If the boy is father to the man, then I was raised by a profligate dunce. Even though I had learned the power of compound interest in high school, I foolishly squandered my trivial savings at a time when the "eighth wonder of the world," as Albert Einstein called it, would have had the greatest impact. Had I invested a mere $2,000 in an index fund at the tender age of 22, I would now be $40,000 richer and well on my way to being a millionaire by the time I reach retirement. Economists might say my choice was rational, but it certainly wasn't optimal.
Fortunately, I had a distant relative--Uncle Sam--that occasionally stepped in to save me from my own economic incompetence. For example, during my first week of Marine Corps boot camp I had to fill out a form in which I had the choice to "opt out" of the Montgomery GI Bill. If I did not check the box I would have $100 a month deducted from my pay for six months and in return I would have $36,000 to use for college. Although several of my fellow recruits chose not to participate, the majority of us took the lazy way out and left the box unchecked. That act of sloth made me $35,400 richer.
My experience was an example of an action taken by what The Economist refers to as the "avuncular state": "worldly-wise, offering a nudge in the right direction, perhaps pulling strings on your behalf without your even noticing." Advocates of this form of paternalistic governance include behavioral economists who term such approaches "asymmetric paternalism", "benign paternalism", "cautious paternalism", or as Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, two University of Chicago professors who published an intriguing paper on the topic call it, "libertarian paternalism":
The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice.
"Libertarians embrace freedom of choice, and so they deplore paternalism," note Sunstein and Thaler. "Paternalists are thought to be deeply skeptical of freedom of choice and to deplore libertarianism." The two groups would appear to be mutually exclusive but the authors argue for a "form of paternalism, libertarian in spirit, that should be acceptable to those who are firmly committed to freedom of choice on grounds of either autonomy or welfare."
A few examples of how libertarian paternalism can be put into practice are:
* In an attempt to increase savings by workers, a company decides not to ask employees if they wish to participate in a 401(k) plan. Instead, the workers are automatically enrolled unless they specifically choose otherwise. (1)
* "Sin goods", such as junk food, are often repeatedly purchased in small quantities for short-term consumption. Because people make numerous purchases over the course of their lives rather than, for instance, a single trip to the store to purchase a lifetime supply of potato chips, they can distort their long-term consumption decisions by giving in to small preferences for immediate gratification. A way to correct for this would be to impose a per-unit tax on potato chips to induce people to consume less, and return the proceeds to consumers via a lump-sum transfer or by lowering income taxes or taxes on some non-sin commodity, such as socks. (2)
*Another approach would be to induce people with self-control problems to make "prospective choices", making choices now that influence their future in-the-moment incentives. One way to implement this would be to impose a high presumptive tax, and then sell licenses (or vouchers) that permit people to buy the good tax-free (or at a reduced tax) in the future. For example, rather than pay $2 per pack on cigarettes, a smoker could buy a "sin license" which might cost $5,000 and entitle the holder to an unlimited supply of cigarettes tax-free. Paying such an upfront fee would require a serious commitment to the habit. (2)
Although these examples are all monetarily based, other illustrations can be found of imposing self-constructed limits in order to increase awareness of choices. The Economist article mentions a program in Missouri that allows compulsive gamblers to add their names to a voluntary blacklist. If the gamblers breach this self-imposed ban by entering one of the state's riverboat casinos, they face arrest for trespassing and the confiscation of their winnings. Another example is covenant marriage laws that allow couples the freedom to choose to be held to a higher level of marital commitment. Before being able to obtain a divorce, spouses who entered into a covenant marriage limit the reasons they can seek a divorce and often must agree to undergo marital counseling before the marriage can be dissolved.
Although these examples are relatively benign, some people may reject them out of a knee-jerk reaction to any forms of paternalism. Clinging to the naive notion that governments or corporations can be neutral on such matters, they prefer a pure form of libertarianism. But for freedom-loving moralists like me, libertarian paternalism offers an ideal combination of two concepts we normally deplore: libertarianism and paternalism.
If private and public institutions are going to attempt to influence people's behavior (and they always will), why should they not do so in a way that, as Cass and Sunstein say, "steer people's choices in directions that will improve their own welfare?" After all, humans are not the rational animals that economists have always presumed us to be. We are often willfully ignorant, intemperate, and prone to inertia. Libertarian paternalism offers a gentle correction; a non-intrusive means of influencing what Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling calls the "intimate contest for self-command."
Sources:
(1) "Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron", by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. The University of Chicago Law Review No.4, 2003 [PDF]
(2) "Optimal Taxes for Sin Goods", by Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin. Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming.[PDF]
ot, but i can't help it, check out joe's interview with tpm/horse's mouth blog re: huckabee's views on homosexuality and necrophilia here: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/huckabee_spokesman_clarifies_remark_about_gays_and_necrophilia_theyre_at_opposite_ends_of_spectrum_o.php
well all "clarifications" nonwistanding,that sounds like a freudian slip of standard christian cult demonisation tactic to me...nothing new. just the same old garbage on different lips.
From a Christian perspective, necrophilia is a whole new level of deviation compared to your average homosexual's conduct. However, in the theology of sin, that really doesn't matter that much, since both lead to damnation apart from Jesus. Arguing about which is spiritually worse, is about as fruitful as arguing whether someone is "more dead" if they are ground zero of a small tactical nuclear weapon's detonation, or at ground zero for one big enough to level New York City. Either way, the end result is the same.
I fail to see why Christian conservatives should be any more in favor of a liberal, Christian nanny state than they are a liberal, atheist one. By the way, when did eating potato chips or even smoking become "sinful"? Is it in the Old Testament or the New? Don't we as Christians already have enough trouble keeping the original 10 Commandments without adding our own version of the Hebrew dietary laws?
Huckabee's passage is kind of strange:
It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.
Who exactly has 'publicaly endorsed' necrophilia and pedophilia? What institutions support those two things? Do conservatives even think about what they say or write anymore?
I would ask who does the same with sadomasochism but then maybe Huckabee was talking about his own actions to get a rapist released from jail so he could go on to rape and murder a woman.
Seriously, though, one should define what they mean by aberrant. If they mean simply 'in the minority' then yes those things are aberrant behavior as is monogamy and chastity. If they mean 'unnatural' then, well, why do these things keep popping up in the behavior of human beigns? If they mean "stuff people shouldn't do"....well yes it is functionally equating gays with all those other things. Suppose someone were to say "there's a vast array of aberrant beliefs out there like Nazism, fascism, Islamism, and devout Christianity"....well something tells me Christians would not be mollified by a 'clarrification' that they just happen to be sitting on a 'spectrum' with Nazis but aren't 'as bad'.
To be libertarian is to obviously permit paternalism in the private (e.g., church, community, etc.) sense, but to reject it in the government sense (e.g., a federal ban on smoking, as proposed by Huckabee). This so-called "libertarian-paternalism" seems to be nothing more than applying a new phrase to a very obvious, central tenant of libertarianism.
All that is being done with 'libertarian paternalism' is changing where the transaction cost is. Consider Joe's first example, there's a program in the GI Bill where you lose $600 now and get $36,000 later. The 'transaction cost' is having to check a box. You can assign this cost in two ways. One is to make people who want in to check a box. The other is to make those who don't want in to check a box. That alone is nothing new.
