-
Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface
May 23, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Anthony Weiner Running for NY Mayor
May 22, 2013 | 6 comments
-
IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’
May 17, 2013 | 7 comments
-
IRS Scandal Claims Its First Victim
May 15, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Fighting Those Who Buy Ink by the Barrel
May 14, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ohio Senator Rob Portman announces his support for gay marriage in an op-ed for the Columbus Dispatch:
Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love. […]
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God. […]
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
Portman voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but he now thinks the Supreme Court, which is hearing a challenge to the law this year, should strike it down. A reported piece in the Cleveland Plain Dealer explains the nuances of Portman’s position:
Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it’s allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but aren’t currently extended to gay married couples because of DOMA, such as the ability to file joint tax returns. Family law has traditionally been a state responsibility, Portman says, so the federal definition of marriage should not preempt state marriage laws.
View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Kyle Peterson
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/15/sen-portmans-gay-son-prompts-r
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JD| 3.15.13 @ 1:21PM
"I'm an alcoholic. It's not something I chose; it's who I am".
"I'm a pedophile. It's not something I chose; it's who I am."
"I'm stupid. It's not something I chose; it's who I am."
Some time ago, Leftists like those derided in today's Sowell article decided to abandon thousands of year s of understanding of the simple idea that a person should strive to better himself and started promoting the idea that we should all learn to "accept" and even "embrace" flaws.
Of course we can disagree with whether a particular behavior IS a flaw. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is the advancement of the idea that we can't even discuss whether something is a flaw because "born that way" means it doesn't matter.
This is a dangerous fallacy.
Of course, it's not consistently applied. If they feel they can associate a flaw with conservatism, their sympathy quickly turns to hate.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:42AM
Everything you say here is true, JD.
Any ideas as to what's driving this particular problem?
Oh ... and I must congratulate you for commenting on an article that deals with homosexuality without making any anti-homosexual remarks. A genuine rarity on the Spectator's comment boards.
alice921| 3.17.13 @ 4:06PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. Make money with Google. last monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83... per hour. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey
Derek Leaberry| 3.15.13 @ 1:23PM
Seven thousand years of how civilizations throughout the world define marriage are to be thrown out the window by Rob Portman because his son is a homosexual. That sounds like the reasoning of a liberal to me. Rob Portman is not a conservative. He is an enemy of conservatism.
Portman failed miserably as George W. Bush's budget director. Portman failed as Bush's trade representative as American industry was shipped overseas and working class conservative voters were shown the door. Portman failed as a father by raising a son who practices a dishonorable lifestyle.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:49AM
"Portman failed miserably as George W. Bush's budget director." ... A fair statement.
"Portman failed as Bush's trade representative" ... and arguable position.
"Portman failed as a father by raising a son who practices a dishonorable lifestyle." ... The raving of a bigot.
You have no clue, Derek, what the lifestyle of Portman's son is. You only know he's a homosexual. That knowledge doesn't entitle you to make assumptions.
kingsmill| 3.16.13 @ 3:45PM
l would only disagree with you as follows:
Portman is a moral idiot by affirming the same sex acts of his son.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 7:35AM
I must correct you, kingsmill.
Portman did not affirm any same sex acts by his son. We do not know what sex acts -- if any -- his son has engaged in. We know nothing about his son except that he has a homosexual orientation/preference.
All you can say is that Portman is affirming any same sex acts his son chooses to engage in now or in future.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 1:29PM
The homosexual lifestyle is, and always will be, detested by the vast majority of normal men. They may tolerate it, but will always hold it in contempt, never accepting it as equal to heterosexuality and the love of women. The homosexual playwright Jean Genet once asserted that "a male who f--ks a male is a double male" but he was exactly wrong. Gay individuals are actually half-men, since love with women is what completes a man.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 3:47PM
Well stated about that, Bandido. Obviously, you are the Frito Bandito, not Frito Buggins.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:51AM
More stupid bigotry from Bandito -- and seconded by Occam's Fool.
