Blog Archives

Climate Change Controversy: More Than One Question

questionmarkscloudsThose who decry climate change “deniers” tend to lump them all into one group who reject the entire suite of concerns.  In reality, it is far more complicated than that.  The climate change controversy is made up of many separate, cascading propositions.

While climate alarmism appears to be premised upon the acceptance of the entire program, the “deniers” are a more diverse group that may reject, or merely be skeptical of, one or more points in the narrative. I believe it does a disservice to legitimate debate, at best, and is disingenuous, at worst, to overlook the many levels of questions that make up this issue.

Here are what I see as the high level breakdown of separate concerns in this debate.
Read the rest of this entry

Bumper Sticker Arguments – LGBT Edition

Try to argue with LGBT advocates and you will often find that their justifications sound a lot like bumper sticker slogans, and seldom go much deeper than that.  This is partly due to the fact that they aren’t offered as rational justifications at all (as though their preferences in these matters were subject to reason), but as a conversation stopper.  Even so, they deserve some response, but given the dismissive way these arguments are usually offered it may be in the interest of your time and their patience to stick with terse replies.

Here, then, is a list of some of these bumper sticker “arguments” along with some suggested bumper sticker responses.

“I was born this way”
  • Since it could be said that everyone is born with something, then you seem to be implying that everything is okay.
  • That’s a bold psychological claim. Can you prove it?
  • How does that make it automatically good? 
  • Is it even remotely possible that it could be a defect?
  • Some people are born without limbs. Are you saying they should celebrate that and not try to correct it in any way?
  • Does that mean that if you weren’t actually born that way, it would be bad?
  • A paedophile could make the same claim. What’s your point?

Read the rest of this entry

Answering James Rachels’ Defense of Homosexuality

The late Professor James Rachels was a secular philosopher who dealt with moral issues like animal rights, euthanasia, and Darwinian ethics.  I once challenged someone to give me his best arguments in favor of homosexuality and he chose for me a collection of quotes from Rachels.  Here are those quotes, along with my replies.

Is homosexuality a threat to society? No. “Apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their moral characters or in their contributions to society. The idea that homosexuals are somehow sinister characters proves to be a myth similar to the myth that black people are lazy or that Jews are avaricious.”

Read the rest of this entry

Why Ought the State Care About Same-Sex Marriage?


In a discussion comparing interracial marriage to same-sex marriage I was challenged with this question:

Please provide a rationale to explain why we should allow bi-racial couples to marry but not same-sex couples.

It is not in the interest of the State to grant privileges, special protections, or legitimacy to same-sex unions any more than for roommates or two sisters living together in retirement. The State only cares about marriage at all because family and reproduction are the foundation upon which the State continues to exist. Heterosexual, bi-racial couples are, by design, intrinsically able to participate in these thing. But same-sex unions are on the periphery of this institution, and cannot even counterfeit it unless they succeed in conscripting the services of the opposite sex (or the product of a heterosexual union). This is not to say that same-sex couples cannot form their own unions apart from the sanctioning of the state, or that they cannot lobby for whatever legal privileges they find attractive.
Read the rest of this entry

Responding to a critic of “Love the sinner, hate the sin”

Since I seem to be having trouble getting my comments past the moderator, I’ll try posting them here instead.

The following is a reply to this post by Ken Jansen:
“Love the Sinner”…um…Yeah, Don’t Give Me That Crap

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I appreciate that this phrase is seen as an annoying cliche (though any suggestion that homosexuality is not to be celebrated turns out to be a source of annoyance), but it actually does express something rational and meaningful to those who use it.

Your illustration of the color red fails to capture something very important to this discussion. Red is not a thing that has properties; red *is* a property. So, if you hate red, then that’s it, there’s nothing else about it to love. A somewhat better analogy would be a red shirt. One might say they love the shirt (its fabric, pattern, quality, etc.) but hate its red color — they like the thing, but dislike something about it.
Read the rest of this entry

askthe"Bigot"

A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.

WINTERY KNIGHT

...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal