why are christians obsessed with gay sex?
The fact of the matter is that no one has been able to prove a biological cause for homosexuality. Homosexuals have been known to have gotten married and produced children the normal way, which suggests that there is nothing abnormal about them physically. What we are dealing with here is a psychological condition. (TRIBULATION SAINT)
There are a lot of things about the human experience that most of us would like to change and improve. Apart from the atrocious global inequalities that allow millions to starve and suffer from malnutrition while millions elsewhere feast on an overabundance of wasted food, there are innumerable examples of needless suffering within every community in every country.
For those members of the human race motivated to campaign for change and actively make a difference, there is an abundance of worthwhile projects to support.
The stories of the Christian god Jesus are an illustration of someone who fought for change. From humble beginnings he grew to attract a large following eager to make changes in their lives.
According to the stories of his life, his main concern was that people treat each other with respect and love. He also taught that in order to be ‘perfect’, a person would have to give up all their possessions.
Something he had little time for was people who self-righteously judged other people, supposedly based on the laws of his father god God. In fact, in a culture specific story of sexual misbehaviour, he shamed people for thinking they had the right to judge a woman who had cheated on her husband.
Jesus didn’t mention gay marriage. In fact, Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality at all. So, isn’t it rather odd that many of his followers in 2015 have abandoned his teachings on loving others and on not judging others, in favour of fabricating hate-filled, discriminatory and angry messages they claim their god would have taught about gay marriage?
My message is to Christians who can’t get their head round these facts that Jesus wasn’t interested in condemning any traditionally persecuted groups of society, that Jesus wasn’t interested in condemning homosexuality, that Jesus didn’t have an opinion on gay marriage. Please, find something else that is actually worthwhile to fight against – fight against poverty, fight against disease, fight against animal cruelty, fight against something that will actually make a positive different to suffering. Stop heaping more on the world with your ignorant ramblings and nasty campaigns.
Nicely put, my minority friend. It would indeed be refreshing if Christians devoted their time to actually fighting the good fight, the worthwhile and noble fight, rather than dreaming incessantly, day and night, night and day about gay sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s so weird the disconnect they have between the story of Jesus and their behaviour on matters of a sexual nature. We have one down below who clearly has a personal struggle. There’s no other explanation for such vitriolic obsession.
LikeLike
Yes there is. They’re closets gays, and they hate themselves for it. They’re obsessed with gay sex because they want it, and have transformed that into a kind of weird suffering-fest which has manifested outwardly as hate.
Now, that’ll be $4,000, and I’ll see you again, next Tuesday, 3pm. No need to bring another apple 😉
LikeLike
Ah yes, that’s what I meant when I said ‘personal struggle’. Now give me my money back!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quakers: How are we led to live out our faith in a world where we see systemic injustice and increasing inequality?…
We are all activists and we are all worshippers. Our worship and action spring from the same spiritual source. The light [God’s guidance] not only illumines us but pushes us to seek change.
We recognise the problems in the world and the urgency of acting on them. Our current political and (especially) economic systems only recognise and encourage part of the human condition, the selfish, competitive, greedy part. So much of what is good and beautiful and true in the world is being trashed. The model of power as domination needs to be challenged and replaced with a model of power as service to the community; in doing this, we need to live our testimony and hold firm to its source in faith…
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are a lot of good people among Christians. In fact I would as far as to say, that most people identifying Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoans, Taoists and what ever religions are good, and good willing. Most have a healthy idea of morals. Some are handicapped in some individual areas, but that applies to us atheists as well.
We should rather try to help such people who have difficulties to see what is moral, than to ridicule them, but sometimes it is even necessary to ridicule the most obnoxious of them to wake up the rest of them and us. Would you agree?
LikeLike
After Violet quoted Michelle Lesley, I went and engaged. There I am moderately courteous, and try to explain. It is irritating that she has not let my last comment through moderation, as it is temperate and pertinent.
However, yes, I use ridicule, shock tactics- “I would rather go to Hell than to Heaven with the God you have created” etc- mockery, whatever feels right at the time. I doubt I persuade many, but some undecideds reading might listen, and some bigots might be discouraged that the only comments they get are hostile.
LikeLike
You know what, Clare? You have every right to use whatever means you want – ridicule, shock tactics, mockery – against their insidious, oppressive, hateful beliefs; beliefs that HURT people. Whatever it takes to bring their nasty, bigoted opinions to light, I say GO FOR IT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds like the Tory manifesto! 😉
LikeLike
Quakers are the Green Party at prayer.
