>Or they make arguments about "natural law" claiming that the argument is non-religious... and >yet everyone who makes these arguments happens to *be* religious. (Remember that debate I referred to in the "sigh." thread? Certain people -- including a good friend of mine -- didn't take >kindly to my suggestion that "natural law" is (or has become) another buzzword like "family values" or "intelligent design". It's one of those stealth terms that everyone sees through ... like in >those movies when someone tries to hide by holding a bush in front of them while they tiptoe, >and everyone else can see the tiptoeing bush.)
Heh. I got a phone spam to vote for Tom Emmers in innesota and one of the reasons they thought would appeal to me is that he was the only candidate wanting to protect the family (I was unaware that the other candidates wanted to destroy the family)... he was the only family values candidate. I knew instantly what that meant is "he opposes gay marriage"...and what do you know? Seconds later that was their example to show he was pro-family. On the other hand, Emmer caused a stir when he gave money to a local Christian rock group whose lead singer praised Muslim countries for dealing with homosexuality the right way. Stoning.
I find the natural law defense a weak one for all sides, truthfully. I mean, the root word is *nature*...and nature has plenty of evidence of regular homosexuality in other species. But some animals also indulge in behaviour most people would argue is pretty unsavory (sex with their very young and rape is not unheard of among some species of monkeys). Appealing to the evidence of nature is precarious for both sides.
Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, [email protected] wrote:
> Wait...I realized the exception...if you are not a Christian? Higher > standard does not apply. In the argument over gay rights in general? > It is pretty fair to say most opposing gay rights tend to cite a > religious basis behind their opposition.
Or they make arguments about "natural law" claiming that the argument is non-religious... and yet everyone who makes these arguments happens to *be* religious. (Remember that debate I referred to in the "sigh." thread? Certain people -- including a good friend of mine -- didn't take kindly to my suggestion that "natural law" is (or has become) another buzzword like "family values" or "intelligent design". It's one of those stealth terms that everyone sees through ... like in those movies when someone tries to hide by holding a bush in front of them while they tiptoe, and everyone else can see the tiptoeing bush.)
-- dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.