Honestly, the Spectator needs to do some soul searching what with how it attracts such imbeciles and malcontents for readers.
kingsmill| 3.16.13 @ 3:49PM
Well said and compassionate-unlike Mr. Portmann who has decided to endorse the same sex acts of his son. Portmann is also a fraud. He should resign his seat and run in the special election as a supporter of same sex "marriage". He misled the voters.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:25AM
Calling male homosexuals half-men (and without saying boo about men who are celibate or report being asexual) is compassionate?
I'd be afraid to see what you call hatred, kingsmill.
Bandido| 3.15.13 @ 1:38PM
Apropos of the above, which everyone already knows, is what Orwell stated regarding modern times: "The first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious."
Derek Leaberry| 3.15.13 @ 4:01PM
Funny how the socialist Orwell was to the right of many so-called "conservatives."
Bob K| 3.16.13 @ 10:05AM
Under these circumstances CLD would define Orwell as a bigot too.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 7:44AM
Don't put words in my mouth, jackass.
And don't project your cultural and religious reaction onto Orwell.
kingsmill| 3.16.13 @ 3:52PM
Orwell was a scourge of mindless conformity, which he deemed "smelly little orthodoxies". Nothing smells as much as the inversion of sexuality, which is universally promoted by our politically correct elites.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 7:43AM
Your not making sense, kingsmill.
Mindless conformity would seem to better fit the obedience to tradition simply because it is tradition. Such is essentially the argument of the countless cultural conservatives on this board.
As such one could deem the condemnation of everything not Judeo-Christian a 'smelly little orthodoxy' and say that nothing smells as much as the oppression and harassment of the sexual minority (homosexuals) which was universally promoted by traditionalist religious for ages.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.15.13 @ 2:02PM
I'm so sick and tired hearing about all these g-ddamn gays.
Butch| 3.15.13 @ 2:43PM
From "the love that dare not speak its name" to the love that won't shut up, huh? I agree, Sir.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 1:38AM
I'm sick and tired of hearing from g-ddamn C. Vernon Crisler. Does that mean you'll now shut the f*ck up?
kingsmill| 3.16.13 @ 3:53PM
CVC:
A self-hating minority of homosexuals can never shut up. Their quest for the repeal of normalcy is endless.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 7:38AM
It is also true that many homosexuals -- self-loving and otherwise -- remain constantly vocal because anti-homosexual religious reactionaries can never shut up. The Spectator's comment boards being a wonderful example of this phenomenon.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 2:50PM
So this is the guy who supposedly would have been a better VP pick than Paul Ryan. Another in a long-line of gutless, ersatz "conservatives" who betray conservative principles out of convenience and in the process do more lasting damage to this country than the obnoxious leftists do because this kind of phony "conservative" is exactly the kind of person who gives cover to the bigots of the gay movement by taking the focus off their anti-Christian bigotry against those who defend traditional concepts of morality and marriage.
Under the asinine logic of Senator Portman, if he had a child engaged in prostitution, he would decide out of love for his child's desire for "happiness" that his duty of "love" would require coming out in favor of reversal of laws against prostitution!
No one is suggesting that he should deny love to a child but if a child is engaged in conduct that is wrong, then that love must be accompanied by no retreat on the unshakable truths of God's laws. When Jesus told the crowd "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" He also told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more" which is the part of the story moral relativists of the Portman ilk always like to leave out.
I will no longer support ANY "Repbulican" who is for gay marriage. Since this means making common cause with the greatest category of anti-Christian bigots in this country, there is ultimately not a dime's worth of difference between them and the most extreme of left-wing Democrats.
CLD| 3.16.13 @ 2:07AM
There is a problem here, ejp.
When you say "if a child is engaged in conduct that is wrong, then that love must be accompanied by no retreat on the unshakable truths of God's laws" you are making a statement that can never be objective.
Just where do we find "God's laws"? If it is some scripture, how do we decide which one? Then how do we decide who gets to interpret it. Just because Portman describes himself as a Christian, and you describe yourself as a Christian, doesn't mean he has to view scripture the way you do.