What is new is that in real life people exhibit a deviation from the economic model of the 'rational man'. There's no wrong answer to the question above. If you know that you will not want college or if you had some other situation going on (say you have already won an unconditional, full scholarship because you're just that smart) then it makes sense not to give up the $600. So some people will choose not to loose $600 while most will choose the $36,000.
BUT since the transaction cost is trivial where it hits shouldn't matter. The 'opt out' people shouldn't care that it costs them a little bit of time to check a box and save $600. The 'in' people should likewise find it the easiest money in the world to make to spend a fraction of a second checking a box and getting $36K in a few years.
If the economic model was perfect then it shouldn't matter where the form maker puts the box but unfortunately it isn't. So by thinking about where to put the box policy makers can make life better off for everyone.
Joe's other examples, though, fall flat. Putting a tax on chips and refunding it on socks DOES NOT fit in this mold. In order to fit this mold the 'libertarian paternal' policy should make no difference if the population was rational. In the above example, if a bunch of recruits happened to be exceptionally rational the box being in the 'opt out' rather than 'opt in' section would make no difference. But making chips more expensive and socks cheaper does make a difference to a rational consumer. Of course another objection is that the transaction costs of such a policy are no longer entirely trivial. It will cost money to single out chips for a special tax and to single out socks for a special subsidy. Think about Wal-Mart and Target that will have to have their registers specially programmed to incorporate the difference, the accounting time necessary to report to the Treasury how many socks & chips were sold each quarter plus the IRS time needed to look out for scammers who will try to beat the system by reporting lots of sock sales! While it could be done would the millions spent on the idea be offset by a serious health improvement in the general population? Possibly but not certainly.
There's a lot of good policies that could be enacted with this idea. The GI Bill & 401K policies are great ideas that can do a lot of good. But the potato chip/sock idea is not & it's best not to get too carried away. The 'smoking license' would be pretty borderline IMO.
Another example is covenant marriage laws that allow couples the freedom to choose to be held to a higher level of marital commitment. Before being able to obtain a divorce, spouses who entered into a covenant marriage limit the reasons they can seek a divorce and often must agree to undergo marital counseling before the marriage can be dissolved.
This example isn't as good IMO. Since marriage is a two way contract people can be using 'covenant marriage' as a way to force a higher level of commitment on their partners just as people may use prenupital agreements as a way to protect themselves from commitment. The other example though is more intersting:
Although these examples are all monetarily based, other illustrations can be found of imposing self-constructed limits in order to increase awareness of choices. The Economist article mentions a program in Missouri that allows compulsive gamblers to add their names to a voluntary blacklist. If the gamblers breach this self-imposed ban by entering one of the state's riverboat casinos, they face arrest for trespassing and the confiscation of their winnings.
This suggests a slightly different model where an individual isn't really an individual but multiple individuals. Inside Joe Carter there is 'today Joe' and 'tomorrow Joe'. Today Joe wants that $100 in his paycheck so he can hit the bar tonight. Tomorrow Joe wants that $36,000 a few years from now. The two are at war with each other but Today Joe has an advantage since he happens to live in today which is when the big decision ($100 now or $36K years from now) gets made. The process of being more mature is really a type of homicide where Tomorrow You knocks off (or tries to knock off) Today YOu.
In this sense you can argue that some paternalistic policies are actually quite libertarian in that they are protecting a legitimate property right that 'Tomorrow You' has from 'Today You'....who happens to have stewardship on that property but has an incentive to spoil it.
This so-called "libertarian-paternalism" seems to be nothing more than applying a new phrase to a very obvious, central tenant of libertarianism.
Except for the fact that they want to use taxes to regulate certain "sinful" behaviors, like smoking or eating "junk food", like potato chips. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.
All I can think is what a sorry thing the GI Bill has become.
My Vietnam era GI Bill paid for four years at a private liberal arts college and a year of graduate school at an Ivy League university. Can't do that on a mere $36,000, even when I was of college age.
From a Christian perspective, necrophilia is a whole new level of deviation compared to your average homosexual's conduct. However, in the theology of sin, that really doesn't matter that much...
In that case, the "theology of sin" is nothing but useless crap in the real world.
...since both lead to damnation apart from Jesus.
No, being apart from the Divine leads to "damnation."
Arguing about which is spiritually worse, is about as fruitful as arguing whether someone is "more dead"...
Out here in the real world, a guy who has sex with corpses is MUCH worse off spiritually than one who has sex with other living consenting adults of either gender. Anyone who thinks they're the same in any meaningful way, is an idiot blathering abstractions.
I agree with raging. It's disturbing that Huckabee lumps gays in with pedophiles and it doesn't help much that the 'clarrification' is that they are sitting on a 'spectrum'.
"His [Huackabee's] point is, the culture is becoming more accepting of aberrant behaviors."
True. Would it bother you less if he said that homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia, [and bestiality while I'm at it] are all examples of sexual deviancy? Where's the beef? Unless you are trying to argue that homosexuality is not really morally repugnant behavior.
Oh my gosh! Look how the bible "lumps in" the covetous with thieves! The horror! Doesn't God know that thieves are "much worse off spiritually" than the merely covetous? Apparently not.
I'm still not seeing it. I can see how the covetous and theives are on the same spectrum of bad....I don't see how homosexuals are on the same spectrum as pedophiles or necrophiles.
While we are at it, I'll ask again, exactly what evidence is there that society is becomming more tolerant of pedophiles or necrophiles as has been claimed here TWICE now?
Would it bother you less if he said that homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia, [and bestiality while I'm at it] are all examples of sexual deviancy?
It would bother me no less, because such a statement would be lumping very dissimilar things together under one arbitrary label. Necrophilia and bestiality are indicative of serious emotional, psychological and spiritual problems that desperately need to be addressed; pedophilia is the same in that regard, and (when acted on) harms innocent people; but neither of those is true of homosexuality.
Where's the beef? Unless you are trying to argue that homosexuality is not really morally repugnant behavior.
That's exactly what huge numbers of sensible Americans, Christian and otherwise, are arguing: it shouldn't be considered "morally repugnant," for the simple reason that it's no more harmful to innocent people than heterosexuality. Any attempt to pretend that homosexuality is "like" necrophilia, pedophilia or bestiality, in any meaningful way, is nothing but a huge and destructive act of false witness.
News Tip for the rapid response man and interested citizens:
www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/19/taking-the-press-to-the-cleaners
Boonton writes: I'm still not seeing it. I can see how the covetous and theives are on the same spectrum of bad....I don't see how homosexuals are on the same spectrum as pedophiles or necrophiles.
It isn't difficult. We are designed by our Creator for a purpose. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are all examples of misuse of design. Kind of like taking an airplane, which is designed to safely transport people from one place to another, and crashing it into a building. Both are examples of the same thing - something being used for that which wasn't intended.
While we are at it, I'll ask again, exactly what evidence is there that society is becomming more tolerant of pedophiles or necrophiles as has been claimed here TWICE now?
Again, easy. We are either designed for a purpose, or we are the product of purposeless forces, and therefore whatever purpose is to be found is that of each individual. Over the last many years, our society has moved from the former to the latter. That's why you think that sexual behavior is up to you to decide and you use the principle of "consent" to rationalize your position. But consent is just that -- a rationalization. NAMBLA uses different criteria. So who are you to say they're wrong?
ucfengr writes: 8
[Claybourn] This so-called "libertarian-paternalism" seems to be nothing more than applying a new phrase to a very obvious, central tenant of libertarianism.
