That whole article reads like he was a reasonably intelligent person who was born into a christian family. So he’s been conditioned to automatically see homosexuality as bad, and been educated in writing eloquent arguments to support his position, but he’s just aware enough to not take a stand and actually say what he thinks because that would get him in trouble.
Even just considering your snippet:
I’m pretty sure there are genetic dispositions towards different kinds of sexual behaviors and patterns—just as there are genetic dispositions towards such things as alcoholism, racism, elitism, etc.
This is just an opinion and the logic seems sensible. But why make the comparison to only negative traits and vices?
A genetic predisposition towards homosexuality does not make homosexuality a ‘good’ or a ‘right,’ or even ‘okay’ for some people.
Stating the obvious then referring to 3rd party opinions. Doesn’t seem to do much other than keep up the negative tone.
Just as with every other human behavior, a wider worldview must be used to judge the righteousness of a human action or behavior—including acting on homosexual tendencies.
Whoa, I agree! And using my view of the world and society at large I hereby judge that we need to lay the fuck off of people who act on their homosexual tendencies and focus on actual problems! I wonder if the author can say the same.
Also, I just want to point out and give a “fuck that” to the heavy focus on “choosing” and “acting” rather than simply existing. In my experience that is a very common step in the short process of dehumanizing somebody and mentally writing off their concerns and rights.
Dehumanizing somebody for a trait they were born with is obviously doable, but it is still a tougher sell for some people than dehumanizing a person for an intentional act. Even if that act didn’t hurt anybody or anything.
I’ll leave the whole train of thought of “how can you punish people for acting like the thing they were born as” as an exercise for the reader.
That whole article reads like he was a reasonably intelligent person who was born into a christian family. So he’s been conditioned to automatically see homosexuality as bad, and been educated in writing eloquent arguments to support his position, but he’s just aware enough to not take a stand and actually say what he thinks because that would get him in trouble.
Even just considering your snippet:
This is just an opinion and the logic seems sensible. But why make the comparison to only negative traits and vices?
Stating the obvious then referring to 3rd party opinions. Doesn’t seem to do much other than keep up the negative tone.
Whoa, I agree! And using my view of the world and society at large I hereby judge that we need to lay the fuck off of people who act on their homosexual tendencies and focus on actual problems! I wonder if the author can say the same.
Also, I just want to point out and give a “fuck that” to the heavy focus on “choosing” and “acting” rather than simply existing. In my experience that is a very common step in the short process of dehumanizing somebody and mentally writing off their concerns and rights.
Dehumanizing somebody for a trait they were born with is obviously doable, but it is still a tougher sell for some people than dehumanizing a person for an intentional act. Even if that act didn’t hurt anybody or anything.
I’ll leave the whole train of thought of “how can you punish people for acting like the thing they were born as” as an exercise for the reader.