(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

More Thoughts on Homosexuality

with 8 comments

  • Sharebar

Got a lot going on right now. I wanted to publish my next post on Jesus for President today, but it’s not quite done.

I couldn’t resist. A friend of mine alerted me to this the other day and I just had to post it. Maybe I should’ve just skipped this post and let this speak for itself.

(Click here for full-size image)

Written by Blake Huggins

April 24th, 2008 at 1:30 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

«
»
  • http://blog.hackingchristianity.net Jeremy!

    Hilarious!

  • http://mudpuppy.wordpress.com Mud Puppy

    Nice!

  • http://brendoman.com/smiles Andy

    He forgot, “I am not anti-life, I am pro choice!”

  • http://www.blakehuggins.com blake

    @andy. thanks for stopping by. that’s an interesting thought, but how does that have any bearing on the subject?

  • http://brendoman.com/smiles Andy

    Well, lets just say this, would you say that just because someone is pro-choice means that they are anti-life? If the answer is no, than it shows that it is possible to be pro something and not necessarily anti the opposite. However, if the answer is yes that opens a whole new can of worms that I would like to see discussed.

  • http://www.blakehuggins.com blake

    @andy. to stay somewhat on topic, (though i’d guess i likely agree with you on abortion, in general) do you really think your rule: it is possible to be pro something and not necessarily anti the opposite, holds true in the instances above? i would argue that history answers with a resounding, “no!”

  • http://brendoman.com/smiles Andy

    Well, I guess my major problem is that you have reduced everything to an either or fallacy. While you may be right about a couple of those on there, I think that the logic in the cartoon is quite bad.

    First it says because people with traditional views which they say are based Biblically have been wrong in the past, they are wrong currently.

    Second, it reduces those positions to an either/or with no middle ground. This is an easy way to take cheap shots. Let’s take a look at history. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He believed in what was called “Free Soil” doctrine. He believed, when elected president, that slavery can exist where it currently existed but should not be allowed to expand. This was the middle ground between abolition and popular sovereignty, which said that new states should vote to be slave or free. Would you say Lincoln was pro-slavery? I would think not, but he was no abolitionist.

    So while your cartoon is cute, if you think about it critically, you realize that there is plenty of middle ground.

  • http://www.blakehuggins.com blake

    @andy. first, this is not my cartoon. i merely found it and posted because i believe there is some truth to it. but it is–a cartoon. we should all remember that.

    i’m not saying there isn’t any middle ground. i think there is more middle ground on abortion than slavery, misogyny, or anti-homosexual sentiment. and that’s why i think there is some truth to the cartoon in that respect. actually, as far as i’m concerned, there is no middle ground on those last three. they’re just plain wrong. it’s easy to say that about the slavery and misogyny. not so much with homosexuality. at least not en masse. hopefully we can look back someday and say we we wrong.

    “…it says because people with traditional views which they say are based Biblically have been wrong in the past, they are wrong currently.”

    exactly. we are wrong about slavery and we used the bible. we were wrong about misogyny and we used the bible. we may be wrong about homosexuality and we are using the bible. and that is why something like this must be addressed with humility, because we’ve been wrong in the past and we’re sure to be wrong again. personally, i think we are wrong. and we’re using the bible to reinforce our subjugation of homosexuals.

    i don’t think the idea is that anything that claims to be “traditional” and uses the bible as reinforcement is absolutely wrong. i think the idea is that our subjugation of certain people groups based on the bible and in the name of “traditional values” is very wrong and deeply unchristian.

    i enjoy the dialog. thanks again for stopping by.