LikeLike
Violet, one problem is that the endorsement of sexual idolatry tends to be the precursor to a culture’s fall. Completely outside of religion here, the promotion of homosexuality played a significant role in the decline of both Greece and Rome. The warrior classes often “married,” young boys because women were perceived to soften men, to make them less inclined to partake in the violence that was required of them. There may well be some truth to that, science has shown us men actually do absorb oxytocin from women.
Biblically speaking, sexual idolatry was always the precursor to a civilization’s destruction, too. Add in the fact that marriage is such a significant part of Christianity, that Christ is actually wedded to His church, that our very relationship with God is not unlike that of a husband and wife’s, and Christians have multiple reasons to be concerned.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “endorsement of sexual idolatry”? Promotion of homosexuality was a feature of Roman culture up until the early 300’s when the Catholic and Orthodox churches took over things. It took another 180 years for the Western Empire to fall. By your reasoning, it was heterosexual emphasis that caused the Western Roman culture to fall then. For the Eastern Empire, it lasted until the Turks ousted it. Are you going to suggest that 1100 years of further Christian influence promoted homosexuality?
There’s literally zero historical evidence that homosexuality has caused a decline in anything except maybe birthrates.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So, by this totally and unsubstantiated reasoning, one could conclude that homosexuality caused the fall of the Greek, Roman, Visigoth, Mongol, Dutch, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, British, Belgian, Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese empires?
Have you ever heard of finance and administration? Inability to manage that causes empires to fall. Not men having sex together.
I’m not even going to address your appalling and grossly inaccurate summary of early European history.
Yeah yeah Violet, she’s your great blogging buddy and she’s also greatly wrong. Totally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to clarify, I only intervene to request a change in behaviour when there are sustained and unnecessary personal attacks. Insanity is wrong on more than almost everything and I appreciate that readers (including myself) will comment on those areas.
LikeLike
Well wrong is of course, relative. Eg, opinions are relative. But assessmrnt of the fall of the Roman empire being due to homosexuality, is, um, wrong.
LikeLike
what does it bother you who is having sex with whom and how?
Do you find yourself wanting to sleep with other men other than your husband? Or do you think you may become a prostitute if prostitution were legalised?
Your Jesus christ, if he lived, died too soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IB, you personify the type of person Jesus lambasted. You are most definitely a Christian but , not a follower of the narrative construct Jesus of Nazareth.
A bigot to the core. You do your ‘faith” proud.
LikeLike
Hahaha, now you are reaching insanitybytes 22. It is a curious thought, that the purpose of the marriage is to produce male children to fight the wars to uphold some culture. Do you know who else thought so? Mussolini.
Indeed some of the ancient Greek philosophers considered, that real love could only exist between fighting men, as only they could save each others lives in combat, but the notion was a direct result of the phalanx wich can stand in front of by far superior numbers because the warriors in the phalanx support each other in an exeptional way. The phalanx made the Greek very popular mercenaries in Mesopotamia and rest of the Near-East and from those expeditions they brought with them to Greece the fruit of the ancient cultures wich gave rise to a thirst to conquer them all, as the Macedonians later did. The phalanx also caused democracy, because as long as the society was dependable on it to survive, all men who fought in it had to be treated equal. It is a chain only as strong as the weakest link. The Romans developed the phalanx further by the maniple system, but the fact of the matter is that these fighting styles gave rise to the ancient Greek civilization as well as the Roman empire and homosexuality coexisted all the time. It could not be a reason for their demise as it was there from the beginning. Christianity however appeared much later and after it had grabbed political power in the Roman empire, the empire fell. What do you think of that “coincidence”?
Curioiusly enough, in hellenistic culture – especially in the Spartan city state – there was a custom to emphazise the difference between girls and boys from early on and create to them separate cultures and lives long before they had reached sexuality. So, if homosexuality really is a cultural trait, as suggested in the quote in the topic post, then buying barbies and pink clothes and toys to girl children promotes cultural homosexuality as much as buying cars and military toys to boys. If the quoted Christian is right about it being a psychological condition, then it must have something to do with individuals being forced into very strict roles according to their physical gender, rather than them being able to choose on their own what they want from themselves, because what ever causes homosexuality, it is not something the inviduals choose for themselves. Is it? A society condemning homosexuality for certain does not make it any less, it only hides it and promotes all sorts of problems of repressed sexuality as we can see from what happens with the Catholic priests, and has been going on for centuries. Right?
