I have to be honest, this was not what I wanted to post as an initial blog but, this caught my attention and I've been thinking about it since. While getting ready for my day to day business I stumbled upon a story covered on Fox News about a lesbian lawmaker (Utah senator) becoming a surrogate mother for 2 gay men. (I wont bother with names you can find that out on your own.) My initial reaction was, how can a senator like that be elected in a conservative state like Utah? Anyway, as the story read on it described the reasoning behind her decision and that's what blew my mind. The cost of hiring a surrogate mother reaches the 100,000 dollar mark and she felt, I guess, morally obligated to spare these men the cost of such a venture. What a paradox, the good Samaritan story in a morally reprehensible situation. Now, before those of you already offended folks close the page hear this. All men and woman are created equal before God and what you do behind closed doors is your business, not the governments BUT, a homosexual lifestyle is a CHOICE not a birth defect. So when an elected official, especially one who helps create and pass laws, takes her lifestyle choice and uses it as an example of what everyone should do, most likely to win votes from the gay community, what does that say about the individuals we elect to run this country. What kind of Bills will be proposed next? Will she next be a surrogate mother for a heterosexual family financially unable to adopt or hire a surrogate mother? Ladies and gentleman this is inexcusable. This is how much out of control our representatives are becoming. But don't worry, she's fully confident the 2 men will be great parents regardless of no female parent. That's reassuring, I was worried for a second. This senator is looking for reelection this year, if there are any Utahians reading this right now you have a chance to stop this.
-God Bless America
Hey Drake, I saw this in the facebook newsfeed and found it interesting. First off, pretty cool website, I like that you are open about your politcal beliefs. There is, however, a few problems with your argument in my opinion.
ReplyDelete"All men and woman are created equal before God and what do behind closed doors is your business, not the governments BUT, a homosexual lifestyle is a CHOICE not a birth defect."
First of all, adding religion into your argument that way will weaken it. Second, we don't know for sure if homesoexuality is a choice or a genetic defect. It is a hotly debated subject in the pyschology world and even the top psychologists can't come to a conclusion.
-Mitch
Well Drake, you have done a good job here on your maiden post. Exposing the most intolerable of situations. Yes intolerable.
ReplyDeleteTwo Gay men seek a surrogate mother for their planned child. Seriously. The absurdity of this situation is plainly seen within the likelyhood of it happening outside a lab. Which is, by the way, very unlikely.
It has only been recently in the history of the human race that these kind of things have been made possible. The fact that two men having a child together is not possible in the normal natural state or in any laboratory for that matter, is a testement that at the very minimum this attempt is crossing the natural ethics barrier. This is the kind of crap that we will be hearing about more and more as medical knowledge increases, and ethical knowledge wanes. Children need a mother for a reason. The phsycological effects of this situation on a child cannot be good. They may not be bad, but I am sure they are not good. And I thing any decent psycologist will agree,including frued. Unfortunately if any one of them were to stand up and say this they would be deemed homophobic and the like.
Sean D.
Continued Below
Now, as for the comment by Mitch, I see two problems in your arguement that directly correlate to the two points that you made:
ReplyDelete-First of all, adding religion into your argument that way will weaken it.-
Why?
This statement is again pointing out the modern nature of the arguement and the thinking involved. Until the last 100 years or so the idea of G-d being an arbitre of truth was not lost on the men and women that entered into intellectual, moral, and political debate. So why now? Considering that the arguements in favor of anything homosexual maintain all the highly lauded markers of moral reletavism, it is no wonder that any discusion of a universal ethic is so disturbing to the leftist homosexual agenda. In place of G-d, I am going to take the liberty to propose the idea that there is a universal code of moral ethics, whether there be a god or not to judge is not even relevant anymore.
The leftist will scream now that they agree with the Golden rule and that the golden rule is the only universal ethic. The Golden rule being- do unto others as would have done unto you- and many other variations of the same idea. Great. Now, what if you are a person who enjoys killing and torturing animals. Obviously you have a problem. Less obvious is the fact that the golden rule has nothing to say about this act. The Golden Rule applies strictly to other people. So it is of little use in condeming this act. This is why we have animal rights groups finding it neccesary to give animals equal status under the law as humans. Most of the animal rights people are leftists that would not be bothered by an abortion, as fetuses are not classified as humans so no application of the Golden rule is neccesary, but start crying when bambi is killed by a skilled hunter. So in an effort to make animals fall under the Golden rule we have to redifine animals as having human rights. Everybody wins, Bambi lives, and the leftist keep there moral relativism.
