and provide for your family in an era before bank accounts?

      The Bible never established slavery, it merely gave rules to regulate it.

      Note: You can do a search here on the blog for the long, drawn-out discussion we’ve already had on slavery.

      Joshua

      Like

      • “Why didn’t Matthew or the caller read it from a modern translation, like the NIV?”

        Because the NIV deliberately softened the message of the original.

        “The Bible never established slavery, it merely gave rules to regulate it.”

        Complete cop out. According to all the opposers of gay marriage, the bible was able to clearly rule out SSM, and yet it wasn’t able to come out and say “slavery is wrong”.

        Like

      • Complete cop out. According to all the opposers of gay marriage, the bible was able to clearly rule out SSM, and yet it wasn’t able to come out and say “slavery is wrong”.

        Andy, must you continually speak in hyperbole and extremes? (Poor debating method.) A complete cop out?

        To prove my point about the Bible’s stance on slavery, show us where the Bible establishes slavery. While you’re at it, try answering a question for a change instead of making statements: What else could you do to solve poverty, relieve debts, and provide for your family in an era before bank accounts? (The implications will answer the second part of your objections.)

        We’ve already had a long, drawn-out discussion on this issue. Disingenuous comments will never convince people who can read the Bible themselves. And I know you won’t be satisfied until everyone concedes that you are right on this issue and about everything you discuss, so please just take a breath and visit some other blogs.

        Joshua

        Like

    • Did these “slaves” have rights? These “slaves” did have rights. Could the slave be beaten by his master? If a slave was beaten and injured, then the slave many times received freedom and always justice. Exodus 21:26-27 says,

      “When a man strikes the eye of his servant, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.”

      ….What is unjust about recent oppressive slavery? The Bible is aggressive toward those who enslave others against their will. Those men who kidnap and steal other people selling them into slavery were to be put to death. Deuteronomy 24:7 says,

      “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

      In fact, if someone paid for a servant who was forced into slavery, then the buyer was also to be put to death. Exodus 21:16 states, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Add to this that no one was to oppress anyone for their race or nationality (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 24:14. Leviticus 25 teaches that an Israelite could sell himself other nations and must be allowed to be redeemed by his family (25:47-49).

      http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/biblical-slavery/

      Like

      • “If a slave was beaten and injured, then the slave many times received freedom and always justice”

        Nice cherry picking. You missed out Exodus 21:19:
        “Exodus 21:21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property”

        And that’s from the more recent NIV translation. Let’s look at an earlier one:
        “When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.”

        That reads more like there slave can actually DIE and there’s no punishment. And both translations make it clear – the slavery OWNS the slave, like an object. He is PROPERTY.

        Then you do a nice bait and switch with this quote: “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel”

        Right – so there’s a rule that Israelis aren’t to enslaves each other … but it’s still fine to make slaves of non-Israelis. Why do you think that’s a positive? That’s a defence like proudly trumpeting that 19th Century white Americans weren’t allowed to enslave each other. Then you mention Leviticus 25. Let’s have a look at it:
        Leviticus 25:44-46 –
        “If you want slaves, buy them from other nations (45) or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property. (46) You can own them, and even leave them to your children when you die, but do not make slaves of your own people or be cruel to them.”

        Why would it say don’t be cruel to your OWN people unless there was a tacit condoning of being cruel to OTHER people? Otherwise it would just say “Don’t be cruel to any people”. And why not just say ‘No Slaves, period’. Wouldn’t have been hard to add an extra commandment, no?

        My point stands.

        Like

  5. But even Matthew himself doesn’t see slavery as all that bad.

    No. Matt sees it as very bad. He condemns it. Don’t mine the Eddington consession.

    Did these “slaves” have rights? These “slaves” did have rights.

    Why the scare quotes? Just say slaves.
    Slavery is ugly. All the nice rights in the world cannot make up for it.
    Freedom is not just a pretty word.

    If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel…

    Foreigners? What about them?

    “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

    Which means what?

    Like

  6. “Andy, must you continually speak in hyperbole and extremes?”

    Josh, this is like when you told me off for being insulting. You’re accusing someone else of hyperbole and extremes after you’ve several times compared gays marrying to bestiality, pedophilia and incest? I’ll say this for you Josh, you have breathtaking chutzpah!

    Like

    • I was being sarcastic. (If you’ll look over previous threads, I was harassed for using hyperbole.) Besides, as I said before, there’s nothing wrong with comparison, is there? It’s only a person reading comments half-cocked that would mistake a comparison for an equation.

      Regardless, you ignored my questions again. However, I’m not going to turn this thread into yet another thread about slavery. This cartoon isn’t about slavery, it’s about “alternative lifestyles”.

      So, let me ask again: Did you even look at the articles I linked to?

      Joshua

      Like

    • I was being sarcastic. (If you’ll look over previous threads, I was harassed for using hyperbole.) Besides, as I said before, there’s nothing wrong with comparison, is there? It’s only a person reading comments half-cocked that would mistake a comparison for an equation.

      Regardless, you ignored my questions again. However, I’m not going to turn this thread into yet another thread about slavery. This cartoon isn’t about slavery, it’s about “alternative lifestyles”.

      So, let me ask again: Did you even look at the articles I linked to?

      Laws and rules that are being changed to allow gay marriage are also being used to allow incest and other forms of abnormal sexual behavior is a reality. Examples:

      Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted

      A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.

      Challenging the illegality of consensual polygamy.