Christianity was infact one of the main causes for the Roman empire to fall, not homosexuality. Read your history again, and if this is not something you just made up, you will see, that who ever told you this bull was either lied, or just very wrong about what we do know really happened. Now, it is a nother matter entirely wether such an empire falling was infact a good or bad occurence.
Christians most likely murdered the last emperor Julianus “Apostata” who could have united the empire, and Christian bishops formed a competing institution beside the government with it’s own armies. Much like the SS competed with the Wermacht and pissed in the process to the glass of the German war effort to all of our luck. The wars between many different Christian sects had weakened the empire, so that it simply could no longer stand the pressure of the “barbarians”. You can easily check out, if I am wrong and the dude, who ever it might have been, who claimed that homosexuality preceeds cultural fall was right, if you dare. There is a library in your town, is there not? Or perhaps you would rather have faith in the lie, that supports your other faith based beliefs?
LikeLike
Not to take away from anyone else’s points, and regardless of whether anything you said here is historically accurate…. On “marrying” young boys, it seems to me that the primary term for that would be pedophilia, not homosexuality. The two are worlds apart with respect to consent.
LikeLike
“Christians have multiple reasons to be concerned.”
Apart from what everyone else has pointed out about your grasp of history (which you probably got from some gay-hating church), do you believe Christians are showing ‘concern’ or out of proportion attack and obsession? And does it feel consistence with the recorded deeds and actions of Jesus to you?
LikeLike
Perhaps because gay sex is about as logical as a man vomiting into another man’s mouth? Or (I won’t use the other obvious analogy.). Christians are all about being loved by God and loving (obeying) God and serving each other according to our obedience to God. Jesus did not change any teaching on sexual morality; he commanded all to repent (change from their immoral or disobedient ways) and turn back to God. God is the Source of life; gay sex thwarts life, and in turn, God Himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a Catholic organization which welcomes gays who are struggling to know, love and serve God: http://couragerc.org
LikeLike
Thank you for joining the conversation Francis. I think it’ll be obvious to anyone who reads what you write here that you have a problem with gay sex because it’s something that attracts you, and for whatever reasons, you can’t come to terms with your natural instincts.
Please be assured that when consenting adults choose to do anything with their bodies that doesn’t harm either themselves or other people, there is no benevolent creature in the cosmos that would be concerned.
Human beings will continue to reproduce and children will continue to be raised in loving environments. The majority of the population will continue to be in monogamous and heterosexual relationships in line with our biological instincts. The only difference that mainstream acceptance of homosexuality makes is that a relatively small proportion of the human population who have traditionally been forced to live alone, or in secret, or in sham relationships that benefit neither partner, can live in peace with whoever they truly love.Why do you think your god would not be happy with this? I hope you can find peace one day.
LikeLike
You think incorrectly. Would a drug addict or homeless man also tell the charity worker, “I think you are speaking out against heroin because you really want it and my addiction, too” or “I think you are out here giving me blankets because you would rather be out here anyway, homeless like me.” Would any of that make sense in reality? We have to ask, “What is it that drove the man to his heroin addiction? What is it that drove the homeless man to his helplessness?” People of compassion don’t want the plight of those they help, but they do want to help them to be free of their plight. But, truly, some would rather be addicted to drugs or homeless in the streets, sometimes because they have untreated mental illness because they refuse treatment.
The drug addict also doesn’t think his addiction will harm anyone. The problem comes when the young, naive and compromised get preyed upon by addicts and taught to also use drugs to cope, and then they get addicted, and their life gets thwarted, and they might even overdose…all for one drug and the way it makes them feel.
LikeLike
And we’re comparing homosexuality to homelessness or drug addiction because …? It sounds to me like you’ve not spent any time with gay people. There’s nothing frightening or dangerous about them, you’d be amazed to find they are just like everyone else and make just as positive contributions to society as your average heterosexual person. Please let your guard down and think about this sensibly. It’s clearly all got a bit twisted in your head.
LikeLike
I did not discuss gay people. I made an analogy about a bad act.
LikeLike
What bad act? Becoming homeless isn’t a bad act, it’s a tragedy. Being addicted to chemical substances isn’t a bad act, it’s usually a sign of desperation, depression, impoverishment or limited opportunities in life. You’re not very charitable towards your fellow human beings. Have you spent much time with many?