Except for the fact that they want to use taxes to regulate certain "sinful" behaviors, like smoking or eating "junk food", like potato chips. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.
Neither is having the government pay for health care. But what Caesar pays for, Caesar regulates.
wrf3: who are you to say what we are "designed" for? Were you "designed" to spew idiotic falsehoods comparing homosexuality to 9/11? Are you sure your God wants you to use the brains he gave you for that purpose? Can you show us some feature of our design that proves we're "designed" for one purpose alone? Given that you can't even specifiy the purpose you claim we're designed for, I really don't think you have anything resembling a coherent case.
Besides, if so many people, gay, staright and bi, engage in intimate relationships, and have sex for a particular purpose, and benefit from it, how can you be so sure that's not a "purpose" for which we're "designed?" No one complains when a legally-married man and woman have sex solely for mutual pleasure, so how can you claim it's a violation of our "purpose" when two guys who care equally about each other do the same thing?
Again, easy. We are either designed for a purpose, or we are the product of purposeless forces, and therefore whatever purpose is to be found is that of each individual. Over the last many years, our society has moved from the former to the latter. That's why you think that sexual behavior is up to you to decide and you use the principle of "consent" to rationalize your position. But consent is just that -- a rationalization.
A total mishmash of non-sequiturs that doesn't even TRY to answer Boonton's specific and plainly-worded question. In fact, looking at your "answer," there's no way to even tell what question you're pretending to try to answer.
NAMBLA uses different criteria. So who are you to say they're wrong?
What's that supposed to mean? Only you have the right to say pedophilia is wrong? Do you believe pedophilia is okay? Do you believe anything I or Boonton has said makes it okay?
The fact that you're still mindlessly equating homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality, without even trying to explain why they're similar, proves your "case" is based on nothing but mindless, uncaring bigotry.
Raging Bee,
Why is it that when someone has a different point of view from yours your first instinct is to accuse them of lying? There isn't a comment thread on EO where you haven't done it at least once. There must be some pathology behind it, I just haven't figured it out yet.
oclarki: What specific statement did I call a lie? Can you demonstrate that the specific statement I called a lie is, in fact, true, or at least plausible?
Raging Bee,
Here ya go.
"Were you "designed" to spew idiotic falsehoods comparing homosexuality to 9/11?"
"Any attempt to pretend that homosexuality is "like" necrophilia, pedophilia or bestiality, in any meaningful way, is nothing but a huge and destructive act of false witness"
Really, what is it about accusing your debating opponents of lying? Has that tactic ever worked?
The tactic only fails when the statements I call lies are proven true instead. So far, you have failed to do this.
OK, I have a question about necrophilia and the morality thereof...somebody above wrote:
"From a Christian perspective, necrophilia is a whole new level of deviation compared to your average homosexual's conduct."
Well, first of all necrophilia can be done with either heterosexual or homosexual inclination, I suppose, unless you consider the fact that a dead person isn't a male or female of the species anymore, err...uhh...because they're dead, and therefore not persons.
(I won't go into the "Joe Carter equates dead people with living people" thing here, because I suspect even he would back away from such statements, but let's take it as aximoatic that dead people are not alive and therefore not entitled to the same rights as living people, OK?)
Anyhoo, here's my question:
Suppose that a married couple, say heterosexually married, is doing what married people are unviversally agreed that they're allowed to do, and in the middle of said action one party invovled suffers a massive heart attack and immediately dies.
Does anything the widowed party does count as necrophilia? And how does that compare with "homosexual conduct?"
This is not entirely an academic question; if Nelson Rockefeller had been married to his secretary, then his secretary might or might not have been committing necrophilia under these circumstances.
I'm just saying...
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when it comes to procreation, the only way to get a woman pregnant is to have the man inseminate. I'd call that a pretty distinct feature of our design that proves we're designed for heterosexual conduct. And it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when it comes to waste disposal, the only way to defecate is through the anus. I'd call that a pretty distinct feature of our design that proves it's designed for only one thing.
Raging Bee,
"The tactic only fails when the statements I call lies are proven true instead. So far, you have failed to do this."
How can someone's opinion be a lie? In the subject being discussed (what purpose humans are designed for) there is no objective answer. For example, if I said my favorite football team was the Denver Broncos and you were a Raider fan, would you call me a liar?
Unless you can prove that your idea of what humanity's purpose is factually, then we really are arguing about whether the Raiders or the Broncos are the correct team to root for.
The purpose of humanity is to reflect the glory of God. In the relations between the sexes, this means the unification of husband and wife to become one flesh in marriage. Our example as in all things is Christ. Christ is the bridegroom to his bride, the church. As Christ relates to the Church, husbands and wives are to relate to one another. But according to some people that's just a lie I made up.
Raging Bee:
Necrophilia and bestiality are indicative of serious emotional, psychological and spiritual problems that desperately need to be addressed...
Based on what standard exactly? Your opinion? Others would beg to differ, insisting that those practices harm no one and are private matters. Indeed, many localities do not police bestiality unless some "harm" comes to the animal. According to Darwinism we are all animals, only distinguished by our advancement along the evolutionary chain, anyway. To suggest that we are in any way superior would be an indication of "specism." A person engaging in bestiality is simply free-thinker unconstrained by the specism that plagues the rest of our hateful society.
I am dead serious in the above analysis. Once the scriptural standard is abolished - anything goes. Those arguments are made by hopelessly lost souls every day. You have no moral basis for excepting homosexuality and condemning the other practices. Your standard looks completely arbitrary to me.
Jeff Blogworthy:
So the only thing keeping you back from getting intimate with the local poodle is your scripture?
Really?
'Cause believe it or not, I don't subscribe to your scripture & I don't really find animals that friendly, despite what some jokes say about what nice goats do.
Of course, your "Darwinism" isn't evolutionary biology and so isn't an honest protrayal of evolutionary biologiy, but perhaps then it begs a more obvious question: if your scripture is so good at telling you what's right and what's wrong how come you and your fellow co-religionists have a hard time telling the truth, especially if it challenges your opinions about said scripture?
Seems like there's a bit of moral relativism in play there.
Your "scriptural standard" seems to allow lying with impunity as long as it supports your idea of an, ahem, "scriptural standard."
Jeff:
And one more thing: if necrophilia's so prohibited by Scripture, how come your deity made people capable of instantly dropping dead in the middle of making love, thereby rendering the widowed party completely vulnerable to that perverse act involuntarily?
Seems rather cruel, inhuman and completely devoid of any kind of "love" a deity might possess.
But you're free to worship false gods if you choose in this country.
Mumon writes: Mumon writes: But you're free to worship false gods if you choose in this country.
And you're likewise free to worship nothing.
The problem, however, is that man has a tendency to become what he worships (after all, what we worship is, among other things, considered ideal). A society that worships nothing is just as dangerous as a society that worships a false god. Both false and wrong worship is like peeing in a pool. When enough people do it, it eventually becomes a very unpleasant place to be.
Mumon,
When you find that you have anything at all of value to say, wake me up. Meanwhile, here is a link to a 6-8 grade lesson plan for you.
The Human Animal
Raging Bee writes: who are you to say what we are "designed" for?
Who are you to contradict me?
Were you "designed" to spew idiotic falsehoods comparing homosexuality to 9/11?
There may be lesser or greater consequences, but misuse of design is misuse of design. Nothing idiotic or false about this statement, at all.
