TxAgPreacher said:
schmendeler said:
Was the acceptance of miscegenation queer theory?
It may have been the birth pangs of postmodernism in this country. Not all societal norms are good, and not all are bad, but the family, and gender roles are not to be tampered with. The traditional family is the backbone of civilization. Science has proven that the best outcomes come from the traditional family. It brings stability It has stood the test of time in the best way possible.
Transexual ideology is new and radical, and based on John Money's experiment. Look it up. The kid killed himself, and yet we subject our youth to it.
"Science has proven that the best outcomes come from the traditional family. . . "
I hope this threw up red flags for everyone else. Using science to validate moral and value statements means you aren't using science. Nevertheless, I'm open to exploring what I think you mean with this statement.
First, I think we need to ask a question to identify the objectives that determine 'best outcome'. What is the metric being used? Is it mental health, physical health, level of education, wealth, material success, how often someone prays, how many followers they have on twitter? And then I think we need to ask if there are other family arrangements that can also result in desired outcomes. I think that questions like this are important to ask because we may have different definitions of what the best outcome is. Even amongst Christians, I would bet that you will find variation in answers to these questions.
For the next question, I want to be clear that I am no interested in challenging your personal beliefs about right or wrong. I am only interested in challenging what you think the role of government ought to be. So. . . what should the role of government be?
For me, I accept that the government has a general well being in the success and happiness and stability of the citizens its supposed to represent. As such, it does not feel like an egregious crossing of lines for the government to generally endorse general well being. What does feel like a crossing of the line is if the government is to specifically endorse how we must achieve that well being.
For example, a statement from a government official recommending good eating habits and exercise is not problematic in my opinion. However, a statement from a government official saying that the US government endorses one restaurant chain and one exercise equipment manufacturer and rejects all other restaurants and exercise equipment is too far. I think most of us would agree that restaurants and exercise equipment manufacturers should compete for our business free of the government placing its thumb on the balance.
The same is true, to me, for the marketplace of ideas. For the government to generally promote family or relationships is fine. To say that family and relationships must be 'x' is too far. Again, let people explore the marketplace of ideas and decide. I do not believe it should be the role of government to place its thumb on the balance and push people toward one set of beliefs or the other.
Regarding Biden's statement: If this were the only statement he made, it would be problematic. But, given the WH issues statements constantly in support of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, LGBTQ, and everyone else . . . and given the fact that I've never seen a Biden statement specifically objecting to the idea of Christianity, I'm very much inclined to say that he is not putting his finger down in a problematic manner. I have no doubt that you can find examples where Biden or government persons have crossed that line. And make no mistake, for every example you find, I'll find 100 examples of a president or other government representative crossing the line in favor of Christianity. And this is why I find the outrage at the Biden statement so absurd. In 5 minutes, I bet I could find 50 examples of conservative representatives very specifically condemning LGBTQ lifestyles. It doesn't bother you, because you agree with it. But, I think you ought to be consistent with what you feel government's role is in the discussion.
All of that said, I know I've made suggestions that you may be in favor of Christian fascist theocracy. So that we understand where you stand, what do you favor?