As an example, the story from the Gospel of John you cite is not in the earliest know copies of that gospel. It is a later addition. Portman MIGHT discount the story completely for that very reason. (This is only a hypothetical.)
I think that much of what you see as anti-Christian bigotry is simply this: a demand for philosophical arguments rather than those grounded in some sort of religious authority.
Chazael| 3.16.13 @ 11:23PM
"... you are making a statement that can never be objective."
He did not present it in an objective manner, but it is objective.
Homosexuality is impossible to be good. If there is such a thing as an objective moral good (OMG) homosexuality is impossible to be OMG.
If there is OMG, there will have to be a God. There is no other objective standard that will result in OMG.
For example, lots of people try objective standards to deduce morality from. While the standard has objective measurements there is never any reason to follow them. There is never any necessity to follow the standard.
If there is a God then He is also the creator, as nothing would be higher than Him... or He would not be God (this also includes morality; example God is love, not God has love). This creation is a reflection of Him.
Homosexuality cannot come from creation. In a perfect world homosexuality would never exist as something must go wrong with creation. One has to point to the corruption of creation for homosexuality.
(Btw, because this is presented as, 'if there is OMG then there must be a God'. The other option of the conditional (conditionals only bring necessity if assumed true, but there is no necessity that it is true) there is no OMG, also means homosexuality is not good as there is no good or evil. Just likes and dislikes. But you can't argue from that position because then there is no ought or should... everything is equally meaningless in an OMG sense.)
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 7:54AM
I'm sorry, Chazeal, but you are approaching ejp's comment and my reply to it in a way that is false to both.
ejp made a statement of religious dogma; I countered that such statement's are purely subjective.
You now come at our exchange by making a moral claim -- which isn't religious dogma -- and attempting to connect it to a theological one -- which also isn't religious dogma per se. Regardless of the validity of your arguments, my reply to ejp is untouched: religious dogma has meaning to the believer simply because the believer wants to believe it.
When people like ejp encounter demands for arguments not grounded in dogmatic authority they project anti-religious bigotry onto their interlocutors as a means of psychological defense. (I did not state this in my response to him; however it was implied.)
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:06AM
As to your specific claims, Chazael, since morality and theology fall under the umbrella of philosophy I have to answer in a philosophic mode. The format of a comment board, of course, only allows a cursory response.
Your statement that "If there is OMG, there will have to be a God," can be criticized in numerous ways. Let me just start by saying that the word 'God' has no generally (let alone universally) agreed-upon referent. So I quite literally have no clue what you mean when you first say that.
Further on you do elaborate: "If there is a God then He is also the creator." Here I must strongly object. To say there is a creator is to say there is a supreme being; I reject this notion out of hand. In fact I reject the notion of a LEAST being let alone a greatest being. I do not accept the metaphysical notion of beings at all. So we have a problem of not sharing the same cognitive framework, don't we?
Philosophy is not child's play and we can see here the difficulty of discussing it in this forum.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:16AM
Now I can pefectly well except that all creation is an expression of ultimate reality -- even though I do not yield to the validity of your anthropomorhisms.
However, your penultimate paragraph is full of problems.
To say that homosexuality cannot come from creation is nonsense because we living in a created world and homosexuality is part of that world.
Furthermore, saying that a perfect world could not allow for homosexuality is like saying a pefect world could not allow for change (whether that change is chemical reactions, physical motion, biological evolution) because change implies imperfection. The perfection to which you refer is simply a fantasy. You haven't a clue what your perfect world would be an neither does anyone else.
This last fact brings out the real error in your thinking: it is philosophical language used to justify religious dogma. I have indulged you to this point, but no further, Chazael. EVERYTHING on which you base your argument -- a supreme personal being as the world's creator, a possibly perfect creation with no room for non-procreative sexuality, and the possibility of creation being corrupted against the creator's wishes -- is all Christian dogma. No one is bound to accept or even respect any of it.
Chazael| 3.17.13 @ 11:26PM
- The only thing mentioned in regards to God is that God comes from what will fulfill the requirement of OMG. Anything which does not fulfill that requirement is not God. Very simple.