Are you sure your God wants you to use the brains he gave you for that purpose?
Yes, I am.
Besides, if so many people, gay, staright and bi, engage in intimate relationships, and have sex for a particular purpose, and benefit from it, how can you be so sure that's not a "purpose" for which we're "designed?"
Because we have an owner's manual. Good grief, RB, your argument is just the "everyone else is doing it so it must be right" argument. Didn't your mother teach you any better?
No one complains when a legally-married man and woman have sex solely for mutual pleasure, so how can you claim it's a violation of our "purpose" when two guys who care equally about each other do the same thing?
Because the amount of caring has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the act.
[wrf3] NAMBLA uses different criteria. So who are you to say they're wrong?
What's that supposed to mean?
It means that you use one rationalization to show that pedophilia is wrong, while NAMBLA uses another rationalization to show that it's right.
Only you have the right to say pedophilia is wrong?
You really don't get it, do you? Who are you to say that "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" is any less moral than your position? What gives you the privileged position when it comes to deciding competing moral systems?
Do you believe pedophilia is okay?
Of course not. All sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
Do you believe anything I or Boonton has said makes it okay?
Nope. Nor do I believe your arguments for the moral rightness of homosexuality.
The fact that you're still mindlessly equating homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality, without even trying to explain why they're similar,
Which, btw, I did. Mis-use of design, remember?
proves your "case" is based on nothing but mindless, uncaring bigotry.
Shall I call you a waaaambulance? That you have to engage in ad hominem ("mindless, uncaring bigot") means you have no case.
How can someone's opinion be a lie?
If the opinion is contrary to observable fact, then it's a lie, or at least contains lies. ("The Jooos are in control of everything!" is certainly not a true statement, no matter how many people may hold that "opinion.")
If you state an obvious falsehood or logical fallacy, you're going to be called out on it; and calling it an "opinion" does not, and should not, shield you from accountability for the consequences of your words.
So...it seems you're defending the statements I called lies, not by demonstrating they're true, but by asserting they're just "opinions," utterly irrelevant outside their owner's head. Thanks for clearing that up.
What gives you the privileged position when it comes to deciding competing moral systems?
Not much, really, other than the fact that my position makes more sense in the real world than any of the contrary positions I've read here. Oh, and the fact that positions similar to mine seem more popular and usable to responsible people in the real world.
Same question back to you, skippy...
Raging Bee
[wrf3] What gives you the privileged position when it comes to deciding competing moral systems?
Not much, really, other than the fact that my position makes more sense in the real world than any of the contrary positions I've read here.
You mean it makes more sense to you. But this puts you right back at square one: what gives you the privileged position when it comes to deciding "what makes sense"?
Oh, and the fact that positions similar to mine seem more popular and usable to responsible people in the real world.
Once again, you devolve to ad hominem to try to make your position seem better than that of us "unpopular" and "unpragmatic" Christians.
But, as I've pointed out before, your argument is nothing more than "other people do it, so it must be right." You know that neither popularity nor pragmatism make something morally right, so why do you keep using arguments that you don't agree with in the first place?
Same question back to you, skippy...
I'll be happy to start round 2 after we've finished with round 1. There's no point in advancing to my argument while you can't really agree with your own line of reasoning.
Separate to the question of "should government in general should be engaged in Libertarian Paternalism" is the question of "should the Federal Government get involved in Libertarian Paternalism."
In other words, is Libertarian Paternalism a Federal function. Should I really expect Washington DC to care about my socks to potato chips purchase ratio? Is the Federal Government the best suited to improve the socks to potato chips purchase ratio for millions of Americans across many demographics?
In case anyone cares, there is little to no room in the US Constitution (either in the letter or spirit of the law) for Federal Libertarian Paternalism.
Someone can be in favor of state-level Libertarian Paternalism and still vote for Ron Paul. Someone in favor of state-level Libertarian Paternalism (but not federal) cannot vote for someone such as Huckabee.
Who are you to contradict me?
A grownup who has had plenty of time and opportunity to observe that your assertions make no logical sense and are consistently contrary to observable reality. You got a problem with that?
Based on what standard exactly? Your opinion? Others would beg to differ, insisting that those practices harm no one and are private matters.
You paste a statement of mine, then you offer a "response" that has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about emotional/psychological/spiritual disorders, not harm done.
Indeed, many localities do not police bestiality unless some "harm" comes to the animal.
That's because it's hard to police something that goes on behind closed doors involving animals who can't file complaints or lawsuits. Public attitudes toward homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with this.
According to Darwinism we are all animals, only distinguished by our advancement along the evolutionary chain, anyway.
Where in "Darwinism" does it say that humans can't claim rights or develop moral codes?
To suggest that we are in any way superior would be an indication of "specism." A person engaging in bestiality is simply free-thinker unconstrained by the specism that plagues the rest of our hateful society.
Most people would conclude that such a person has serious problems forming healthy adult relationships with human equals, and should get help, regardless of what his rights are. Which side are you on here?
I am dead serious in the above analysis.
"Brain-dead-serious" is a more apt description of your "analysis."
Once the scriptural standard is abolished - anything goes.
Really? There are plenty of non-orthodox Christians, non-Christians, agnostics and atheists who have "abolished" or modified the "scriptural standard" without becoming one bit less moral in their behavior or priorities. (There's also a lot of "Christians" who twist their "scriptural standard" to justify some incredibly hateful attitides and pretty horrific crimes.) You really have a hard time understanding how humans function, don't you?
It means that you use one rationalization to show that pedophilia is wrong, while NAMBLA uses another rationalization to show that it's right.
So a "Christian" is using NAMBLA's opinion to prove that mine is invalid? Do you always let pedophiles guide your moral reasoning?
Is it just me, or is there some really strange crosstalk going on? Just what exactly did the "Libertarian Paternalism" debate walk in on?
wrf3
So you have NO evidence that society has become more tolerante of pedophiles or necrophiles. Thanks for playing. As a matter of fact, pedophiles are probably less tolerated today than they were twenty, thirty, fourty years ago. Certianly they are less tolerated today than in ancient times.
To be honest, I don't think anyone really has thought about necrophiles much . No doubt there's plenty of websites out there about it but then what isn't there plenty of websites about? It indicates a lot about Huckabee and the right wing here that they don't even care about facts when they make statements. wrf3, in responding to my second question basically just cut and pasted his response to my first one.
It isn't difficult. We are designed by our Creator for a purpose. Homosexuality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are all examples of misuse of design. Kind of like taking an airplane, which is designed to safely transport people from one place to another, and crashing it into a building.
Well yea but you can also take an airplane out of mothballs and make it into a bar or use it as a large scuplture or whatnot. I wouldn't exactly say that's 'misuse' and that's hardly the same as crashing it into a building to kill people. If you can't see the difference then you need help bad.
oclarki
Really, what is it about accusing your debating opponents of lying? Has that tactic ever worked?
Actually a lie implies an intent to deceive which implies the liar is aware of the truth but chooses to articulate something else. I can't speak for Raging but I didn't get the impression that he thinks wrf3 secretly agrees Raging is right but chooses to lie for whatever reason. Instead he appears to think wrf3 is wrong and needs to be confronted on that.
How can someone's opinion be a lie? In the subject being discussed (what purpose humans are designed for) there is no objective answer. For example, if I said my favorite football team was the Denver Broncos and you were a Raider fan, would you call me a liar?