      Why Normalizing Same-Sex Parenting Inevitably Led to Triple-Parenting

      There are worse examples, but I’m not going to grime up my blog with links to them…

      Joshua

      Like

      • “So, let me ask again: Did you even look at the articles I linked to?”

        Yes, and I posted about them on the other thread. Here you go again:

        Yes. And I’m baffled by how you think this helps or backs up your argument.

        An example: “[Epstein’s] attorney Matthew Galuzzo remarked, “It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

        Right, but Epstein was convicted, wasn’t he? So allowing gay marriage did not in this case lead to incest being tolerated. In other words, how does this bolster your argument? His lawyer offered it as a rubbish defence, but seeing as no-one accepted it, so what? Lawyers offer terrible defences all the time, it’s whether they’re accepted that’s important. What if a murderer’s lawyer said “We’re allowed to kill cows, why can’t we kill people” – would that be an argument for vegetarianism?

        I was expecting to find examples of courts saying “We allow gay marriage so I guess we’re forced to allow brothers and sister to marry”, but I’m not seeing that in your links. Another example given was a woman having a child with her grandson. The article doesn’t say “Because of gay marriage, no-one’s complaining”. In fact, it clearly says they may face prison for what they’re doing. Again, how is that a result of allowing gay marriage? How is allowing gay marriage supposed to have increased tolerance for what they’re doing? Are you saying incest only started happening in the past decade or so?

        Other links are similarly just talking about what people are trying to argue – “Professor ATTEMPTS to use a ruling” etc, rather than any examples of their arguments being accepted. Again, if someone after Virginia vs Loving tried to argue that the ruling meant people should be allowed to marry their pets, would that be an indictment on remove anti-miscegenation laws? I’d say no – the arguments for removing those laws still stand, and they stand apart from the arguments for or against other law changes. All you’ve got evidence of is two people making a bad argument – the law professor and you.

        Like

    • Andy, I just came across this article that gets to the point of what I’m trying to get at. What do you think?

      Why Are We Surprised With the Push for ‘Pedophile Rights’?

      A few pro-homosexual critics already complained about the article to Michael Brown, saying that he was equating homosexuality and pedophilia. But he replied that he wasn’t saying they were the same thing and that the article was comparing arguments for justifying both.

      Joshua

      Like

      • Well do you accept the argument that victims of pedophilia in any way? Simple yes or no question.

        I do NOT accept it, and see it as BS. Given that, the rest of the argument doesn’t work – comparing it to being left-handed, as Brown rhetorically does, is nonsense because I (and I’m guessing you too) reject the claim that pedophilia is a victim-less crime.

        Also, I’m pretty sure the evidence is against the idea that pedophilia is an engrained ‘from birth’ syndrome, rather than a pathology, unlike homosexuality and left-handed ness.

        So no, using the same arguments is not sustainable.

        Like

      • I certainly affirm that it is NOT a victim-less crime.

        However, I don’t know if I missed something or you misread something. Dr. Brown didn’t compare it to left-handedness. He was quoting John Money, a John Hopkins professor, who was saying that the said evil was “no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness”. This was right after he mentioned Dr. Richard Green was pushing to have it removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, just as he had helped have homosexuality removed. That leading psychologist are leaning towards saying that it is an ingrained, unalterable, sexual inclination seems to be the point.

        Isn’t that the least bit alarming?

        Like

      • By the way, seems quite a character, your friend Brown:
        http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/05/25190/

        “Brown also likes to invade LGBT Pride festivals with gangs of fundamentalist Christian theocrats who wear anti-gay T-shirts and hand out homophobic religious tracts, attempting to shame LGBT people on what is supposed to be a day of affirmation and celebration.”

        Like

      • Michael doesn’t want to waste time with an obviously under-prepared pro-homosexual host, so he kindly ends the interview and he’s the bad guy? What did he say that was so wrong or hateful in the interview by the way? Practically speaking, he’s probably got a lot of other things to do. Besides, David’s questions (in the excerpt) were just juvenile and just silly. He even misquotes Dr. Brown near the end.

        As for the quotation, well, what were these “anti-gay T-shirts” and “homophobic religious tracts”? What did they look like? What did they say? (Surely you know.)

        To call Dr. Brown a bigot is to show how uninformed the person doing so is with his work. But I don’t need to defend him. His work speaks for itself:

        Line of Fire Radio by Dr. Michael Brown

        Joshua

        Like

  7. Josh, I haven’t read Dr Green’s arguments, so cannot judge them. He either makes a good case or a bad one. However, the reasons for reclassifying homosexuality were sound – bad science got it classified in the first place. If you have an argument against that re-classifying that isn’t simply a religious one or simple ‘argument from disgust, then take it up with the experts.

    Either way, arguments for or against classification stand apart from arguments for legality. Even if we could somehow prove that pedophilia is engrained or even innate, that would have no bearing on its legal standing. It wouldn’t be any closer to being legal.

    As it happens, I seriously doubt that attraction to kids is not a pathology, for many reasons. For example, there’s the stats showing abused kids often grow up to abuse. It’s often a power thing rather than a ‘kid’ thing – children are merely targeted due to their vulnerability. Further, it’s not a stretch to conjecture a mental mechanism in men that enduces their attraction to women, and vice versa. Gays could simply have the wrong one. I can imagine no equivalent natural explanation for pedos. It’s not like we all fancy other children when we’re children ourselves, and pedos simply don’t grow out of it. Gays are at least attracted to the same sexual signifiers as their opposite sex straight counterparts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s