"The Politics of Homosexuality" (1 of 7) - Intro & Prohibitionsim Part 1

[IndyCub86]

I still don't see how natural law is supposed to judge homosexuality any more harshly than the celibacy of, say, catholic priests (especially since plenty of gays have done surrogacy and whatnot). Natural law demands the freedom to reproduce, not the obligation. For exercise, let's say it did demand the obligation ... then why stop at bans of homosexuality? Why not ban celibacy and forcibly impregnate every woman of age as the moral imparitive of natural law?

[derivativesarecool]

@IndyCub86 Because natural law in essence gives the "option" of impregnating "one woman." You are misinterpretating natural law my friend.

[jonny55987]

He presents a gross misunderstanding of the biblical argument. He sets up a fallacious straw man argument to tear down. Mr. Sullivan really has no idea how the argument goes if this is what he is fighting. The Old Covenant must be read in light of the New. We do not refrain from eating pork. Does that make Christians out of conformity with scripture, no. According to his logic, we are. He needs to be a little bit more intellectually honest.

[Magnulus76]

@jonny55987 It makes no difference, one could still question the authority of the supposesd "new covenant" to interpret what is suppossedly God's unchanging law. The "unnaturalness" of homosexuality is a farce, homosexual behaviors are found in thousands of animal species and human being routinely utilize unnatural means to achieve moral ends. I choose to err on the side of human freedom rather than prohibition; there is simply no good reason that homosexuality should be condemned.

[jonny55987]

@Magnulus76 I am addressing his comments on the biblical argument. My comment had nothing to do with animals of other species and their actions, which is a red herring fallacy. Choosing to err on the side of human freedom doesn't make sense. If there is a possibility in which an action is morally neutral or morally evil, logic and basic common sense state that it is morally safer to abstain from the action. Naturalness is not based upon how many species do what, but upon the nature of the being.

[Badwolf182]

@jonny55987 I simply LOVE this "Naturalness is not based upon how many species do what, but upon the nature of the being. " Really great point! 10/10! :)

[Sckye]

I'm surprise Andrew took into consideration the bible which is used to persecute homosexuality and he justified it. What I found most surprising is that Andrew didn't take into consideration in identifying inaccurate literature of the context used to persecute homosexuality but then again he did take into consideration the other context which are written in the bible. Personally, I believe the bible cannot apply to our American life style due to movements or rights given to both men and women.

[hbazioq]

@Sckye

What he meant was that you shouldn't take the bible litterally

[Sckye]

@hbazioq I agree, we shouldn't take the bible word for word. To not take it literally, I'm sure most people would see this as a sign of lack of commitment or devotion to the faith. To take it literally proves that the context is in a man point of view, it expresses the gender illteracy during it's time as well as the bias perspective of it's societies. To me to put something in a book of faith and not follow it makes it all sound hyprocritical.

[FrsBigeasy]

I really respect Andrew Sullivan because even though I'm a Liberal Democrat, he's honest & he's a real Conservative in the Conservative Libertarian sense. Government should protect, defend, stay of our wallets & bedrooms that people have the Constitutional Right to lives there lives as they see fit as long as there not hurting other people.

[billyboy630]

I like Andrew Sullivan, but his argument here is being disingenuous. Catholicism teaches that the act of homosexual sex is a sin, that's it. People who are attracted to the same sex are not evil; He knows that, he is a Roman Catholic. Just because youre "natural" attractions are of the same sex that doesnt mean its not a sin to act on them. As a heterosexual man my natural tendencies are to have many women, as a married man that would be sin if I acted on it.

[sandrabussell]

asshole

[cwolly100]

My brothers and sisters we are living in a world today where things are like upside down. God vreated us with his image and it is human who created that way, and God created women for men because our God knew that man couldn't stay by himself. And after create of man, they were doing a lot of sins before God.................Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by God because God was very angry of what they were doing.

[MamaMario13]

@cwolly100 God seems like a cunt

[gbmtmas]

@JohnRohanShield

He uses that argument with the OT because fundamentalists actually use Leviticus as part of their condemnation of homosexuality. In other words, he's taking their argument from Leviticus and showing the flaw (inconsistency) of their logic by asking them why they don't follow Leviticus all the way.

[JohnRohanShield]

Once again, he uses a popular but specious argument. He asks that if Christians take the Bible literally on the prohibition of homosexuality, then why don't they prohibit wearing two types of fabric, or why don't they stone homosexuals?

But these admonitions are all in the OLD TESTAMENT ONLY. So that argument might work against ORTHODOX JEWS, but it has nothing to do with Christianity.

[eelzen]

@JohnRohanShield

The Christian Bible includes both the old and the new testaments. Duh.

[Turambar88]

So you should be more of a misogynist then, and not allow women to teach, or even speak in church then? I assume you don't object to that?

[gbmtmas]

@Turambar88

Don't forget that we should also be nice to our slaves! :)

[pyroclasm32]

@JohnRohanShield Well, nice to know the ten commandments don't apply any more, then.

[MamaMario13]

@pyroclasm32 ok I will go kill you, rob from you and then make false idols out of your body and lie about the fact that I did it

[starkeffect]

What's with all the "calm blue oceans"?