According to The Boston Pilot, the oldest Roman Catholic newspaper in America, if science suggests that gay people are made in the womb, it must be because Satan is interfering with pregnant women.
The newspaper ran a column — which it has now pulled — saying that:
“…the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.”
It also said that natural disasters are caused by the evil one rather than, for example, tectonic plate movements.
Of course, they ended up with a lot of egg on their face, and did a 180.
Just the fact alone that these people can even contemplate such an “explanation,” let alone put it forward in all earnest, shows what addled, unwholesome minds they have. In terms of their own dogma, it would give doctrinal grounds for spurning gays, perhaps even persecuting them, because they have, after all, been touched by the devil.
I don’t think there’s a stick big enough with which to smack such people’s knuckles so that they let go of the third century and join the rest of humanity in the 21st.
Starting I totally agree with the above statements. As a gay man I am very big on gay rights and these people are totally evil but this is also interesting to consider:
Gay Atheist: ‘I have a magazine that I write covering topics of atheism and homosexuality’
Gay Jew for Jesus: ‘Wow, I wrote a wonderful article on how we can reconcile religion with homosexuality. Although I know that your readers are Atheist perhaps they will find it interesting.’
Gay Atheist: ‘Well, I do not think that would be a good article for my magazine. I personally think that religion is not reconcilable with homosexuality. Most of my readers are of the same opinion. And I personally work very hard to find advertising to pay for my magazine.’
Gay Jew for Jesus: ‘That is discrimination and I am going to the newspapers about this. I cannot believe that another gay man can be as bigoted as you.’
Will post something more solid on the above topic later.
everything that is fun, is sin. sex is sin. drugs is sin. getting pissed is sin. so why would gay sex be any different?
i read awhile ago, cant remember where, that homosexuality became an issue, because kings needed people to breed, so that he could makes his armies bigger. to defend his borders. or something to that effect.
as far as i can see, cultures outside of the xtian scope, accepted homosexuality as part of life. Greeks and Romans the most obvious. Native americans, the celts…
i want to freak out, when people have conversations, that imply that being gay, is a new thing.
i have heard that chemicals in the food and packaging, cause more people to be gay. that contraceptives in the water make more people gay. hormones in your meat. that it’s fashionable to be gay, so everyone is doing it.
then i am stuck between arguing the case with them, or just shaking my head.
and people say ‘there were no gays before’. ehm, i beg to differ. it’s just gay individuals were tortured, ostraced, or ahem, became clergy. imagine having to marry some woman, because your parents expect you to, and you have to somehow have sex with her, because it’s your duty to procreate. while you are desperately in love with the neighbour’s son instead. so, what do? join the clergy. you will only marginally dissapoint your parents, and still keep face.
And PS, of all the peadophiles caught, less than 1% are gay.
Not if you’re doing it sanctioned by the church, in the right manner and way, and preferably no contraceptives. In that case sex is awesome. (See some psalm that mixes lots of fruit and nookie - Oh the irony)
I’m one of those people who thinks that every vice is it’s own punishment, and that people with vices should be left alone. (Not saying homosexuality is a vice, just sayin…)
... kings needed people to breed, so that he could makes his armies bigger. to defend his borders. or something to that effect.
If that is the case, or say, the church makes homosexuals go into heterosexual marriages for the sake of having children. I’d say they are actually PROMOTING homosexual genes and may be helping to create more of the very people they’re trying to prevent. (even more irony)
Greeks and Romans the most obvious.
I think their armies had a “Do ask, please tell!” mantra.
Although the newspaper article has been pulled, I cannot see that the column’s author, Daniel Avila has changed his point of view. The only way to counter irrationality is rationality. With rationality you have reality on your side. This is the only way to counter religious stupidity. It is a slow but gradual process. Suppressing homophobia does not mean that it will go away since it does not attack the core emotional roots of the problem in people that are homophobic or any other reasons why people are homophobic. Sometimes it only means that the wound is festering underneath. This is the problem that the LGBTQIA (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and asexual) community has to address. We all should be educated in doing so and not just gay rights. Alas I have bought myself a book on homophobia but cannot find time to read it since I have so much reading to get through.
I really don’t want to go too much off topic here, and I realize that the whole ‘gay-pride’ thing is a very strong (and necessary and sometimes successful) movement. And I also obviously think that discrimination against somebody who might be/think/look/do things differently than what one is used to is just silly and stupid and morally wrong.
I’m trying to figure out WHY the Church (or any other religious organization) would have ANY interest in the sexual preferences of random individuals who have nothing ot do with their church, and whether that church shows the same interest in the sexual preferences of its members. I wonder if the dominee from that church discusses things like ‘the bible says that the man should always be on top’ when he does huisbesoek?
Seriously, how/ with whom/ how/ how often I have sex is absolutely nobody’s business except mine and the person who I am sleeping with. (it would be the business of my significant other too if I had one and that was part of our deal).
I care if you’re gay just about as much as you care whether I prefer to be on top.
Atheists cannot sin, by definition “Sin” is a religious concept and is often described as “offending God” (Barker, Dan “Godless”), therefore since there is no god, there can be no sin! QED?? Love it to be sinless…that is not to say I am guiltless however!
I think this is just another example of biased cherry-picking by people who already have an established bigotry against one thing or another. It’s just very helpful for them to search the bible and find scripture to support their point. They don’t have an opinion about “being on the bottom” so they just couldn’t care what the bible says about it. The only reason they care what the bible says about homosexuality is because they are desperately seeking a justification for their bigotry. Those Christians who don’t have this homophobia claim you can reconcile scripture and homosexuality. Those who don’t, say you can’t, and hence homosexuality is evil.
A good way to highlight this is point out that they ignore some quite-telling bits about David and Jonathan. Even though that whole story is rife with indications that they were gay, the true homophobe will claim that nowhere does it blankly STATE that they were gay, and thus it doesn’t count. They NEED to do this because God is quite a David fan, and if David were gay/bi, this would destroy their whole argument.
In the end interpretation allows the reader to think they can insert whatever they think into the bible and claim it as the “correct interpretation”. It seems to me that this biased reading actually sometimes makes the reader think they’ve “discovered” this “truth” instead of going looking for it. That’s one of the reasons that the “proper context” and “interpretation” defense apologists use falls flat on it’s face. (I feel like I’ve committed many atrocities against grammar in this post, my apologies, because I don’t know why)
If you have really accepted your sexuality you can use homophobia to help you get thick skinned. I listen to Eminem and his homophobic statements don’t effect me anymore. The Ayn Rand Institute refuse to take an official stand that Ayn Rand was wrong about homosexuality. But now I have accepted it and shift the good from the bad. So I guess that homophobia can be everywhere. The problem comes when people want to initiate force against the gay community. Homophobia is dangerous and can kill.
thus why i support Pride every year I can. It’s not about moffies and letties walking the streets and making a spectacle. It’s about awareness. And support.
There are (I’m sure) some kind of school involvement with race-integration and getting kids not be racist. surely getting kids not to be homophobic must be part and parcel of, i dont know, sex-ed?
Wow I can’t believe they not only thought it, but published it. Amazing in the worst possible way. How do they not get incarcerated under some mental health act?! Roman Catholics out of all the godsquad?! So is Satan interfering with your homosexual paedophile priests also?! Interesting then that the age of consent in the vatican is still 12…