[Vision2020] Homosexuality

[Chasuk]

On 11/8/05, Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:

> I don't know what... is going on in his [Joe's] head and why he feels the way he does; however, I felt it important to defend myself, and I ask concerned readers to review the posts on this subject between us.

That's what I attempt here, per your request.

I know, I'm doing this backwards, responding to the final paragraph
before responding to the first.  I wasn't going to respond at all, but
the question quoted above jumped out at me.  However, there is an
issue that I think needs clarifying before a response is possible, and
this clarification pertains to statements made earlier in your post,
which is why I return to those statements now.

First, you state:

> I also thought that Joe and I were able to keep it on a professional level, which is what I am used to as an analytic philosopher.

Then:

> Most of my views and experience with the issue stems more from standard American evangelicalism

To me, these statements conflict.  I see it as trying to wear two hats
as once.  Your answers were couched in the language of one faithful
member of a flock speaking to another member of that same flock, not
in the voice of an analytical philosopher, but as someone expounding
the tenets of a shared faith, perhaps for purposes of mutual
edification.

This approach is expected when you are posting to a forum where most
of those engaged in the dialogue are are at least potential believers
in the same religious paradigm, such as your example from Doug
Wilson's blog.  My mother is Born Again and uses a vocabulary which
fits perfectly within her Christian subgroup, but she doesn't mix this
vocabulary with the vocabulary of radical existentialism or Marxism,
because the subjects of those vocabularies have no obvious common
ground.  The professionalism (in the sense of behavior) of analytical
philosophy and American evangelicalism are not mutually exclusive, but
nor are they comfortable bedfellows.

Returning to your first paragraph:

> So is Joe correct in his assessment of me?

I think that Joe is probably frustrated because the dialogue has not
proceeded using a 	bilateral idiom (or frame of reference), but I
don't think that his assessment of you is negative.  I could be wrong,
but that is my impression.

I enjoy reading your posts, and I hope they continue.  Please don't
let this disagreement dissuade you from further contributions.