Is it your opinion that we should all embrace your extreme relativism?
smmtheory
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when it comes to procreation, the only way to get a woman pregnant is to have the man inseminate. I'd call that a pretty distinct feature of our design that proves we're designed for heterosexual conduct.
This is almost laughably absurd. If sexuality was primarily designed for procreation we have the odd fact that our desire far outstrips our physical ability to procreate. Even with an 'old world' couple who have 10-15 children, the fact remains only a fraction of their sexual acts will be procreative. You may try to say this is just how it has to be except for the fact that there are plenty of examples in the natural world where animals only mate for procreation....the 'design specs' are already there in other words. Needless to say humans still do it even when procreation is impossible or undesirable such as with the very old.
It is obvious that it was 'designed' for social bonding which needs to come BEFORE anyone even thinks about children.
And it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that when it comes to waste disposal, the only way to defecate is through the anus. I'd call that a pretty distinct feature of our design that proves it's designed for only one thing.
It would seem that humans very quickly found multiple uses for it. If something really wasn't designed for something then it would be impossible to use it for such. For example, a lead weight is not designed for floating. If someone tries to make a raft out of lead weights you don't need to harp on him for doing something evil, he will never be able to make a raft. If he does somehow then the only logical explanation is that you didn't understand lead weights the way you thought you did.
Jeff
Based on what standard exactly? Your opinion? Others would beg to differ, insisting that those practices harm no one and are private matters. Indeed, many localities do not police bestiality unless some "harm" comes to the animal.
Well necro's do need dead bodies which raises concerns about disrespecting the dead. In either case I don't see a clear way to have property rights to dead bodies so that's an issue. There's probably some public health issues with the matter too. As for bestiality you do have the problem that it is basically animal abuse. I suppose you can get all vege on me and say if it's ok to eat a chicken why not blank it.... Perhaps but imperfect consistency isn't much of an argument.
According to Darwinism we are all animals, only distinguished by our advancement along the evolutionary chain, anyway. To suggest that we are in any way superior would be an indication of "specism." A person engaging in bestiality is simply free-thinker unconstrained by the specism that plagues the rest of our hateful society.
There is no such thing as Darwinism. At least not what exists in your imagination as Darwinism. Darwin, if he had been forced to say anyting on the subject, would have probably noted that bestaility is very rare because it would be a remarkably unsuccessful reproductive strategy.
Jeffrey G
Thank you for trying to stay on topic here, here's the problem...you don't understand libertarian paternalism and if you did you'd see it's actually pretty dull. (AS evidenced by how no one here seems to have bothered to read or talk about post #7, I can't say I blame them).
Libertarian paternalism basically is stuff that doesn't matter. Like the 'checkbox' on the GI bill that Joe confronted when he started his career in the armed services. If it mattered to someone, then the exercise of 'freedom' is trivially easy (as in Joe's case, he just needed to check a box if he didn't want $100 a month to come out of his paycheck).
Joe botched this a bit when he started confusing it with policies that are simply paternalistic such as taxing chips and subsidizing socks.
These policies are interesting to an economist because they tend to reveal fault lines with the economic model of 'rational man' & they are interesting to a policy designer because they are essentially a 'free lunch'. But aside from this very limited area they are very uninteresting politically which is why the debate has shifted dramatically here to other things.
Raging Bee
[wrf3] Who are you to contradict me?
A grownup who has had plenty of time and opportunity to observe that your assertions make no logical sense and are consistently contrary to observable reality. You got a problem with that?
In fact, I do. I don't concede that you are in any way superior to me in either intellect, wisdom, observation, or logical ability. In fact, this use of ad hominem (which is what your response is), shows that you have no reasoned response to the questions raised. On the one hand, you set forth the position that morality is determined by numbers. But you yourself don't believe that. You also said that morality is determined by pragmatism, yet another case where you don't agree with yourself. The one who makes "no logical sense" is you.
Raging Bee
[wrf3] It means that you use one rationalization to show that pedophilia is wrong, while NAMBLA uses another rationalization to show that it's right.
So a "Christian" is using NAMBLA's opinion to prove that mine is invalid?
As usual, you missed the point. Namely, why is your rationalization any better than their rationalization?
Do you always let pedophiles guide your moral reasoning?
Of course not. Nor do I let atheists or homosexuals guide my moral reasoning. Got a problem with that?
Boonton,
"So you have NO evidence that society has become more tolerante of pedophiles or necrophiles"
Pedophilia is not only tolerated by our society, but subtly winked at. For example, the sexualization of pre-teens through provacative clothing, provacative messages on t-shirts, underwear etc. Britney Spears was a sex-symbol before she was 18. Things like Barely Legal videos and magazines and other sub-genres of the adult film industry. The loss of innocence of middle school aged girls compared to when I was growing up is real and worrisome.
Jeff Blogworthy wrote:
The problem, however, is that man has a tendency to become what he worships...
This must be either some kind of weird new psychology that nobody knows about but Jeff or else is a common justification for biblolaters to justify their lack of morality.
I think it's the latter, personally, but if you have any peer reviewed studies...
A society that worships nothing is just as dangerous as a society that worships a false god.
There are many ways to be delusional, but simply because a society - or any group of individuals - does not worship a false god does not mean they are delusional, but clearly worshippers of a false god are delusional.
You might like everyone in society to worship your false god, but that only makes them more delusional than they might already be.
So, it's not a good idea.
In fact, this use of ad hominem (which is what your response is), shows that you have no reasoned response to the questions raised.
You insistently trash gays and lesbians who have done no wrong, and equate them with pedophiles based on pathetic reasoning and no evidence, and now you accuse ME of "ad-hominem" attacks? That complaint is (in addition to being false) so transparently babyish and hypocritical that it deserves no respect at all.
Raging B,
You might want to consider that WRF3 has never met any homosexuals and is just repeating what he heard at church or on "christian" radio.
I would like to think if he got to know someone who was gay or if someone in his family turned out to be gay, he might have a different opinion on the subject.
Raging Bee
[wrf3] In fact, this use of ad hominem (which is what your response is), shows that you have no reasoned response to the questions raised.
You insistently trash gays and lesbians
It's amazing how you consistently get things wrong. Yes, homosexuality is sin. It isn't what we were designed for. But this makes them no different from anyone else. We're all in the same sinking boat.
who have done no wrong,
Only in your opinion. One of these days you'll wake up and realize that your opinion carries no privilege. Only you care about what you think. That incurs no obligation on anyone else.
and equate them with pedophiles
And drunkards, and gluttons, and thieves, and liars and every other person. You seem unable to make a distinction between a class and distinctions within the class. Murderers are worse than thieves, but both are morally wrong.
based on pathetic reasoning and no evidence,
Let me know when you're going to address the logical contradictions in your own argument.
and now you accuse ME of "ad-hominem" attacks?
Yes. Once again, you don't seem to know the difference between "ad hominem" ("against the man") and a classification that applies equally to everyone.
That complaint is (in addition to being false) so transparently babyish and hypocritical that it deserves no respect at all.
The waaambulance is ready whenever you want.
JohnW writes : You might want to consider that WRF3 has never met any homosexuals and is just repeating what he heard at church or on "christian" radio.
I happen to have homosexual friends, an extended family member, as well as a bi-sexual acquaintance.
I would like to think if he got to know someone who was gay or if someone in his family turned out to be gay, he might have a different opinion on the subject.
