Objectivism and Homosexuality
Posted by BalphEubank 12 years, 5 months ago to The Gulch: General
With Maine, Minnesota and Washington passing legislation supporting same sex gay marriage, I thought we should revisit what Ayn Rand had to say on the topic: "It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting."
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Oh, tell me what logical fallacy I have committed, I ask please.
You won't find me attacking or being condescending (purposefully). I consider all of you valuable as created by God and since His Word matters more to me than anything else, it naturally will drive my comments, responses, and questions.
Nice Red Herring. We are not discussing murder by governments and dictators, we are discussing the Objectivist view of homosexuality.
But since you brought it up, let's not forget that Mr. Hitler had the active support and help of a certain very large Christian denomination.
So you can add that to the mix of all of the other logical fallacies contained in your "Actually, it's the lack of Chistianity," put in your pipe, and smoke it. Or whatever other bodily orifice pleases you.
And Christianity (as practiced by the Western Church, I'm exempting the Orthodox folks from this accusation) HAS done a great deal of damage to the human race, just as any shame-based system will. It's inherent in the nature of a system that "begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice... [and,] as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof."
Gee, I wonder where THAT quote came from? hee hee
Yes, I'm aware of the dumb asses in Christianity who abused their position in the church and went about forcing people to convert to Catholicism or Protestantism under the threat of death, the burning at the stakes, drowning, etc, etc. I encourage you to find out what was the driving reason why the Pilgrims left England. It wasn't because of some Entrepreneurial idea.
Among other reasons, where did George Washington get the hope to take on the worlds most powerful military? If you read his journals and other papers he wrote, you know the answer.
Ultimately, Christianity is the Foundation upon which this country is dedicated (George Washington's dedication at the Church near Ground Zero in NY) because he knew without it, America would have never been. I don't see how in this case, Christianity did severe damage.
This response belongs in a different area, but I needed to retort your last comment.
...so why can't WE re-redefine it to suit OUR purposes? HELL YEAH!
I'll answer your question, even though it wasn't me of whom you asked it: Yes.
Yes, there are moral absolutes, as outlined in, oh, a little tome named Atlas Shrugged (you might consider reading it someday) and Ms. Rand's various nonfiction works.
And none of which has anything to do with the scientific FACT of evolution.
Well, I am likely in the 1/10 of 1% out there that still believe in moral absolutes and that those absolutes come from an immutable, righteous, loving God who loves us enough to tell us what is right and wrong without equivocation, through His Word called the Bible.
In His Word, homosexual behavior and actually any sexual behavior which is a deviation from that exercised between a man and a woman in a covenant, lifetime relationship (we call marriage), is sin. Sin implies that there is a correct way of thinking and acting for all situations and when you deviate from there, you sin against God and are accountable, regardless whether you like it or not.
Therefore, although extramarital sex (I mean all sex outside of marriage) is definitely encouraged and accepted now days, it is just as wrong as homosexuality.
The primary reason that this is sin is that it completely undermines the institution of marriage and the family, both established by God prior to the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden some 10,000 years ago. Married couples have a difficult enough time functioning properly together and rearing children as a family without the complication of extramarital sex.
Man was not created to related sexually with another man and God's design in nature spells that out well. Oh...you may think it works, but pragmatism is not basis for principle.
Again, this is simply what the Bible says and I believe it.
we're trying this new thing. I am responding to the link above, because we hit the end of the thread. Ok, we're on the same page n regards to predisposition.
Within all that you have explained above, it boils down to human justification for human behavior, which can frankly conclude anything is moral since no moral absolutes exist in such a system of thought (secular humanism).
I was skeptical of it as you hear stories that they send young men out to get a first wife and bring in new blood to the compound. At least with the group my niece was around, it has no truth to it.
They do seem to generally marry within there own communities. I would think that this creates some genealogy circles rather than trees. Which has to become a problem at some point.
And just to keep things fair, every time the subject of smoking comes around, I'll be sure to preface every one of my comments with, "Personally, I find your filthy, disgusting habit to be nauseating, but..."
Load more comments...