kerry edwards - 10/20/2004 6:46 PM
Botnst - 10/20/2004 6:21 PM
I kind of agree with what you've written. But the whole dang-fool left-wing, right-wing thing trivializes it, don't you think? Or are all homosexuals left-wing and all heteros right-wing?
I would characterize the anti-homo-religo-political folks a bit differently. In fact, completely differently. For them, the Truth comes from the Bible. They don't prescribe gender roles to suppress homosexuality, their prescription is revealed by God just as certainly to them as the Creation. Its not a mater of conjecture, its a mater of revelation. It is thus not a use of prescription to engineer something, but a revelation of the structure of society according to the Divine Plan. This is what they have in common with the Talibanistas. Where they differ is that the Talibanistas and alquedistas believe themselves fully justified in their world view to murder innocent people to achieve their revealed truth. So far, I haven't seen this behavior in Christianity in nearly 500 years. Okay, there have been a few sporadic nutcases, but the nutty Christians are almost alsways small cults led by a single fruitcake.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that there is a natural political correlation to sexuality.
The reason I wrote it that way however, does have something to do with a fundamental disagreement I have with your last paragraph. You imply that the reason people hold certain moral opinions is because they believe in a certain text. I think in many ways, you have the causal relationship reversed. The reason people hold to the text is because they already have a certain attitude, tendency, cultural or social class position that uses an ancient text as justification for its ideas. I think the evidence for this is clear. Why would people take the rules about sexuality in the Bible and Koran as applicable in today's society but violate, or reject other rules (don't eat pork, execute rebellious teenagers, keep slaves etc) just a few sentences away. The only credible explanation I can find for these behaviors is that the book is not the 'real' source of their ideas, just a convenient authority.
Same with abortion. Most religious rightists in the US who oppose homosexuality also oppose abortion. But the Bible says not one word about abortion. Can this be explained in another way than the one I suggest.
Aw heck. That makes way too much sense. I think you've got it exactly right.
Concerning abortion, I think that the argument goes like this.
Human life is God's gift, freely given.
Life begins at conception. Before conception, the germinal tissues are living tissue but not capable of actual separate existence until conception. Therefore, germinal tissue is not sacred while the zygote is.
Accidental destruction of human life is part of the cycle of life. Therefore, spontaneous abortion is no different from being struck by lightning.
Intentional destruction of life is wrong. Therefore intentional destruction of life, from zygote to adulthood, is wrong.
I think that's a consistent line of argument. As I understand it, Catholic teaching opposes execution. I agree with others that capital punishment is not in conformity with abortion. This separates some protestants (but not all) from Roman Catholics.
I am curious about something that I am not certain about. I believe that the early Judaic custom was that a newborn wasn't a person until some time after delivery. Is that right? If it is, then it would seem to me that the custom would allow for abortion. Also, it would seem that the Talmudic line of argument supporting that ancient custom, if extant, would be an interesting argument to bring to anti-abortionists.