- A rejection of a supreme being, just means you reject the condtional that OMG is true (unless a counter example can be shown).
Denial of the assumption makes the argument mute. That requires all of 1 sentence...
- Holding that X cannot come from creation. And X is a part of what exists are not contradictory. Holding that another option exists, just means there can exist another option (but not with OMG).
It just means there is another aspect to what exists.
- Change does not imply imperfection. Many changes happen because they are supposed to.... breeding comes to mind.
The corruption of those natural changes, which bring about different changes to what exists is to what I am referring (see point 3).
-Of course the easiest way to refute the argument (and the shortest) is to come up with an example, that is not God, from which OMG can be referenced from.
The fact that you didn't even try shows you agree. To have OMG means one must have God, And in your words a supreme being no less.
The rest just follows from that...
CLD| 3.18.13 @ 6:37PM
Oh good grief.... You haven't understood me at all. This is, I must suppose, predictable as I noted our cognitive frameworks are incompatible.
Nontheless, I see nothing in your reply to indicate you even TRIED to comprehend me.
You most certainly said more about God than beyond "that God comes from what will fulfill the requirement of OMG." But more importantly my rejection of the metaphysical notion of 'beings' and hence of a 'supreme being' does not imply I reject the objective nature of morality. You should have noticed that was the ONE thing in your comment I didn't criticize.
I did not say that change requires imperfection. That was only an example to serve as an anology to your assertions about homosexuality.
"Holding that X cannot come from creation. And X is a part of what exists are not contradictory."
This statement is unintelligible.
"The corruption of those natural changes, which bring about different changes to what exists..."
In all your writing here you haven't given the slightest hint at what sort of things happened that corrupted the natural order so that homosexuality could occur -- or how such corrupting events can occur in the first place.
As for refuting your argument directly, I didn't try not because I ultimately agree with it, but because it is incoherent. As I said, you are simply repeating religious dogma in philosophic guise.
CLD| 3.18.13 @ 6:48PM
If you want anything like a clear acceptance or rejection of your argument then you must in fact make a real argument.
Tell us why homosexuality is incompatible with a 'perfect world' (which should, I think, include some discussion of just what your standard of perfection is) and just why something must be compatible with a perfect world in order to have the possibility of being good.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:40AM
-I did comprehend you. I left you an opening to back off of your claim that "religious dogma has meaning to the believer simply because the believer wants to believe it" in regards to this argument. I.E., its all subjective.
You did not, which brings a little smile to face.
A conditional is an argument where a claim is assumed true, for the sake of argument. When we are discussing the argument OMG is already assumed true. Only the deductions from the assumed premise matter. We could be talking about literally anything. Unicorns, hydras, ghosts, some alien race from Star Trek... Once the subject matter is assumed true, saying it doesn't exist or cannot be proven doesn't matter... at all.
If you teach logic, quit. If you are a student, study harder. If you have graduated, ask for a refund. Doubling down on stupid, while throwing the equivalent of a verabl tantrum, speaks volumes. Sad, very sad.
If you can pull your head out of your rear then...
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:44AM
-I deduced from OMG that God must exist and that this God could have nothing higher than itself for then it could not be the standard for OMG... as there could be another standard.
Hence creation would have to follow from God; there would have to be a creator whose creation reflected a standard (OMG).
A rejection of the notion of metaphysical beings as an argument against this postion shows, like above, that you have no clue how a conditional argument works. A refutation that OMG requires a metaphysical being via an example which could be deduced from OMG would suffice.
Since this something will have to have an innate OMG I won't hold my breath for an example.
-Giving an example about imperfection as an analogy, that does not have necessity, is as useless as saying "I like strawberry ice cream" in an argument. Arguing from a position with more than one possible solutiuon proves jack. I would ask why even bring it up, but I know the answer. You have a vocabulary, but you have a limited comprehension of logical connections.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:46AM
-The statements "X cannot come from creation and X is part of what exists are not contradictory" is perfectly intelligible. Because it is possible that what is created does not represent what in totality exists. Creation + X = What exists. Creation + corruption = what exists. If it is a possibility then it is in fact intelligible.
