Around the Blogosphere 6-4-05

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

Isaiah got into the peanut butter this week.

The 140th Carnival of the Vanities is at Blog Business World. My Affirmative Action, Part X: Race as a Qualification is part of it.

Christian Carnival LXXII is at A Physicist's Perspective. My Baptism for the Dead is among the entries.

David Velleman looks at genetics and homosexuality. I agree with almost everything he says, with the only notable exception his insistence that there is no moral dimension to homosexuality.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Around the Blogosphere 6-4-05.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://movabletype.ektopos.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1329

Inspired by Parableman, Pseudopolymath, and Enwe's Metablog, I thought I'd try something new: a round-up of web items that might interest readers of this blog... *Ever been begged for a better grade? (Ever been the begger?) Alicia Shepard of the... Read More

3 Comments

Do you happen to know where next week's carnival is? I can't find out anywhere.

I know you disagree but being gay and having some understanding of why, i would tend to agree with him. back in fifth grade tere was no taboo for me to fear or rebel against and no understanding that liking guys was wrong. it was just what turned me on. later after I realized that people in church were talking about people like me than i started to have problems and develop neurosis about it. but if I had been able to be honest about it I wouldn't have had the problems that latter developed by having to hide my life from my family.

You need to be a little careful here, because many people mistake what the biblical teaching is. It never says that liking guys would be wrong. All it says is that sex between two men is against God's law.

As for your main point, I think you're right. It's a bad idea to try to justify a moral claim to someone who disagrees with you by saying it's immediately obvious to you, when it's not immediately obvious to the other person. Some people arrive at moral views that they didn't have when they were younger, and sometimes that's good and sometimes not. I think people tend to mature in many ways as they get older, but I also think people can succumb to peer pressure in accepting the moral views of those around them.

I don't think that relates to anything I was saying, though. I was simply saying that I don't think David Velleman is right in saying that there's no moral element to homosexuality. I didn't say I could prove that by showing that everyone thinks gay sex is wrong from a very young age. Anyone who believes in fallen humanity will think much of what we believe is to justify wrong behavior, so we therefore shouldn't assume that our moral starting points will always be right. According to one influential account of human nature, we're often going to arrive at wrong conclusions about our actions because it's in our nature to do that.

I suspect that the only reason many straight people can be so horrified at homsoexuality isn't primarily because of an inborn moral faculty that sees it to be wrong but because they don't have any tendencies in that direction and therefore don't mind seeing it as bad. If you try to get them to do the same thing about lusting after people they're not married to, they'll say that's natural.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04