Thursday, October 30, 2008

Chicago considering setting up gay-only schools?

Chicago is reportedly thinking about setting up homosexual-only schools as a "safe haven" for gays and lesbians. We're not entirely sure what they're supposed to be keeping them safe from. Perhaps the fawning and flattery towards gays from obsequious school officials and an ideologically sycophantic media has finally become too much for them and they just want some peace and quiet.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

[Yes, there is a connection to homosexual schools.]
Perhaps you people can help me understand the logic behind this woman's argument. Raani Starnes writes at her Baptist homeschooling blog:

1) They will never discover that people are born gay, because it just isn't so.


2) A normal person could be tempted to commit adultery and even murder but would not be tempted by homosexuality.


Now I am not tempted by homosexuality either; that's one of the reasons I think it is mostly genetic. Yet this woman reaches the opposite conclusion. Why? What can one speculate about her thought processes?


She also has thoughts about homosexuals and schools (portions deleted):

The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men. I've also known of people personally over the years who were known as gay yet "experimented" with the opposite sex. The term bisexual is an unnecessary distinction, because a faggot wants to defile anyone or anything he can get his hands on.

A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.

Throughout the Old Testament we read about good kings who removed the Sodomites out of the land and bad kings who did not. The New Testament teaches that homosexuals have been turned over to a reprobate mind.(Romans 1, etc.) It's sad that they did not get saved while they still could, but unfortunately it is too late for them. Did you know that God actually hates some people?

I believe that a homosexual can no longer get saved. They weren't born gay and God wanted them to get saved at some point. The reason they are that way is that they have pushed God too far and he has given up on them.

We also have an extended family member who is a homosexual. We had already distanced ourselves from that person before the news officially came out. We weren't surprised and still have no contact.

-----------------

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Wait,

You say, "Now I am not tempted by homosexuality either; that's one of the reasons I think it is mostly genetic" and you are criticizing other people's arguments?

Anonymous said...

MC: Wait,

You say, "Now I am not tempted by homosexuality either; that's one of the reasons I think it is mostly genetic" and you are criticizing other people's arguments?
------

Not at all. I am saying that we look at the same data and have completely opposite explanations.

Just as Mr Cothran read what I wrote and came up with a completely different (although not opposite) interpretation. And similarly, I can't make much sense, without elaboration, of what Mr Cothran just wrote.


jah

Martin Cothran said...

I was pointing out that, in a post criticizing someone else's argument, it is a good idea to make sure that your own argument is a good one. You said:

I am not tempted by homosexuality either; that's one of the reasons I think it is mostly genetic.

I was pointing out that the first statement, that you are not tempted by homosexuality, has no apparently relation to the second statement for which it is apparently supposed to serve as a ground, that homosexuality is genetic.

Anonymous said...

jah: I am not tempted by homosexuality either; that's one of the reasons I think it is mostly genetic.

MC: I was pointing out that the first statement, that you are not tempted by homosexuality, has no apparently relation to the second statement for which it is apparently supposed to serve as a ground, that homosexuality is genetic.


See, I can't even follow that.

My position, open to other evidence, is that sexual orientation is genetic for most people and a combination of nature and nurture for some. That fact that I have no homosexual tendencies is supporting evidence (along with other information) for that position. Where is the inconsistency? If homosexuality were entirely a choice, I should be able to choose that option. However, that is not the case.

The quotes above by Starnes however seem logically inconsistent.
1) If homosexuality isn't a sin, then what other category of evil is there to describe it?
2) If a normal person can't be tempted by homosexuality, then what kind of person is? What sort of rules governing sin apply to them?
3) Where in the Bible does it say that God will not forgive individuals remorseful of their transgressions?
4) How many of the Americans trying to turn this country (back) into a Christian nation want to kill homosexuals?
5) If hate filled posts like these exist(and apparently Ms Starnes was quite surprised to find anyone found her views objectionable), why is it so difficult for Mr Cothran to imagine that actual violence against homosexuals occurs?

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

I have no interest in defending Starne's position. And I didn't say your argument was inconsistent: I said the statement you gave as a reason for homosexuality being genetic was not, in fact, a reason for that conclusion.

The fact that you have no temptation toward homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic. That you have no such temptation is, in fact, completely consistent with both homosexuality being genetic and with it not being genetic.

That was my point. I realize you weren't intending to offer an argument, but you did say it in the context of criticizing someone else's argument, so I thought it was fair game.

That's all.

My position on homosexuality is that it is a very deep seated psychological disorientation, but that it is largely a developmental phenomenon. To say it is "genetic" on the one hand, or that it is the "product of choice" on the other, are both gross oversimplifications.