Do young people care about gay marriage? Options

[Lancaster Online]

[Bigmaclender2]

Some of you should consider yourself blessed that it's Sunday and I will attempt to refrain from profanity (although I should always refrain-not just on Sundays, lol). I quote this guy:

Genes can sometimes determine desires, but what we do with desire is under our control. That's why we do not and cannot declare pedophilia morally neutral just because people can be born with sexual desires toward children.

This is the reason that "Christians have this twisted idea of what homosexuality is. Yet they are the ones that are revealed-usually the pastors for their deviate behavior. Me being in a relationship with a woman IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVING SEX WITH A LITTLE KID. Do you know how twisted this freaking logic is? I pray for every "Christian" to open their eyes and learn to love everyone as he has loved us-PERIOD!!!!

[ReverendAlobar]

There is much wrong with this article. Here are a few points to consider.

Mr. Cornell begins by exposing what he sees as a change in the way young people think regarding moral or religious viewpoints. He explains:

This came to my attention recently when I spoke to a large group of university students about a Christian view of sexuality. I wanted to know how many of them have embraced the cultural indoctrination equating homosexuality with race and gender. From the confused but inquisitive looks on their faces, I couldn't read their responses accurately.

Mr. Cornell, those confused looks were probably due to the ignorance of your arrogance when you basically asked them, "How many of you realize that you've been brain-washed into believing gay rights are a civil rights issue?"

Then, during your panel lecture at F&M, which was hosted by the college's philosophy department, yet you still seemed surprised to be the only panel member not in favor of gay marriage, you continued your arrogance (and your obliviousness of it).

"First, I speak to you as a pastor. My work offers me a front-row seat to the real heartaches and challenges of life.

As if students, college professors and regular joe's working anywhere aren't familiar with the real heartaches and challenges life has to offer. Surely, only a pastor has to deal with real life.

I am responsible to do my best to help people overcome the things that are neither pleasing to God nor good for them. This means, among other things, that I must be as truthful as possible about matters of right and wrong and sometimes the truth is hard to receive. I take no pleasure in the thought that what I say might offend some people or hurt their feelings. ...

In other words, "I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but God demands it of me."

He confesses we are all sinners, if by our thoughts alone, priming the pump for his big conclusion that homosexuality is a desire, a choice. And it is acting upon these desires that excludes homosexual behavior from the protections of civil rights. Race and gender are not chosen, he explains, and therefore discrimination on the basis of these issues is inherently different than discrimination based on behavior that is chosen. In his own words,

I suggested that discrimination (in actual civil-rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature, not for chosen lifestyles.

Mr. Cornell continues with the same illogical argument oft used to prove homosexuality must be a choice with

there is no conclusive scientific evidence supporting the idea of a gay gene. This does not mean that one cannot be born with inclinations toward homosexual attraction, but inclinations cannot determine morality. Genes can determine some behaviors (reflexes), but they cannot determine intentional behavior.

Genes can sometimes determine desires, but what we do with desire is under our control. That's why we do not and cannot declare pedophilia morally neutral just because people can be born with sexual desires toward children.

That must be the part where he claims not wishing to offend, but truth hurts. No offense homosexuals, but your adult decision to live a responsible, monogamous life with a same sex partner is absolutely no different than the pedophile who chooses to act on his own perversions by molesting a child.

continued...

Mr. Cornell then tries to counter the typical response to this line of thinking.

When I discuss this, I am often asked if I chose my heterosexuality. I answer that even if I were genetically preconditioned to heterosexual attraction, it wouldn't in itself legitimize the attraction. If an adulterous woman complains that her adultery — wrongful heterosexual behavior — was because of her distant and uncaring husband, one might be sympathetic, but I could not endorse her behavior. For someone tempted by homosexual desire, the answer is not: "You must become heterosexual." The answer is the same for all sexual temptation: Resist it and obey God's moral will.

Here, in my opinion, is where his arrogance truly erupts. He has argued that civil rights issues are defined by discrimination based on issues the victim has no control over. The victim has not chosen race or gender. He argues that the victim is injured by what they are in nature, thus society, or a part of it, has also been injured, justifying punishment of the offender. But Mr. Cornell now argues that acting upon homosexual desires is an offense to God, not society. He has no problem condemning discrimination based on race or gender because of its clear negative and damaging effects on society. But by arguing in favor of discrimination based on sexual preference, which has no clear negative effect on society, simply because God considers it an abomination, then Mr. Cornell is clearly, and quite arrogantly, telling you what God is. He is defining God for everyone, that is all of society, and arguing that society must adhere to his God's laws.

I wish one of these students asked Mr. Cornell what he thought of discrimination based on religious choice. It would seem to me that he chose his religion. Why then should his choice be protected from discrimination by his civil rights? But perhaps he doesn't view it as a choice. Perhaps Mr. Cornell is also arrogant enough to believe Christianity is the only path to God. All other choices are perversions of the one true faith. The answer is not that Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and all the rest must become Christian. The answer is they must resist the temptation for religious freedom and obey his God's law.

Finally, Mr. Cornell explains what most disturbs him in these lectures is the apparent apathy in the youth's response regarding this hot-button issue. He fails to understand why students would behave so unemotionally during the discussion. Perhaps he should consider his audience, students in a lecture hall who were behaving like (surprise!) students in a lecture hall. Perhaps he should also consider his archaic view of the modern world is politely accepted in a higher learning facility because his views aren't controversial to the youth of America. They are simply outdated and of no consequence. Or, to put it more simply, and in the word most used "to respond to strongly held religious and moral opinions: "whatever.""

[Bouquet]

"I suggested that discrimination (in actual civil-rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature, not for chosen lifestyles."


...so feeding Christians to the lions wouldn't be a civil-rights violation?

[riclee]

Methinks some of those people who get their leggings in a knot should heed the comments of that wise playwright, essayist, and faithful Christian -- Dorothy L. Sayers:

As I grow older and older,

And totter toward the tomb,

I find that I care less and less,

Who goes to bed with whom.

[Bigmaclender2]

Methinks some of those people who get their leggings in a knot should heed the comments of that wise playwright, essayist, and faithful Christian -- Dorothy L. Sayers:

As I grow older and older,

And totter toward the tomb,

I find that I care less and less,

Who goes to bed with whom.

LOL

[littledutchboy]

Some of you should consider yourself blessed that it's Sunday and I will attempt to refrain from profanity (although I should always refrain-not just on Sundays, lol). I quote this guy:

Genes can sometimes determine desires, but what we do with desire is under our control. That's why we do not and cannot declare pedophilia morally neutral just because people can be born with sexual desires toward children.

This is the reason that "Christians have this twisted idea of what homosexuality is. Yet they are the ones that are revealed-usually the pastors for their deviate behavior. Me being in a relationship with a woman IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVING SEX WITH A LITTLE KID. Do you know how twisted this freaking logic is? I pray for every "Christian" to open their eyes and learn to love everyone as he has loved us-PERIOD!!!!

Yes but there are similarities, lets call a lesbian, a femaleophile, how is that any different then pedophile? Both are an un-natural attraction to someone other then a member of the opposite sex. The only difference is that a child by definition can’t have consensual sex. That doesn’t change the root cause which is the un-natural attraction.



And by the way there is no such thing as a gay or a pedophile gene. That’s just a cop out.

[ReverendAlobar]

Yes but there are similarities, lets call a lesbian, a femaleophile, how is that any different then pedophile? Both are an un-natural attraction to someone other then a member of the opposite sex. The only difference is that a child by definition can't have consensual sex. That doesn't change the root cause which is the un-natural attraction.

Let's call a lesbian a "lesbian." The word has already been defined, there's no need for a ridiculous synonym that doesn't even make sense. Why couldn't a man be a "femaleophile?"

And by the way there is no such thing as a gay or a pedophile gene. That's just a cop out.

No one here has claimed there is. There's no such thing as a Christian gene, either. So why should that choice be protected by civil rights?

[littledutchboy]

Let's call a lesbian a "lesbian." The word has already been defined, there's no need for a ridiculous synonym that doesn't even make sense. Why couldn't a man be a "femaleophile?"

No one here has claimed there is. There's no such thing as a Christian gene, either. So why should that choice be protected by civil rights?

Someone's behavior should not be a civil rights issue. But the more I think about it proponents of homosexual right do act as though they are part of a religion in that there is a well developed "belief system" those that don't "believe" are condemned. There is also a strong evangelical compliant out spreading the gospel of homosexuality.


PS I'm indeed a femaleophile.

This post has been edited by littledutchboy: Oct 12 2009, 10:56 AM

[ReverendAlobar]

Someone's behavior should not be a civil rights issue. But the more I think about it proponents of homosexual right do act as though they are part of a religion in that there is a well developed "belief system" those that don't "believe" are condemned. There is also a strong evangelical compliant out spreading the gospel of homosexuality.


PS I'm indeed a femaleophile.

So, are you saying religious freedom should not be protected by civil rights? Are you saying there's nothing wrong with discriminating against a person's religion? It is, after all, behavior. So is political preference.

[Bigmaclender2]

Someone's behavior should not be a civil rights issue. But the more I think about it proponents of homosexual right do act as though they are part of a religion in that there is a well developed "belief system" those that don't "believe" are condemned. There is also a strong evangelical compliant out spreading the gospel of homosexuality.


PS I'm indeed a femaleophile.

I don't have a problem with people NOT accepting me. I have a problem with people comparing me to rapists, murderers and pedofiles-see the difference? I also don't care for all the hateful comments because of who I am as an individual-they are just nasty and mean and uncalled for.