Would it not be better to just proclaim that torturing animals is intrinsically wrong? That it displays almost every savage characteristic of the human mind. Yes it would.
Now we are being forced to define marriage as between a man and a women instead of just coming out and saying that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. That no good comes of it and that a women being a surrogate mother for two gay men should be illegal. Just because we have the capability to do something does not mean that it should be done. Period. And the limits of the Golden rule are painfully obvious. The Golden rule only works if it is married to a universal ethic of right and wrong. Under the Golden rule alone, one could no doubt make the arguement that murder is justified or inconsequential, as they do with devestating effect within the debate on abortion. Babies arent human. Case closed they say. Shifting definitions makes murder acceptable. With homosexuality, shifting definitions of family and parenting make it acceptable. Thus we see the decline of the moral backbone of this country turn into a shifting spineless amoeba of absurdity.
---Second, we don't know for sure if homesoexuality is a choice or a genetic defect. It is a hotly debated subject in the pyschology world and even the top psychologists can't come to a conclusion.---
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt, I could care less what the top psychologists say about the status of homosexuality. It only takes a terse glance to reveal yet another absurdity.
Homosexuality is either a choice or it is genetic. And by genetic we mean an imbalance of hormones in the body. Okay.
If it is a choice then the arguement continues between whether it is right or wrong. And since moral reletavism is incoherant, then there is no reasonable excuse for being gay. End of story. If it is societal and socially created, then there is a problem with our society that causes such pathological behavior. Period.Period.period.
If it turns out to be an imbalance of hormones then it must be classified as a genitic defect that causes pathological behavior. It happens very rarely in the animal kingdom and when it does the homosexuals say, -look the dolphins are doing it- then humans start taking there ethical standards from dolphins instead of the bible. Absurd. Yes.
People that are depressed or shcizophrenic display pathological behavior, not normal for most humans, they are given pills that even out the chemicals in the brain and the problem is fixed or heavily relieved. Why not with homosexuality? Saying that homosexuality is genetic, does nothing to strengthen the arguement that it is acceptable, just as saying that parkinsons is genetic does nothing to the fact that it is an undesirable disease. I love you to death Mitch, but I believe you are wrong on this subject.
Sean D.
I don't care if you are a democrat, republican, or neither; that is crazy stuff. It is amazing how far our countries leaders have strayed from God and morality of any kind. The sad thing is that most of those that have the stomach for being in politics seem to be this way. We need more people with a passion to do what is good for the country to get placed in office.
ReplyDeleteHey Drake, love the blog. This is definitely a crazy story, but sadly it is not all that surprising. I'll be sure to follow your blog.
ReplyDeleteSean, the reason I said that is because the previous statement is said assuming the person reading is also a christian, or a similar religion. This is a big problem in a formal debate and it will,almost always, weaken your argument when displayed in that manner.
ReplyDeleteAlso, comparing the act of being homosexual to torturing and killing animals is a bit extreme, dont you think? What are the homosexuals doing to you(or anyone for that matter) that is so abominable? I do know that it against the Bible to condone being homosexual, or be homosexual, is this why you are so passionately against it? You directly believe, and almost state it as a fact that "homosexuality is wrong." The people that are homosexual do not see themselves as lower people that need to be fixed with pills,(which is why a mjaority don't want to be "fixed", unless they happen to be bombarded with claims that they are ethically unsound or the like) they are just living their lives like anyone else. Even if it IS a choice,(which is unknown)why not just leave them alone?
As you probably already assumed, I'm a big fan of preventing religious influence on politics.
....and no i'm not gay.
-Mitch
I thought you would find this interesting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWk1ATYHno
Perhaps, Mitch, you are right about the fact that injecting any reference to G-d in this arguement weakens it. However, when talking ethics, and yes this debate is ethical in nature, we can only go so far and then a transcendent authority is neccesary. If not calling it G-d, you could call it the laws of nature, laws of physics, the Tao, brahma, whatever. It does not matter, unless you wish to slide down the chasm of moral relativism, ethical concerns have to be given absolutes in certain cases, right, wrong, or nuetral. The easiest way to do this, from the perspective of a thiest, is to petition G-d's authority.
ReplyDeleteAbove you state that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, outside the religious circles that is, but I beg you, where is the evidence to suggest that this is the case? Does it really do no damage whatsoever? Besides the fact that your above statement places us in a state of consequentialist ethics, which, by the way, has been ignored by serious philosophers since at least Kant, there is no way to definitivly state that homosexuality brings no harm.
Consequentialist ethics tends toward the idea that if a certain act brings no harm than it is permissable. "No harm, no foul" as the old saying goes. The fatal flaw in this line of thought is the fact that it relies heavily on inductive reasoning. Implementing the law of induction in the sciences is considered bad science, I refer you to Karl Popper for a detailed account, thus implement the law of induction in ethics is bad ehtical practice.
The law of induction is essentially as follows:
1. Make an observation
2. Come up with a hypothesis. Example: Homosexuality brings no harm, thus it can be permitted.
3. Conduct an experiment. Allow homosexuality to run out of control. Destabalize traditional values.
4.Make a conclusion based on the evidence.
Now this is preciseluy where inductive ethics becomes BULLs#$@.
5. Apply present conclusion regarding homosexuality, which is that it brings no harm, across the span of time and space, past, present and, future. Einstein once said that a million experiments could confirm his theory, yet it would only take one to disprove it. Karl popper calls this the method of falsification. Thus, by finding merely ONE instance that homosexuality causes harm, it immediatley, and without question, disproves the idea that homosexuality does NO harm. Period. Even if homosexuality causes no harm, there is no guarentte that it will never cause harm. Projection into the future about what is going on now is bad logic and bad reason. So, the conlusion is that saying "homosexuality causes no harm, so why not leave it alone?" is logically unsound, and so is consequentialist ethics.
I will adress your concern about the animal torture analogy later. I have to go to class.
Regards
Sean D.
There is no excuse for her to be in office. The fact that she's in office shows how far God is out of the question for many Americans, sadly. It all comes down to what God wants.. and what he doesn't want. There is no way to justify sin. Gods way is life AKA (for ours and Gods benefit), while Satans way, is destruction. I do not believe that puting God in an argument weakens it, since God should always be our director of every thing we say and do, for God says "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men."-Colossians 3:17 & 23. As for the homosexuality issue, yes it is a choice. God says in the bible that there is no excuse for your sin. And I also believe that homosexuality does cause destruction, because God said it's a sin, therefore, how can it not cause destruction in some form or another? Even non believers can figure that the anus is an outer, not an inner (if you get my drift), and God designed it that way for obvious reasons. Thats why females have vaginas, because it's the proper place to stick the penis in, not the anus. Same thing goes for women who are lesbians; it is wrong because it is not the way God designed relationships to be. For non-believers, I can understand this can be confusing since I used to be a non-believer and I understand, but God is the one who created science. For example, what created the earth? Oh the big bang? If that was so.. who created all of the particles of space.. the matter, and gases so that the big bang could happen? If you keep thinking about it, creation keeps going and going and going until finally you have to believe that something you can see, feel such as matter/force, or experience, and everything that exists, was created by something you cannot see, God; Faith in a creator that you cannot visibly see, is only logical. God is the one who created everything that scientists haven't discovered about science yet. The bible says, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." -1 Corinthians 14:33 I am not trying to force anyone who reads this to believe, because that is the individuals choice to believe; it is impossible for anyone to be forced to believe in Jesus. Even people who don't believe in Jesus follow christian principles and live good lives, because they see the good that comes out of doing good deeds. Does that mean they are saved? No, non believers who have not accepted Jesus are not saved, because Jesus is the only way to cleanse us and make us have a cover of righteousness over us in the sight of God so that we are acceptable in his sight. This is not an attack of "faith"; i'm only explaining what I believe and why, because ultimately I can't force anyone to believe anything, since that is up to the individual to decide.
ReplyDelete