Posted on 02/26/2006 5:41:59 AM PST by Joe Republc
MANCHESTER — A traveling conference advocating the heterosexual lifestyle came to the suburbs of west St. Louis County on Saturday. As gay-rights groups staged a peaceful protest outside the First Evangelical Free Church, conventioneers spent the day inside, mostly listening to speakers who say they were previously gay. Parents of gay and lesbian children got advice and could speak to counselors about what to do, short of accepting their child's behavior. "We suggest you decline an invitation to a civil commitment ceremony," Melissa Fryrear told a group of parents. Some busily took notes; a few others wiped away tears. "So many Christians are yielding on this part," she said. The Love Won Out event was sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that Fryrear works for in Colorado, and Exodus International, an umbrella group of ministries by formerly gay people. The conference is in its eighth year, but this is its first time in St. Louis.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Maybe I haven't made it simple enough. Let me try again.
You either have an authority outside yourself, or you are the authority.
In yours, it's you.
In that statement itself, there is no disparagement. Or do you think it's bad that people make up their own values? If so, then there's category 2. There are no others.
Dan
It depends
If you cite the so-called "Golden Rule" because Jesus (God) said it, and embrace everything else He said as well, then this is a Category 2 position.
If you just happen to like that one, pick it, reject the rest, then we're in Category 1. You're still the source; you're just quoting someone else.
What distinguishes the two positions is not utility, but authority-source.
Dan
Certainly it does, and it has a rational basis, as well.
The problem is that it's often painful and troublesome to struggle against sin, which can lead some to see acceptance of sin as the "utilitarian" choice. I have read many homosexuals speak about the "relief" and "freedom" they felt when the accepted and acknowledged their homosexuality, so to them, that acceptance would appear to be the most rational choice.
The genetic link for schizophrenia has been proven, the link for gays hasn't.
I've gone through one analysis of studies from Colombia & Yale and another from Cambridge.
The former leans toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that "its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions." "
The latter takes a step toward genetics and concludes that, "…it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.
I’ve seen papers and books that look at some of this data and lean much more strongly one way or the other, but these two seem to be the most academic and without obvious bias.
BUMP!
There is a genetic deletion called 22q11. One out of three kids with this deletion will develop schizophrenia by age 22. Harvard researchers are working to narrow the scope, since 22q11 can have verious breaking points.
Your argument is valid IF you completely accept the premise of "sexual orientation" to begin with, especially in a purely organic sense and not caused by external factors such as an environment, etc., AND if you do not believe in the orthodox scriptural view of homosexual behavior as sinful. "How can what I'm doing be a sin," one could argue, "if it is my natural state of being, something that God placed in me to begin with? The Bible must be wrong on that point." You either have to accept the Biblical perspective or explain it away, as liberal theologians do, as a function of culture or antiquated ignorance.
Maybe it’s not you that needs to simplify.
The radically varying interpretations of theology is proof that we can not escape being our own authority. Your foundation is guided by your education in theology. My foundation is an education in an objective reality. We can doubt each others foundation, but it’s absurd to pretend that calling one another’s “made up” the way you did is not disparaging.
Thanks. I’ll look it up later,… after I make sure it’s not all an elaborate conspiracy to get me.
Here is one link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051202085122.htm
I don't think you can say anybody is morally obliged to "feel" heteosexual. Mainly, people are morally obliged to refrain from disordered sexual acts.
Look at it from the point of view of another disordered passion: irascibility (bad temper.) We can't insist that a person stop FEELING surges of anger. We do insist that they try to get a handle on it so they don't ACT on the basis of passionate anger in ways that are objectively wrong.
There are, traditionally, seven deadly sins: Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Avarice, and Sloth. Any one of them will involve feelings that are persistent, penetrating, and persuasive. That's what we're ALL up against. It's not just gays!
You make very good points, Mrs. D.
A very thoughtful post and well stated.
I've never met a so called "gay" person who was not angry. Angry spiritually, physically, politically, sexually, etc and sometimes in all ways.
I've met quite a few and have found disturbed mental states in all. NO wonder that the spiritual world can help these people.
Very good post. You could say that we all have an "orientation" as it were, to sin, whatever that sin happens to be.
Quit making sense.
You know to gay men who married women. Whether they are happy or not is impossible for you to know.
So you decide utility is the transcendent moral value.
In other words, you make it up.
That is, indeed, one of the two options.
Dan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.