Are you not able to separate a person's failings from the person? Do you love only those who agree with you and conform to your worldview?
Are you not able to separate a person's failings from the person?
Yeah, right, those thugs in Colorado were trying so hard to beat Matthew Shepherd's failings to death, but every blow they landed missed the failings and hit the person instead.
Notice how the gay-bashers only say this when the "failing" happens to be something they know does no real harm? Notice how we never hear anyone say that about people who do actual harm, like pedophiles and murderers?
If you met a gay person, and call him/her "friend," then you have, in effect, judged the WHOLE person worthy of your friendship, "failings" and all. I'm certain that you would not be so trusting to someone you knew was a pedophile; therefore, I predict that, in effect, you really do consider homosexuals to be significantly different from pedophiles, and, despite your idiotic rhetoric to the contrary, you do not, in your actions, recognize any significant similarity between the two. Those similarities you preach about, have no relevance in the real world of your actions and choices. So why are you pretending they matter here?
WrF,
How do the homosexual people you know respond when you tell them you think they are perverted freaks of nature?
Or has this ever come up in your conversations with them?
You must love Raging Bee, but don't know how to express it, right?
Raging Bee
[wrf3] Are you not able to separate a person's failings from the person?
Yeah, right, those thugs in Colorado were trying so hard to beat Matthew Shepherd's failings to death, but every blow they landed missed the failings and hit the person instead.
Like painting with a broad brush, do you? So now I'm like "those thugs in Colorado"? You really are a hate-filled bigoted jerk. It sure looks like you're projecting your inadequacies on me.
Notice how the gay-bashers only say this when the "failing" happens to be something they know does no real harm?
I think homosexuality damages both an individual and a society.
Notice how we never hear anyone say that about people who do actual harm, like pedophiles and murderers?
Think you don't get out much. Ever done prison ministry?
If you met a gay person, and call him/her "friend," then you have, in effect, judged the WHOLE person worthy of your friendship, "failings" and all.
The WHOLE person is made in the image of God, no matter how badly marred it has become.
I'm certain that you would not be so trusting to someone you knew was a pedophile;
Who said anything about trust? There is a woman who lives up the street from me who is a registered sex offender. After she moved in, the county built a school nearby. Now she has to move. I think that unfair and unjust. But I'm not going to let my children alone with her.
therefore, I predict that, in effect, you really do consider homosexuals to be significantly different from pedophiles, and, despite your idiotic rhetoric to the contrary, you do not, in your actions, recognize any significant similarity between the two. Those similarities you preach about, have no relevance in the real world of your actions and choices. So why are you pretending they matter here?
Don't give up your day job.
I think homosexuality damages both an individual and a society.
You "think?" Can you prove it? Can you at least specify what sort of damage you "think" it does? What damage have your homosexual friends done? Oh wait, you said "homosexuality" does the damage, not actual homosexuals. How does that work, exactly?
wrf3, I think the reason you aren't getting any traction is that your reasoning isn't well grounded. Your whole argument against homosexuality is based on your claim that it is "unnatural" and "wrong", without any support for that claim. You don't point to any evidence of any specific harm that it does.
Your whole argument is an argument from authority, with yourself as the authority, but you haven't given any support that you should be accepted as an authority. If you want to show that homosexuality is wrong, show some evidence that it is harmful. I think you would be most successful if you can take a proposition that both you and your opponent accept. Call it T, for target. Then, lay down your proposition, call it S for start. Then construct a chain of reasoning that takes you from S to T.
That's sort of hard for an evangelical to do, I admit. Evangelicalism isn't actually based on any consistent moral philosophy, instead, it's nothing but a mechanism for group identification. Take this proposition:
Releasing a rapist in the face of vigorous opposition from his victims, and in the face of warnings that he is likely to cause further harm if released, is wrong, and this is particularly wrong if the reason for the release is to gain political advantage.
Now, you'd think that this proposition would be universally accepted, and among liberals it is. The reason for this is that it perverts the course of justice, and it raises a likelihood of harm, for example, a subsequent rape and murder committed by the released rapist.
But evangelicals don't look at the world that way. They don't adhere to any objective, universal moral standards, they look at WHO supports various courses of action. If "someone like them" supports a particular course of action, evangelicals support it, if "someone not like them" opposes that course of action, they discount the opposition. That's why Joe Carter can wink at Huckabee's relelase of Dumond and the rape and murder of Dumond's subsequent victim, and can lie about it in an effort to excuse Huckabee from culpability. It isn't that Joe doesn't recognize that Huckabee is responsible, it's that Joe doesn't care. Huckabee is "like Joe" and that's all Joe cares about
Similarly, you don't care whether or not homosexuality is harmful. All you know is that "people like you" deride and attack homosexuals, and that's all that matters to you.
Think you don't get out much. Ever done prison ministry?
No, but a little common sense tells me that it involves working with people who were put in prison because that was the only way the state could put their failings in prison -- i.e., the persons and their failings were inseparable, therefore, in effect, the state was forced to judge the whole persons, not the individual failings. Just like those thugs in Colorado judged the whole of Matthew Shepherd, and were unable to separate him from his "failings."
And of course, a prison minister would then have to work with the whole person (with or without judgement) because he could not just take that person apart and chuck the failings.
"I think homosexuality damages both an individual and a society."
And i know for a fact that individuals who hold such unssuported not to mention brain dead opinions and still retain their right to vote do more damage to society than a 100 million homosexuals ever could
RB, I'm sorry, but much of your reasoning is beyond absurd. When wrf says, "Are you not able to separate a person's failings from the person? Do you love only those who agree with you and conform to your worldview?", what part of your brain decided that it was most charitable to associate him/her with the people who beat Matthew Shepard (see, I can take five seconds and confirm the correct spelling of his name)? Did you think going the next step to a Hitler comparison was maybe a bit too much?
The bit about pedophiles and homosexuals also strikes me as quite wrongheaded, since obviously we treat petty thieves and serial killers differently even though we consider them both criminals. The difference is in degree, which is the whole point of Joe's response that has seriously derailed the comments here. Equivocating the two despite the differing degrees is quite uncharitable.
JohnW asks: How do the homosexual people you know respond when you tell them you think they are perverted freaks of nature?
I don't tell them they are perverted freaks of nature. I tell them that they have fallen short of God's standards for man, like I have, like everyone else has.
You must love Raging Bee, but don't know how to express it, right?
What makes you say that? Love doesn't mean withholding criticism or accepting fallacious arguments.
Your whole argument is an argument from authority, with yourself as the authority, but you haven't given any support that you should be accepted as an authority.
You are confusing wrf3 with Raging Bee. wrf3 claims "The Creator" (I assume the Creator as identified in the Bible) as an authority for his arguments, not himself. Raging Bee and some of his compatriots claim "reason and logic", as understood by them as their authority; dismissing anyone who disagrees with their subjective opinion.
But evangelicals don't look at the world that way. They don't adhere to any objective, universal moral standards, they look at WHO supports various courses of action. If "someone like them" supports a particular course of action, evangelicals support it, if "someone not like them" opposes that course of action, they discount the opposition. That's why Joe Carter can wink at Huckabee's relelase of Dumond and the rape and murder of Dumond's subsequent victim, and can lie about it in an effort to excuse Huckabee from culpability. It isn't that Joe doesn't recognize that Huckabee is responsible, it's that Joe doesn't care. Huckabee is "like Joe" and that's all Joe cares about
You might have a point here if all Evangelicals supported Huck; many don't, for among other things his pardon record, and not just WRT Dumond. I am an Evangelical who opposes Huckabee and who would give serious thought about sitting out an election with Huck as the Republican nominee.
