Posted on 05/23/2007 2:50:09 PM PDT by Esther Ruth
I don’t know enough about Liberace to say.
First of all it's a ludicrous analogy--no one claims alcoholism is an "alternative lifestyle".
Secondly, it could only be remotely considered to be an appropriate analogy if you can prove that all homosexuals are as wantonly irresponsible in their sexual proclivities as avid alcoholics are in their drinking.
Neither habitual alcoholics nor sexually irresponsible people of either orientation should adopt.
People who engage in moderate drinking and people of either orientation who are responsible in their sexual activities should be allowed to adopt.
Kids are very perceptive and will notice right away that the parents are role playing unusual gender roles. If a father dressed up in female clothes and pear necklaces and pranced with a lisp, do you think that would harm the child? If so, specifically why?
So now you're only opposed to effeminate gays adopting? What about all the non-effeminate ones?
The kid would probably be teased by other children, but would probably grow up to be "normal" enough. Mere weirdness does not eliminate people as prospective parents.
Liberace was gay?
More importantly, he was weird. Thou shalt not suffer a weird person to live!
I’ll bet he’ll go by “T.B. Cheney” after his father (Turkey Baster).
Yes, weird and different most not be tolerated.
None of our business, perhaps. But it is the business of the child whom has a right to know — and “Anonymous Donor” just ain’t gonna cut it!
If you were Mary C. would you make the name of the donor public? If you were the donor, would you want your name made public? It’s better that the guy’s name isn’t revealed to the public.
Then let this be between the mother and the child.
It is not for public consumption.
A dry (non-drinking) person, free of out-of-control compulsions, who has successfully controlled an alcoholic difficulty, OK.
A sexually continent (non-sexually-active) person, who absolutely shuns a homosexual lifestyle, OK.
I recall that the great Catholic novelist, Walker Percy, together with his two brothers, was adopted by their cousin Will (William Alexander Percy). Cousin Will apparently struggled privately with a homosexual orientation, but never made any mention of "gayness" nor "acted out" in any way when he was raising his orphaned cousins.
"He was," Walker says, "the most extraordinary man I have ever known and that I owe him a debt which cannot be paid."
Yeah, and when the time come I hope she has the guts to provide him a name, if she even has the ability. Do you contemplate this poor kid’s going to have anything approaching a normal life?
It is still none of our business.
An animal caught in the jaws of a predator feels pain, too. So what? There is no morality associated with it. The victim presumably does not want to be devoured either. What does the victim's desire not to be devoured have to do with morality? You are assuming a dignity for human animals not yet in evidence.
The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.
I am asking for an account of the morality that you are assuming, given the premise of mere physical epiphenomena in a purposeless universe of necessity or chance. How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself? Where does the expectation come from that it ought to be something else? You can't explain the origin of morality by positing a prior moral rule. Where does the prior moral rule come from that one should treat others as one would like to be treated?
Like the Nazis they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.
Again, it won't do to explain morality simply by assuming the very thing in question; namely, that an impersonal universe somehow generated a standard of incumbency independent of itself. How could it? How can the universe generate something that is independent of itself?
Beside that is the simple observation that in the natural world (which is all there is, under the premise) there doesn't seem to be any such obligation. Animals survive and prosper precisely by treating others the way they do not want to be treated. Sometimes humans animals do, too. Look at how Bill Clinton has prospered, for example. One could argue that his actions have been very rational, if getting what one wants is the criteria. Regardless, in a Darwinian world of chance or necessity presumably the ones that do not survive and prosper are functioning just as normally as the ones that do. So what? Why do you expect the universe ought to be "rational" , even-handed, or "fair"?
Cordially,
I hope you do not interpret what I have said to mean that I don't believe that you have a sense of morality. You obviously do have a sense of morality, which is evident every time you make a moral judgment. I just think that your sense of morality is tacit evidence of your knowledge of God, which you suppress. You do not acknowledge Him or give Him thanks, but you have a sense of morality because you were made in His image and likeness.
Christian: Your life is bleak and meaningless.
Me: No, it's not.
I for one have never said that your life is meaningless. I believe your life has meaning and value because you were created in God's image and live in His world. I just think that every time you think your life has meaning you are being inconsistent with your own Godless presuppositions.
Christian: Well, you can't say anything's wrong.
Me: Yes I can, I do it all the time, actually.
Christian: Well, you can't say why it's wrong.
Me: Yes, I can. Here's why.
As above, I for one do not say that you are incapable of or can't make moral judgments, but merely that when you do so you are being inconsistent with your presuppositions. I have not yet seen how or why you expect a purely material universe to generate moral obligation, and what sense it makes to expect mere physical forces to be moral and rational.
Cordially,
You assumed and made the statement you posted. Those are YOUR WORDS...not mine. It is STILL none of mine or anyone else’s business and...I think Mary Cheney will do everything humanly possible to put the best interests of her baby in front of hers. To assume anything else is absurd.
:) That was clever and thanks for the humor...it helps on this thread that seems so over the top.
The baby is here. God bless the baby and the Cheney family.
Beautiful fun photo.
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.