It is not provable by arguing from what exists, but it is deducable from OMG. Once OMG is assumed as true, it is not only possible, but required from the deduction because OMG is a standard, God will be this standard, and His creation will reflect this standard. If anything exists that cannot come from a standard, it could not have come from God. Yet it exists so it must be accounted for by that which is not creation and is not a standard (would violate OMG).
-Asking for "the slightest hint at what sort of things happened that corrupted the natural order so that homosexuality could occur" is an example that you have no clue how a conditional argument works. I don't need to show how corruption could occur, only that creation must come from God because of OMG (see above) and then anything which could not come directly from the standard of creation (like breeding) would have to come from something going wrong with the standard of creation. And hence not from what was created.
Since there is an assumed standard, anything which deviates from that standard cannot come from it.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:49AM
-Not refuting the argument directly because you thought it incoherent is another example of not understanding a conditional... OMG is already assumed true. What you ultimately think about the coherency doesn't matter. Which is not religious dogma in philosophic disguise, but rather an assumed truth within a logical framework.
-OMG being the standard and the truth of God deduced from the assumed truth of OMG (being a necessary condition) resulting in a creation coming from God (there can be no other standard otherwise no OMG). This means creation will reflect God and also OMG; since there cannot be any other standard other than OMG (by definition) creation will necessarily reflect OMG.
So anything which deviates from this standard will necessarily come from another source, as it would be impossible to come from the standard (OMG). This other sourse I referred to as corruption.
Because in creation humans are male and female, created to work together (the standard), anything which violates this standard will have to come from corruption as OMG requires that creation will reflect the requirement of a standard (nor can it come from any other standard as OMG requires only one standard).
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:50AM
Since it is impossible that homosexuality reflects this standard, it is impossible for it to come from creation, come from God, nor come from OMG. Because something must go wrong with the standard in order for homosexuality to exist. Homosexuality must come from the corruption of creation, the corruption of a necessary standard derived from OMG.
CLD| 3.19.13 @ 7:03AM
Now, finally after paragraphs and paragraphs of intellectual masturbation we finally come to it with your post of 1:49 am 19 March. Heaven be praised!
"Because in creation humans are male and female, created to work together (the standard), anything which violates this standard will have to come from corruption"
Because humans are male and female does not imply that men making love with men and women making love with women is immoral. And again, you have offered no argument that it does. You simply state -- dogmatically -- that it does mean this.
CLD| 3.19.13 @ 7:10AM
Now let's recap are dialogue:
I warned ejp about his psychological projection. You came back that he was being perfectly objective and justified this with a supposed conditional argument.
I accepted -- at least as far as there being objective morality in human affairs -- the premise of your argument (which I was under no obligation to do) but challenged the validity of your logic. You accused me of therefore not understanding logic at all!
The end result was your justifying your position with a statement of what is essentially religious dogma: God created two sexes and therefore homosexuality is bad. I say this is not reasoning at all.
There is no point in this conversation continuing. We are as compatible as matter and anti-matter. Your mind is so full of your religious beliefs that there is no room for anything else. I say these beliefs are fantasies. C'est ca.
CLD| 3.19.13 @ 6:50AM
Your statement about creation can be made intelligible when explained as you do just now. (You gave no explanation previously.) But how is your statement not now a contradiction? What exists consists of what is created (creation) plus what is not created? What is this not created -- uncreation?
The only way around that is to grant to powers other than the Supreme Being the ability to create. But then what need of a supreme being?
The rest of your statement only demonstrates what I've been saying all along: you simply assume God as a starting point. This is religious dogma being explicated in philosophical guise. Nothing more.
CLD| 3.19.13 @ 6:44AM
You DID NOT deduce God from anything. You simply assumed that God is necessary for OMG:
"If there is OMG, there will have to be a God. ... If there is a God then He is also the creator"
Two if statements hardly amounts to a deduction. Your argument assumes a supreme person as creator of the world as a starting point. You can deny that all you want and even believe your own denials, but that doesn't make them true.
