Well, I mean is this not the byproduct of biasing the material over everything else?
I'd back up a minute to a topic that has all but been totally routed in the wider culture. Sex prior to marriage. The language these days all centers around words and phrases like "consent," "consenting adults," , etc. So in a hypothetical relationship between a guy and girl for a one night stand, the "relationship" would pass muster because the resulting sex would be consensual which checks the box. However, if set female gets pregnant, then that is very much a function of natural process and inherent nature (IE: the desire to procreate), but is it not possible that it is an overall bad thing for the girl when she either opts to have the child or decides to have an abortion? Many would argue no, of course, but I think an honest assessment would be the consequences are bad even though it may be a perfectly "natural" inclination. At the very base of it, the event will cost resources the poor girl likely doesn't have, strain relationships, and induce new stress into her life. Obviously, I think there are even greater consequences, but you get the point, I hope.
I mean, essentially, the language of our day is that if it's genetic, it's more or less permissible and needs acceptance. This front just happens to be hottest in the area of sexuality. It's already the working assumption in the arena of heterosexuality and homosexuality, with the latter actually skipping over any such confirming discovery and simply being presumed at this point.
Then, we have the Bible over there screaming in the book of Romans, of course, that it's more or less a genetic disposition to be a sinner, but that does not mean we must follow through on the genetics! It's really a very strange conversation about destiny if you think about it. I'd love to be smart enough to develop an apologetical argument to this, but to me this quickly becomes an appeal to reason and/or emotions. I'm not terribly convinced that we can develop a material rejoinder to the argument that purports empirical data simply says it's natural. It's no longer a physical argument, but rather very much a spiritual one.
And River, the same thing was said about homosexuality, so while no one in this conversation may be saying let's make it acceptable, it's the ultimate backdoor to acceptance as soon as it's declared to be genetic. If one is determined to be subject to genetics, then the responsibility begins to get transferred either to society to accept the thing and make it 100% okay or society is supposed to bear the costs of the person's thing. In other words, it's not the pedophiles fault, because humanity must use science to combat this given that this is known to be genetic. Which, traditionally, that has resulted in eventual acceptance. For evidence of this, see where we are at in the drug war and with homosexuality.
I'd back up a minute to a topic that has all but been totally routed in the wider culture. Sex prior to marriage. The language these days all centers around words and phrases like "consent," "consenting adults," , etc. So in a hypothetical relationship between a guy and girl for a one night stand, the "relationship" would pass muster because the resulting sex would be consensual which checks the box. However, if set female gets pregnant, then that is very much a function of natural process and inherent nature (IE: the desire to procreate), but is it not possible that it is an overall bad thing for the girl when she either opts to have the child or decides to have an abortion? Many would argue no, of course, but I think an honest assessment would be the consequences are bad even though it may be a perfectly "natural" inclination. At the very base of it, the event will cost resources the poor girl likely doesn't have, strain relationships, and induce new stress into her life. Obviously, I think there are even greater consequences, but you get the point, I hope.
I mean, essentially, the language of our day is that if it's genetic, it's more or less permissible and needs acceptance. This front just happens to be hottest in the area of sexuality. It's already the working assumption in the arena of heterosexuality and homosexuality, with the latter actually skipping over any such confirming discovery and simply being presumed at this point.
Then, we have the Bible over there screaming in the book of Romans, of course, that it's more or less a genetic disposition to be a sinner, but that does not mean we must follow through on the genetics! It's really a very strange conversation about destiny if you think about it. I'd love to be smart enough to develop an apologetical argument to this, but to me this quickly becomes an appeal to reason and/or emotions. I'm not terribly convinced that we can develop a material rejoinder to the argument that purports empirical data simply says it's natural. It's no longer a physical argument, but rather very much a spiritual one.
And River, the same thing was said about homosexuality, so while no one in this conversation may be saying let's make it acceptable, it's the ultimate backdoor to acceptance as soon as it's declared to be genetic. If one is determined to be subject to genetics, then the responsibility begins to get transferred either to society to accept the thing and make it 100% okay or society is supposed to bear the costs of the person's thing. In other words, it's not the pedophiles fault, because humanity must use science to combat this given that this is known to be genetic. Which, traditionally, that has resulted in eventual acceptance. For evidence of this, see where we are at in the drug war and with homosexuality.
