SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Texas Republicans have decided on a platform that includes abolishing minimum wage, cancelling climate research, banning the teaching of evolution at schools, and repealing the voting rights act, among other things, but hilariously (or depressingly) the one thing on this laundry list that people are angry about is their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.
BBC News has more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774102
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Your lucky number is 3552664958674928. Watch for it everywhere.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:12PM
You can't set aside his initial premise for one minute and examine the rest of his logic? I realize that said foundational assumption may be repugnant to you, but he was trying to explain how you get from there to here, and that it's a logical process. You dismissing his initial assumption does not make the rest of his logic illogical.
You can't *prove* "because the Bible says so." Either you believe it or you don't. There's really very little point in arguing about it.
To add some more constructive dialog, I recently found out the denomination I was raised in (uberconservative Lutheran) is not against homosexuality as a lifestyle, but only the physical act of homosexual sex. I was rather blindsided by that one and now I can't figure out the logic at all...presumably at least part of it is in the same ballpark as the Catholic being against contraception thing, that according to them sex should be for reproduction, not pleasure (any Catholics here please correct me if this is not in fact the logic).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @08:03PM
I did, but this is one of those arguments that sound more sophisticated than it really is. It breaks down to this:
If something is bad, then it's always bad, even if it's genetic.
Sure. But if I don't think it's bad, then it isn't. The genetic part is just a red herring.
Throwing on top of that some false equivalence, equating homosexuality with alcoholism, does not change the argument:
'See, there's this other thing that everyone agrees is partly genetic, and everyone agrees is bad, so we should be able to accept that homosexuality is also bad.'
The argument still boils down to whether or not you start with the prior belief that homosexuality is bad, so what's the point of the rest?
I'm all for having an open conversation where people can voice their opinions, but that includes accepting the replies.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 1) by zsau on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:47PM
The reason that homosexuality as a lifestyle is fine as long as it isn't sex, is because what does it even mean for there to be a "lifestyle"? Our lifestyle is very different from that of the ancients; does that mean we're sinning?
However, really it sounds like a garbled version of the Catholic position, which is that it's fine to be attracted to people of your sex, just like it's fine to want to drink to excess. What's not fine (in Catholic teaching) is drinking to excess or having sex with people of your sex. Protestants often take a different line with this, thinking that even the desire to sin is sinning itself (taking Jesus's "if you hate your sibling you might as well have killed them" as their guide for this).
Of course both of these positions are "outs" for them. You can make all the same choices as you have, and keep the same friends, have the same genetics, just don't have sex with people of the same sex. So, you see, they're not really denying science or equality or whatever, they're just making different choices.
(Source: I was brought up a left-wing Catholic, and I've been entertained by their position; but I do not entertain or hold it. i.o.w. hearsay. Nowadays some would consider me a liberal Christian, and others secular/atheist/polytheist neopagan.)