As I stated above, I know perfectly well how conditional arguments work. My statement against supreme beings was a rejection of your entire cognitive framework; it was not meant as a means of refuting a conditional argument (which you never made anyway).
You don't get my point about motion & imperfection as an analogy yet I'm the one who doesn't grasp logical connections?! My analogy was an argument for the impossiblity of motion based on a PRESUMED but unknown perfection. Your argument against homosexuality is based on a presumed but unknown perfection.
CLD| 3.19.13 @ 6:31AM
A smile is brought to your face because I didn't alter my stance that religious dogma is held for psychological reasons. Really?
Can you give any argument as to why Christians hold that Jesus died for their sins, why Muslims hold Mohammed to be the last of all prophets, and Jews hold themselves to be God's chosen people, except that some psychological purpose (whether for individuals or the group) is served?
"A conditional is an argument where a claim is assumed true, for the sake of argument."
So what? Reread my 3.18.13 @ 6:37PM note above: I said your assertion of objective morality was the one thing in your comment I didn't oppose. I'm perfectly willing to assume OMG for the sake of argument. It's precisely your "deductions from the assumed premise" that I challenge.
Now just who are you, and what credentials have you, to challenge my ability to comprehend logic? The one who didn't follow the logic of an argument -- and then threw a verbal tantrum about it -- was you. Yet you think I keep my head up my rear end. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black nothing is.
Oh, and you can consider just what a religious belief in diety does for your own goodness since you are the one who introduced personal insults into this discussion.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 12:53PM
-Once you assume OMG, then God will follow from that assumption. OMG is God (something I said in my very first reply). Once you assume OMG then OMG must exist innately otherwise there isn't OMG; it exists, which is a necessary deduction from it is true, which was assumed. Which is about as pure as a deduction that one can get.. its automatic. God is the name given to that innate existence of OMG... heh That is far from another assumption, but a necessary condition deduced from the assumption that OMG is true.
Your reasoning is assuming OMG and God are separate. This is leading you to believe that I am just introducing God as another assumption, but that is false.
Which is why I keep asking if you deny that... give an example of OMG without God. But you can't, so you won't.
-About creation versus what exists. I gave the exact same explanation. Instead of saying "another option" and "another aspect to what exists" I used "creation + X = What exists". I am happy phrasing it in a different manner helped you 'see it' but I said the exact same thing.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 12:55PM
By defnition, nothing new can be added to creation, as that would mean another standard would exist. I'll use an example of written code. The code can be corrupted, without adding any new code, which will cause it to function in a corrupt way. There just needs to be a force that causes the corruption. Maybe I should have written it this way instead "Creation - X = What exists". Although this is also misleading as having the exact same parts of creation can be rearranged (by a force) and also cause corruption.
So no, another supreme power does not have to be added... but a new force would have to be.
I called it corruption. Otherwise both the standard and corruption of the standard would be... the Standard (almost like Yin/Yang, but not quite). This couldn't come from OMG as there would be no standard of good, but rather good and evil would together be the standard. X could be both A and not A, X could be both good and evil; in other words, there could be no standard. And hence no creation as OMG would require that there be no standard, nothing could have formed as only contradictions could be produced.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 12:57PM
-I did get your point about motion and imperfection. You claimed what I was saying was like saying a "pefect world could not allow for change[...] because change implies imperfection". I showed how change can occur with a known standard giving expected results without imperfection being involved. Which showed your claim was not analogous to a "perfect world could not allow for homosexuality".
In regards to creation we do know what the standard is; there is not an "unknown perfection" in regards to humans and male and female. Its the very standard which produces another human, that isn't an unknown perfection. Its verifiable and so simple a child can know I have a mom (female, egg) and a dad (male,sperm). Even children adopted by gay partners will not escape this known standard.
Creation reflects the standard of OMG. Creation being male and female does mean they are the standard. Any deviancy from the standard would be corruption. Not because I am declaring it to be so, but rather because it in fact is in opposition to the standard. Using sexual organs in a manner not consistent with the standard would be immoral. Having desires contrary to the standard would be immoral.
