CalvinDude.com

Since I had pointed out my discontent with his previous article regarding homosexuality, I do have to say that Alain’s Blurb for 1/28/06 was actually pretty good.  Some highlights:

Marriage – I want to marry three men, six women, four children (ages ranging from seven to ten), two dogs and a mule. And I want insurance and benefits for all of them. You do not like it, hate crime!!! Go to jail, get fined.

 

Hey everyone, this is my coming out notice. I have decided to CHANGE MY GENDER!

 …

I am no longer to be considered a monogamous heterosexual male. From this point on, I am to be recognized as a Para-sexual. This is how I perceive my sexual orientation. You will love me and must accept me for whom I truly see myself to be.

What, you never heard of a Para-sexual? No I am not homosexual. No, I am not BI-sexual. Quit trying to limit my freedoms!

He has more after this too, but I have to say that for a satirical piece this does do a good job (mainly because it is satire and not an argument).

 

I just read this article. The article I’m refering to is the one quoted by the piece there.  It is an article by Guy Randall Adams about AOL and the homosexual agenda.

Unfortunately, the article is a good example of what happens when people who agree with you in principal do a bad job of expressing their views, which in turn makes your position look bad as a whole.  By saying that, I do not mean to imply that there is nothing good in the article–indeed, there are some shining spots in it.  For instance, Mr. Adams does finally get around to quoting some Scripture for the Christians who read it, and some statistics for the non-Christians who might read it.

But the first part of the argument is extremely flawed.  It starts off by asking us to imagine the things that homosexuals do when they engage in sexual activities.  We are, naturally, supposed to be horrified by what we’d imagine, and thus use that as our “reason” for being mad at AOL for having Gay groups on their website.

The problem is, that means we are turning an emotional response into an argument.  If this is all we have to argue our position, the first time we meet someone who resists us our defense crumbles like a house of cards.  After all, how difficult is it for a homosexual to say, “I can’t imagine eating escargo, and yet people do it all the time without there being anything immoral about it.”  And if all you have is your emotive response (”I don’t like what I imagine homosexuals doing!”) then your argument cannot stand against that simple counter-example.

Emotive arguments are good for rousing up the base, but in the end they are bad because after meeting a knowledgeable opponent the base will suddenly realize they have nothing to back their emotional stance.  Unless we also learn facts and reasoning, all the emotion in the world is nothing but sound and fury.

I just read this article on Fox News about a gay right’s group who is complaining that “American Idol” is homophobic.  What is the offense?

…Cowell told one male contestant to “wear a dress” and Jackson asked another, “are you a girl?”

This is, of course, bashing the male contestant by questioning his masculinity.  But is that the same thing as homophobic “gay bashing”?  The gay rights advocates in GLAAD think so, stating: “The real offense here was in the producer’s decision to add insult to injury by turning a contestant’s gender expression into the butt of a joke.”

But look at the flawed presupposition here.  GLAAD presupposes that joking about a “gender expression” is equivalent to homosexual bashing.  This is false for obvious reasons.

Take me for an example. I am a male and I express my gender as masculine.  If someone were to joke about my “gender expression” it is by definition not joking about homosexuality as I am a male who is heterosexual.  If you are to jokingly question my masculinity, it in no way implies that I am suddenly homosexual.  Sexual conduct has absolutely nothing to do with joking about my masculinity.

The bottom line is that questioning someone’s masculinity does not have anything to do with questioning their sexual preference in the first place.  And even if it did, there’s another more fundamental presupposition that GLAAD makes here:

They presuppose that it is wrong to question someone’s sexual preference in the first place.

For a relativistic organization (one who implies there are no morals dealing with sexual preference), it is highly interesting that these people suddenly have objectivist morals when regarding whether or not it is proper to joke about something.  Does their presupposition allow this sudden shift to objectivism?  Of course not.  But that won’t stop them because consistency isn’t the point with them.

Scoring political points is.

If you haven’t heard about The Book of Daniel, the new NBC show that bashes Christianity, consider the following quote from the main actor:

“I’m an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who’s gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who’s caught dealing pot, and another son who’s jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who’s very loving but also likes her martinis,” Quinn told the AP.

“I can’t tell you how many people have said to me, ‘Hey, that sounds like my family.’”

Hey, that sounds like maybe you should leave Hollywood sometime and get in touch with the real world. Naturally, TV shows like the above only present the reality they want to exist, not the reality that actually is. It reminds me of how the media reports news too.

And people still wonder why I don’t bother to watch much TV.

Here’s an interesting trivia question for you. Do you know what the first thing that God said wasn’t good is?

If you’re like most people, you’re probably thinking of murder, or maybe you’d go so far as to say that it was Adam eating the forbidden fruit. But there’s something that preceeds that.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18, ESV).

That’s right. The sinless man in the perfect place was still in a state that was not good. But this verse shows more than just that man needs a companion. It shows who that companion is and who it isn’t.

So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him (Genesis 2:19-20, ESV).

All the animals were brought forward and none of them were fit for Adam. What was fit for Adam was something else entirely, something God had not yet made.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Genesis 2:21-22, ESV).

There are two important points regarding this passage. First, by logical necessity, women must be higher than animals. None of the animals were fit for Adam (and the idea of fitness is the idea of “corresponding”). Eve, the first woman, was specifically created for Adam, and she was taken out of Adam so that she was made of the same “stuff” that Adam was made of. Because of this, there is ontological equality between the sexes, despite the fact that there are different roles that each sex is better suited for.

Secondly, God did not make another man for Adam. He made a woman. A man is not fit for another man, but a woman is. Because this is something that comes about from creation, it is something that transcends religious ideology. Our very being shows us obviously what the proper function of each member is. To put it as bluntly, but as clearly, as possible, a penis was not designed to be inserted into the rectum, but instead into the vagina. This was intentionally designed by God, so to go against that is to go against the very design of our bodies.