George B. Reed, Jr.
Two of the most vexatious issues that plague our society today are abortion and homosexuality. Unfortunately, we hear little civilized, objective dialog on either topic. The opposing sides argue from political, religious and emotional viewpoints and make little effort to uncover the real facts involved. My visceral reaction is ”a plague on both of their houses!”
There are two basic questions that must be answered before we can proceed any farther down polemical paths; when does human life actually begin and what is homosexuality, a choice or something inherited? If, in fact, life begins at conception, abortion is the taking of human life, pure and simple. And if sexual orientation is a choice, since desire towards one’s own gender isn’t exactly accommodated by physiological realities, it is abnormal. But are we looking at all the facts?
Pro-life advocates contend that at the very moment the male sperm cell contacts the female one-celled ovum a little person is created with a mind and a soul. They feel that to terminate this process at any point thereafter is taking a human life. But many in the scientific community, not all by any means, believe that at the time of conception and for some period afterwards whatever it is that was created has neither the neural sophistication nor the cellular differentiation to be considered a being of any kind yet, only the potential. Many scientists believe human life emerges at some point after conception, but they can’t seem to agree on exactly when. From a theological viewpoint pro - life and pro - choice advocates appear to be divided pretty much along liberal-conservative or denominational lines. But both sides hold views that need to be heard.
The homosexuality controversy harks back to the old nature-nurture debate in psychology. One side holds that sexual orientation is inborn while the other believes it is a choice. Much scientific evidence appears to be on the nature side here. Those who believe sexual preference is a choice cite mostly anecdotal evidence or rely on certain scriptural references that condemn homosexual behavior without addressing homosexuality itself. Personally, I can’t for the life of me remember when I decided I was attracted to females. In fact, I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t. There seems to be little evidence in neuroscience that suggests sexual preference has environmental or learned causes.
And then there is the ongoing uproar over gay marriage. But there is an easy solution, get the government out of the marriage business altogether and let the churches decide whom they will marry and whom they will not. State governments could then sanction civil unions which would confer certain rights on a couple irrespective of gender such as rights of survival, inheritance and emergency decision making. Marriage as a religious covenant could but wouldn’t necessarily have to exist. But if a religious marriage ceremony is important, same-sex couples could find churches that would marry them. Dissenting churches could maintain their integrity by refusing to do so; a win – win situation.
Until we as a society convene our best legal, scientific and theological minds and address these issues objectively, fairly and dispassionately, these sticky controversies will remain in the name-calling stage where they mostly are today.
George B. Reed, Jr. is retired from AT&T and a former history teacher in the Hamilton County school system. He lives in Fort Oglethorpe and can be reached at reed1600@bellsouth.net or 706-858-3501.
Citation needed. Boy,is it needed.I'll thank you to speak for your own narrow world view,bitte.
Note how the admiration of faraway lands usually takes place from the safety and comfort of ...America.
Everyone wants a Free Tibet. No one wants to free Tibet.
Even setting up the matter in that way is problematic. Homosexuality isn't an "issue"; it's just a fact of life, like bipedalism or heliocentrism. Its obvious genetic component is a matter for scientific inquiry, but it isn't really relevant when it comes to public policy matters regarding queer folk. Those who would legally persecute homosexuals by denying them marriage rights, jailing them for their private sexual practices, etc. think it's relevant only because it touches on their objections to homosexuals, which are religiously based, or, more particularly, pseudo-religiously based.
The set-up for the abortion discussion is, similarly, flawed. The relevant question isn't when the vague notion of "life" begins (the very fact that it is vague is why it's used in this way). Life precedes conception--dead tissue can't reproduce. The relevant question is whether or not an embryo, from the moment of conception, is a human being. Science offers no controversy on that point: it isn't. The only contrary view on that point is religious--or, again, pseudo-religious--in nature. When that embryo will become enough of a human being to merit some degree of legal concern is, like the degree of concern itself, something that will be argued into infinity. It's worth noting, however, that nearly all abortions (88-92%) occur in the earliest period of pregnancy (over half within the first 8 weeks).
The matter of churches marrying gay couples is not an issue; churches are private institutions, and either will or won't do that, according to their own preference, and no public policy will have any say in that.
Orwell is my name not a fictitious label I had behind because I am ashamed to own my opinion.
You can sleep better believing the "revisionist" versions of history are wrong. Everyone chooses to "overlook" something that doesn't fit their worldview. But that won't make the truth go away.
Then it's simply a matter of your having gotten it STUNNINGLY wrong. Read more.
One of the many things you'll learn is that the closest thing the modern world has seen to an actual example of a society where "religion was forsaken" is Sweden, which has the largest atheist population in the world, per capita, the devout only make up about 25% of the population, and they've built a society that is the envy of everyone who knows anything about it at all.
These matters are a great deal more complex than reactionary demagogues would like people to believe.
Proverbs 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife. ~I believe you have not read it entirely. There are no contradictions if read in context. There are guidelines to reading the bible just like my employee handbook says I cannot wear jeans and then in another place, it says I can wear jeans.
Nazi were religious and they claimed to be Christians but that was where it ended. Unless they were trusting in the saving power of Christ' death burial and resurrection for their Salvation, they are heading the same place as the pope...hell.
Yeah right! Those who ignore history will repeat it. Godliness has never brought anything good to societies. War and the genocide of millions of innocent lives were the results of these Godless utopias.
Oh yes, by all means lets get God out of the way so we can get the party started.
God forgive this country for its deliberate ignorance and rejection of You.