Wrf3
When you tell your homosexual friends and family members, "they have fallen short of God's standards for man", it seems like they would seek some clarification on what exactly you mean. They might want to know if they are failing God's standards because of being promiscuous, not being masculine, wearing flamboyant clothing, liking show tunes or maybe it's attending those outrageous Gay Pride Parades. You would have to clarify that it is because they are unnatural and their very existence gravely threatens society-how do they respond?
The thought of two men having sex makes me squimish too, but it's seems to me that a certain very small percentage of people are going to be attracted to the same sex. Why not just leave them alone?
Yes, we all certainly have fallen short of God's perfection, but isn't this based on our actions and not who we are? I fall short of God's standards because I am self-centered, arrogant, and prideful and not because I have black hair and white skin, right?
JohnW, you claim to be a Christian; have you ever read the Bible? The Bible is quite clear on how Christians should view deviant sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior. Do you disagree with the Bible's passages on sexual deviancy?
The Bible is quite clear on how Christians should view deviant sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior.
The Ten Commandments say absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Neither does Jesus himself. Plenty of Christians, including some preachers whose command of Scripture is a lot better than ours, have gone through all the obscure bits that no one considers important except when they're bashing gays -- and found the Scriptural case against homosexuality weak at best.
There is, moreover, a very strong Scriptural case for such values as forgiveness, mercy, not judging others unnecessarily, reconciliation, not bearing false witness, and that whole "doing unto others" thing; and all the nonsense some "Christians" are saying about gays runs completely contrary to all of those values (of which Jesus and the Ten Commandments DID have a bit to say).
Even if I were to accept that homosexuality is a "sin" (which I don't), it's still not a sin worth Jesus' time, so it shouldn't be worth our time either.
And i know for a fact that individuals who hold such unssuported not to mention brain dead opinions and still retain their right to vote do more damage to society than a 100 million homosexuals ever could.
Thank you, Ludwig. Also -- for those who rely on Scripture -- there are specific Biblical injunctions against what the said individuals do.
I don't tell them they are perverted freaks of nature. I tell them that they have fallen short of God's standards for man, like I have, like everyone else has.
In other words, you can't think of any characteristic of theirs that makes them significantly different from you (at least none that you'd dare tell them to their faces). So why are you pretending they're different from us, and kinda-sorta-maybe "like" pedophiles, here?
JohnW asks: When you tell your homosexual friends and family members, "they have fallen short of God's standards for man", it seems like they would seek some clarification on what exactly you mean. They might want to know if they are failing God's standards because of being promiscuous, not being masculine, wearing flamboyant clothing, liking show tunes or maybe it's attending those outrageous Gay Pride Parades. You would have to clarify that it is because they are unnatural and their very existence gravely threatens society-how do they respond?
The responses vary. Some with anger, some with derision, some with curiosity.
The thought of two men having sex makes me squimish too,
Please don't assume how I might or might not feel about this.
but it's seems to me that a certain very small percentage of people are going to be attracted to the same sex. Why not just leave them alone?
Something about going and making disciples of all mankind?
Yes, we all certainly have fallen short of God's perfection, but isn't this based on our actions and not who we are?
Who we are controls our actions. Scripture says that we are "by nature, children of wrath" [Eph 2:3]
I fall short of God's standards because I am self-centered, arrogant, and prideful and not because I have black hair and white skin, right?
I'll agree with this as a starting point.
Raging Bee writes: The Ten Commandments say absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
So, what? The Ten Commandments are only a part of the Law. "Love your neighbor as yourself" isn't in the Big Ten, either, but Jesus said it was the 2nd greatest commandment.
Neither does Jesus himself.
So? An argument from silence doesn't help you. Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that are wrong. That doesn't make them right.
Plenty of Christians, including some preachers whose command of Scripture is a lot better than ours,
Speak for yourself.
have gone through all the obscure bits that no one considers important except when they're bashing gays -- and found the Scriptural case against homosexuality weak at best.
And I've argued with some of them. Most of the time they are engaging in eisegesis and not exegesis.
There is, moreover, a very strong Scriptural case for such values as forgiveness, mercy, not judging others unnecessarily, reconciliation, not bearing false witness, and that whole "doing unto others" thing; and all the nonsense some "Christians" are saying about gays runs completely contrary to all of those values (of which Jesus and the Ten Commandments DID have a bit to say).
How does saying "Homosexuality is sin" run counter to the above?
Even if I were to accept that homosexuality is a "sin" (which I don't), it's still not a sin worth Jesus' time, so it shouldn't be worth our time either.
Jesus hung on the cross for all sin, so it certainly was worth His time.
[wrf3] I don't tell them they are perverted freaks of nature. I tell them that they have fallen short of God's standards for man, like I have, like everyone else has.
In other words, you can't think of any characteristic of theirs that makes them significantly different from you (at least none that you'd dare tell them to their faces).
Excuse me, but how do you even pretend to know what I would or wouldn't tell them to their faces? Please don't project yourself onto me.
So why are you pretending they're different from us, and kinda-sorta-maybe "like" pedophiles, here?
I'm not pretending they are different from us. Sin is sin, regardless of the magnitude of its affects on others.
I know it goes against what we were raised to believe, but there is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality being a threat to the existence of society. I think people are making mountains out of mole hills.
How about judge people on whether they are faithful and honest and not on the fact they are part of the 4% of the population attracted to the same sex.
Being Gay is an action JohnW. The idea that it is inescapably biological is nonsense. That is the only reason you could go so far as to consider them freaks of nature. Those of us who understand that it is not part of their 'nature' don't look at them as freaks of nature.
In the first place, sexuality is a behavior. In the second place I wasn't talking about sexuality. And that last sentence runs counter to all the arguments that say what the world needs more of is birth control and availibility of abortion.
What is the 'it' that you are talking about here? I hope you do not mean sexuality, because it would be ridiculous to assert that social bonding cannot occur without it.
So? An argument from silence doesn't help you.
It does when I'm arguing with someone who's trying to pretend his prejudice is justified by the Bible. And responding to facts and logic by saying "So?" like an clueless obstinate child doesn't help you. Neither does the fact that a) you never made a serious Bible-based case to back up your bigotry, and b) you've already pretty much admitted that your prejudice against gays has absolutely no basis in their actions or their consequences.
Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that are wrong. That doesn't make them right.
It does, however, give us a pretty clear idea of where he wanted his followers' priorities to be. Besides, if Jesus didn't talk about them, then where do you, as a self-proclaimed "Christian," get the authority to say they're wrong?
oclarki
Pedophilia is not only tolerated by our society, but subtly winked at. For example, the sexualization of pre-teens through provacative clothing, provacative messages on t-shirts, underwear etc.
1. What you are describing is not pedophilia but attraction to young adults (there's a Greek term for it but I don't have it onhand).
2. Even here there hasn't been a trend towards more tolerance but less. Statutatory rape laws, for example, are harsher today than they were before. Do you think Jerry Lewis could get away with marrying his 14-yr old cousin today?
The loss of innocence of middle school aged girls compared to when I was growing up is real and worrisome.
Go back less than a century or two and many of those 'innocent' girls would be married by middle school age. Juliet, as in Romeo & Juliet, I believe was supposed to have been 12 and that didn't raise any eyebrows at the time.
wrf3,
Your 'design argument' continues to suffer from the fact that it is self-evidently wrong. Are we to take it that you are now retreating to an argument based entirely on authority? If that is so please let us know.
In other news, where's that list of institutions that support necrophilia.
Yes, and one of those priorities was chastity. Homosexuality contradicts chastity.
Being Gay is an action JohnW.
No, it's having desire for the company and physical contact of one's own gender. Even the dumbest gay-bashers understand that one can be gay without having any sex.
The idea that it is inescapably biological is nonsense.
Sex is a biological act, and sexual desire is partly caused by, and manifested in, biological responses. Do you even know what "biology" is?
That's all for me right now -- I'm off to celebrate the spirit of both Christ's birth AND the Winter Solstice, which I've found to be strangely similar (which could be why the early Christians chose to officially peg the former to the latter). You haters should try it sometime.
Happy Christmasaturnakwanzannakkayulestice to all, and to all a good night!
Homosexuality contradicts chastity.
No more than heterosexuality.
Raging B,
Happy Holidays and a Merry Festivus!
I hereby propose a "Christmas truce" to last until January 1.
Happy holidays to all!!!
Enough to know that who we desire is not determined or decided by biology. If it were otherwise, turn-offs and turn-ons would get much less coverage in Playboy and Cosmopolitan.
On the contrary, within the bonds of matrimony, chastity is not contradicted by heterosexuality. And on the bonds of matrimony, Jesus was very specific.
johnW writes: I know it goes against what we were raised to believe,
What do you mean "we"? I didn't become a Christian until I was in my 20's.
but there is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality being a threat to the existence of society.
First, that's not true. Second, even if it were, there are a lot of true things that aren't in the Bible.
I think people are making mountains out of mole hills.
So you haven't noticed the slow erosion of free speech rights, partly caused by the "you have no right to offend us" crowd?
How about judge people on whether they are faithful
To whom? God?
and honest
To whom? Themselves? The "I can't help being gay" crowd are lying to themselves. The "when did you choose to be hetero/homosexual" argument is one of the most dishonest I've ever come across. We rarely choose our destiny all at once. There was never a time in my life that I said, "I'm going to be fat!". It just happened over the course of years when I said, "this one bite won't hurt me", or "I don't need to exercise today."
and not on the fact they are part of the 4% of the population attracted to the same sex.
Since when did numbers ever have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of something?
Raging Bee
[wrf3] So? An argument from silence doesn't help you.
It does when I'm arguing with someone who's trying to pretend his prejudice is justified by the Bible.
So how come you didn't find a flaw in my response to your statement about "The Ten Commandments say absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Neither does Jesus himself." The chapter that contains what Jesus calls the second greatest command is adjacent to the one that forbids male-male intercourse.
And responding to facts and logic by saying "So?" like an clueless obstinate child doesn't help you.
Your "facts and logic" consisted of the fallacies of:
1) arguing from silence, and
2) selective citing -- among others.
"So?" is one rational, reasoned response to an argument from silence.
Neither does the fact that a) you never made a serious Bible-based case to back up your bigotry,
That's because I haven't tried to. Poking holes in your arguments is time-consuming enough.
and b) you've already pretty much admitted that your prejudice against gays has absolutely no basis in their actions or their consequences.
First, that isn't true. Second, at this stage of the exchange, it isn't relevant. Do you think that God has to have a reason that you agree with for calling something sin?
[wrf3] Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that are wrong. That doesn't make them right.
It does, however, give us a pretty clear idea of where he wanted his followers' priorities to be. Besides, if Jesus didn't talk about them, then where do you, as a self-proclaimed "Christian," get the authority to say they're wrong?
From Scripture. Where do you get the authority to say they're right? (Which is yet another question you keep ducking...)
Merry Christmas, RB.
wrf3:
What is this? An argument from proximity? I might note that the subsequent verse from the second greatest command prohibits animal breeding, cross-pollination, and clothing made of different material (Leviticus 19:19). Surely you have to see that this is very poor reasoning.One other comment:
I think this is a very unfair assessment. I wouldn't say that the arguments against Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are slam-dunk (but then again, how many arguments are?), but there are certainly serious considerations that are raised by that "camp," especially the idea (I'm thinking of Foucault, I believe) that homosexuality in ancient times was often considered excessive lustfulness, not simply lustfulness directed at the wrong object. The argument then becomes one of disanalogy: ancient homosexuality was not comparable to modern homosexuality, just like (as is often argued) ancient slavery bears a number of dissimilarities to modern slavery. I haven't really come down hard on either stance (for or against), but to write off these arguments as merely reading what one wants into the text is pretty uncharitable in my opinion.The Christian Cynic writes:
[wrf3] So how come you didn't find a flaw in my response to your statement about "The Ten Commandments say absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Neither does Jesus himself." The chapter that contains what Jesus calls the second greatest command is adjacent to the one that forbids male-male intercourse.
What is this? An argument from proximity?
Why, yes. Remember, one of RB's arguments is that the Ten Commandments don't mention homosexuality, therefore, arguments against homosexuality are weak at best. But the Ten Commandments, according to Jesus, don't mention either the first or second greatest commandments (Mt 22:36-40). Furthermore, the 2nd greatest command (Lev 19:18) is coincident with the prohibition against male-male intercourse. This refutes that portion of RB's argument.
I might note that the subsequent verse from the second greatest command prohibits animal breeding,
No, it doesn't.
cross-pollination,
No, it doesn't.
and clothing made of different material (Leviticus 19:19). Surely you have to see that this is very poor reasoning.
In what way? The prohibitions you cited all state that certain things aren't to be mixed. And this is certainly understandable -- God Himself is not mixed; He is light with no darkness, holiness with no unholiness, perfectly righteous.
One other comment:
[RB:] Plenty of Christians, including some preachers whose command of Scripture is a lot better than ours, have gone through all the obscure bits that no one considers important except when they're bashing gays -- and found the Scriptural case against homosexuality weak at best.
...
[wrf:] And I've argued with some of them. Most of the time they are engaging in eisegesis and not exegesis.
I think this is a very unfair assessment.
I said "most of the time". I did not say "all of the time".
I wouldn't say that the arguments against Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are slam-dunk (but then again, how many arguments are?), but there are certainly serious considerations that are raised by that "camp," especially the idea (I'm thinking of Foucault, I believe) that homosexuality in ancient times was often considered excessive lustfulness, not simply lustfulness directed at the wrong object.
And how does this fit in with the Jewish notion of not mixing things that should not be mixed?
"God Himself is not mixed; He is light with no darkness"
Light is an energy particle that travels at 300 000 km per second....darkness is the absence of those particles in a given dark area...Light isent Good nor is darkness Evil so what does that have to do with God ITself exactly?
Your qualifier is noted, and it did not escape me the first time. I still think that accusing your opponents of reading into the text "most of the time" is genuinely unfair, especially if you are speaking broadly. (If you will admit that you're not speaking broadly of this group, then I'm happy to retract this point.)
I don't know, how does it? You're the one who brought it up in this context. I think that trying to view all morality through a Jewish lens is wrongheaded, anyway, and I think I can get sufficient support from Paul on the matter (after all, he didn't mince words about some Jewish ideas of the necessity of circumcision for male believers).