In Dean We Trust (WARNING: Moral Philosophy Ahead)

Okay, it's time to go after the Idiot again, as he has once again proven that he is both very confused about religion and very naive about the intelligence of the American people.

Let's look at a few examples from this article, entitled "Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions:"

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

This is off to a good start, isn't it? I try to avoid writing about issues concerning "teh ghey" on this blog, but as a Christian, I feel it's my duty to point out that Howard "praise the Lord (but only in the South)" Dean is insulting my religion when he does things like this. Read on:

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday.

First of all, I think that's the most verbally loaded statement he's ever made. "Overwhelming...very significant...substantial..." I've seen this technique used in several debates.

Basically, the idea is to convince the casual observer that you're so sure of yourself that only an idiot would disagree with you. But does he provide any proof to back up his statements? Of course not. Heck, even Crap Weasel used a pie chart. Howie should be able to do better than this.

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

I'm really sick of people saying that. Of course, I'm not surprised that a moron like Dean would say it, but I'm sick of it. That statement is not logical. To prove it, let's apply a bit of Kantian philosophy and see if it can be universalized (I knew taking a semester of moral philosophy would pay off eventually).

First, we have to analyze the basic implications of Dean's statement. He asserts that homosexuals exist, which is obviously true. He then asserts his belief that God created homosexuals, which is also true, although we'll see where this falls apart later on. Now, the third part of the statement tells us that since God created homosexuals, and God, as a supreme being, cannot create sin, then homosexuality is not a sin. Makes sense, right?

Well, let's see what the Kantian model says. I don't agree with all of Kant's theories, but one of them, commonly known as the Categorical Imperative, basically describes logical moral views. He says that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law."

What this means is that if you act a certain way in a certain situation, and you believe that your action was the correct one, then you should expect everyone who is in that situation to act the same way without exception.

How does this apply to Dean's logic? Well, he seems to believe that homosexuals can't be committing a sin because God created them that way. However, if we apply the Categorical Imperative, we see that by Dean's reasoning, nobody created by God can be a sinner. Since everyone is created by God, that means there is no sin, at least according to his logic.

The problem is confusing homosexuality, a tendency to be sexually attracted to one's own gender, with homosexual activity. This is a Santorum situation. Homosexuality is, in fact, not a sin. It's acting on those urges that is sinful, and that's the point that Dean misses.

Let's apply the Categorical Imperative again, this time to a different situation. We'll look at psychopaths this time. Now, psychopaths often commit murder as a result of their mental condition, but do we decide that the murder should go unpunished? Of course not.

We also don't say that it's okay because God created them. Know why? Because although God may have created psychopaths, he didn't tell them to kill people. In fact, he issued a commandment against it.

However, by Dean logic, an inclination and an action are the same thing, and both can be traced back to their Creator. This, unfortunately, presents us with a contradiction, because the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts and murder.

We can even replace various components of Dean's first statement with components of this hypothetical situation and see if they measure up under the scrutiny of the Categorical Imperative. Example:

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought murder is a sin, he would not have created psychopaths."

See how much less sense this makes when applied to something that's basically a universal sin? However, as soon as we get into a heated issue like "gay rights," the Scripture twisting begins.

Of course, this all rests on the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are, which is, in terms of critical thinking, more or less an argument from nature. That's a really murky area.

This is where it gets more religious, because you have to eliminate all the contradictions. If you call yourself a Christian, it means you believe the Bible is the word of God and is 100% accurate. Therefore, if the Bible says something is a sin, a Christian believes that it is.

That's why this whole thing bothers me. I know that non-theists can argue about nature vs. nurture until the cows come home, but if you call yourself a Christian, as Dean seems to be doing, you have to accept the belief that the Bible is true, and the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, even if God did create homosexuals, rather than homosexuality being a learned behavior, you still have to believe that it's sinful to act on it.

Just as psychopaths are still murderers when they kill as a result of their condition, homosexuals are still committing Biblical sin when they act on their attraction to members of their own gender. You can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian if you don't accept that.

Finally, before accusations of homophobia start to fly, I'll point out one more thing that seems to get lost in this argument. The Bible also says that premarital sex is wrong, but nobody who points this out is called a heterophobe. At worst, they're called prudes or some other dumb word.

I've always wondered why this is. Why is it that Christians are allowed to view one sexual act as sinful while being called hateful bigots for believing the same about another sexual act? And in both cases, can you argue that because God created humans with a sex drive, then no sex act is a sin?

I'd like to hear the opposition explain that one WITHOUT using nasty words.

Good luck.

Posted by CD on January 8, 2004 09:05 PM
Category: