Difference between revisions of "Essay:Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called W...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:35, 31 August 2012

A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

I suppose Corvino has a problem with Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. But, Apostle Paul was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things; And that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.

I recently watched the Extended trailer for What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? as linked to on Wikipedia’s John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttle one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one's own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted the superior logic over that adverse point.

In defending his belief that homosexual behavior is rationally justified, the key rebuttle Corvino makes is that, contrary to some people's adverse point that 'the parts don't fit', ‘the parts do fit’. Corvino’s point here is that, contrary to what some homophobes say, "Homosexual sex is mechanically effective to its intentions."

I could, in stand-up comic fashion, simply ‘observe’ that, by Corvino’s logic here, lesbian behavior is less-than-ideally ineffective.

But, my serious reply to Corvino's rebuttle that 'the parts do fit' is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one's own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.

Another of Corvino’s points is that virus causes AIDS (that homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes aids). But, here, Corvino could be construed as saying that "the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, in fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being."

But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino's defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: "You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong."

The absurdity of this inbred 'Biblicist' logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.

So, if you think you can answer a question with wisdom, at least first try to understand who it is you are answering, and try to understand the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can't play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.