Chazael| 3.19.13 @ 1:00PM
-You might theoretically know how a conditional argument works... but if that is the case it was not reflected in your argument.
If you really knew you would never have made an argument against my "entire cognative framework" because it could never possibly refute anything. It would be completely superfluous; like adding into the conversation how much you like spring because of the flowers. They way to refute a logical error is just to point out the error, not go off on a different argument altogether.
So yes, my assertion still holds. If you teach, quit. If you are a student, study harder. If you have graduated, ask for a refund. That isn't out of spite, but out of a belief that we will all be held accountable for even our idle words (Matt 12:36) let alone what we teach (Jam 3:1). (A little snark is implied.)
As mentioned above I did make a conditional argument, but because you made the assumption that OMG and God are separate you couldn't see it.
-I will apologize for saying "while throwing the equivalent of a verabl tantrum". I reread what you wrote and it was more of an exasperation.
The doubling down on stupid still holds, now its tripling down. (For how that affects my belief in Jesus with Him being my standard see Matt 12:34 17:17 Luke 24:25.)
kingsmill| 3.16.13 @ 4:33PM
ejp:
Portman is not concerned with the love of his son. He is desirous of tapping into the huge wealth at the disposal of the "oppressed" economic elite known as the "gay" population. They have now set their sites on the so called "conservative" party.
Your argument is irrefutable-it is the natural law argument. The demagogic homosexual activists love to find a "gay" beaver or rat that proves "nature" puts a stamp of approval on homosexuality. This ignorance is below contempt.
CLD| 3.17.13 @ 8:21AM
ejp made NO natural law argument. He made no philosophical argument at all!
What he did was make an appeal to religious dogma -- which I pointed out in my reply to him.
"Portman is not concerned with the love of his son."
The motivations of politicians are forever suspect -- and should be. But to act like you can read the man's mind is absurd. Especially since his explanation is pefectly believable.
cl00bie| 3.15.13 @ 2:53PM
I find it reprehensible that I have to go to the state to get permission, via a marriage license, to receive a sacrament in my church. This is restricting the free exercise of my religion which is a clear violation of the first amendment. Should my priest solemnize a marriage without a license, he is liable for a $500 fine, a year in jail or both!
The state should get out of the marriage business, and allow any church who wants to "marry" gays to do it. Churches who don't want to, won't have to. If they want to set up "domestic partnership contracts" (which can have all the civil perks of marriage, but without the religious baggage) which apply to any two people regardless of sex or familial relationship they can do so. Then when you get married, you can decide whether you want your relationship to be entangled with the state or not.
Win-win for everyone, in my humble conservative (with libertarian bent) opinion.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 3:46PM
Marriage exists as a way to ensure that Men and Women will be bound together to raise their children, as it is the best way to raise kids. It is an institution for societies that have a conception of time binding---that is, can look forward to a future they are building generation by generation, with the generations tied to each other.
It is NOT about the couple first and foremost. Therefore, I oppose Gay Marriage (not Civil Union Relationships that convey next of kin rights to significant others, but Marriage) because the millenia old institution is something that has proved its purpose and connects societies' generations together.
ejp| 3.15.13 @ 4:17PM
The gay lobby was hoping for a new Pope who would validate their garbage social agenda. Instead, they got as their consolation prize for this week a "Republican" who singlehandedly cuts the ground out from under the rank and file social conservative movement and gives the bigots of the gay lobby a prize to justify the next phase of their crusade to destroy religious freedom in this country.
JP| 3.15.13 @ 10:58PM
Portman is part and parcel of the GOP efforts to make the Republican Party the Beltway version of Democrat Lite. I don't believe one ioda that Portman all of a sudden changed "deeply held Christian beliefs" because his son told him he is gay. Portman is playing a political game, in which the GOP Establishment wishes to force to gay life-style on the rest of the party. He uses over-ripe sentiment, his "deeply held Christian beliefs" and all the right atmospherics to force the hand of conservatives.
The Ohio Republican Party is DOA. It's finished. The national GOP is right behind them. They've about signed their own death warrant. The really have no clue what can of worms they've opened.