LikeLike
Taking and addicting oneself to drugs is a bad act because it does great harm to oneself, thwarts ones own life. This can be known by simple reason alone.
LikeLike
Whether or not you take drugs is affected by your circumstances, if drugs are readily available, or for example children of drug addicts are more likely to use drug addicts themselves. Whether or not you become addicted drugs is affected by your state of mental health, your genes and a variety of other factors. What kind of fool broad brushes such a complex process as a ‘bad act’?
LikeLike
Yes, less culpability, but the action is still wrong. This is how sentences are given in court, based upon culpability and mitigating circumstances. Right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. Justice is still served.
LikeLike
@Francis Philip, what justice? The drug addict and the homeless person are victims. They did not choose for themselves to become such. Who ever dreams to become a junkie or a homeless person. Nobody. Absolutely nobody.
Homelesness and homosexuality are not crimes in more civilized societies. They are not considered to be the fault of the person involved. Are they?
LikeLike
Francis, I would just like to say that your comments show how morally impoverished Christianity has become. By all means, continue making wild, unsubstantiated allegations. You’re only promoting your faith’s irrelevance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No, just loving my neighbor by putting a little light on the subject. Truth is difficult to embrace sometimes.
LikeLike
“Truth is difficult to embrace sometimes.”
You ain’t kidding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps the reason Jesus Christ said nothing about it is that, being an observant Jewish man, the very thought or act in His society would have repugnant – unheard of. That doesn’t mean that He did not know that it was happening perhaps amongst some Gentiles who, according to His own standards of morality, were surely lost. But recall that He stated that the focus of His mission was, at first, on the Jews whose standards of morality would absolutely not accept any sort of deviant sexual behavior. He later admitted being their for the Gentiles since, at least some desired to know, love and serve God.
LikeLike
Here is a Catholic organization which welcomes gays who are struggling to know, love and serve God: http://couragerc.org
LikeLike
But what is immoral about homosexuality? It does not cause harm as such. What causes harm – serious harm – are the attempts to hide it because of shame imposed upon it by religions and other cultural ideals. What does not cause actual harm should not be considered immoral. Should it?
If you think there were no homosexuals in the Jewish society because it condemned it, then howcome there are homosexuals in Catholic societies – and have allways been – altough the Catholics have always condemned it? Condemning something and imposing serious punishments upon some model of behaviour, regardless of what causes it, does not make it go away. Reality simply does not work that way. Otherwise there would be more murders in societies that have milder punishments for it, but in reality it is the opposite. Why? Because, as with ilnesses, the societies that are trying to tackle the reasons for the problems rather than the consequenses are healthier. But homosexuality is not a sickness, nor is it immoral. It just is. It is about love and the Biblical character Jesus was all about promoting love. Was he not?
LikeLike
Homosexuality harms the life of humanity; it robs men of their true fatherhood and dignity and women of their true motherhood and natural dignity and humanity, of new life. It serves the false-god of sexual intoxication, and selfishly rejects the call to contribute to the life of humanity.
How is it not shameful to eat the seed of human life, that mysterious substance which gave you life and which you should respect, because of one’s desire for sexual intoxication? How would it be any more natural than eating another man’s vomit or human excrement (things that should not be taken into one’s mouth or eaten)?
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that men and women, in a hetero relationship, do not ‘eat’ the seed of human life? Do you mean oral sex? Doesn’t everyone do that? What’s the issue?
LikeLike
Exactly, roughseasinthemed. Then again, Insanitybytes. .. 🙂 oops!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I made the mistake of getting drawn in on the history aspect above … because you know, ‘I know religion = I know history’. Thinks to self: write in exam questions about fall of Roman empire. Yes! Got it! Homosexuality. Easy. 100% pass.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter who does a bad act to make the act wrong. The act is wrong regardless of the actor.
LikeLike
The act is only bad in your opinion. I could equally write, ‘doesn’t matter who writes a judgemental bigoted unwarranted hateful opinion. The opinion is wrong regardless of the writer.’
Where’s the difference?
LikeLike
No. It is not my opinion. Nature can be understood as fact through the human faculty of reason. However, even a person under the influence of an intoxicating agent, or who is addicted to that agent, may be temporarily unable to reason. This person needs the help of another who is not intoxicated or who is not addicted, in order to be able to make a right judgment.
LikeLike
Reading that, my only conclusion is that you are severely intoxicated given your skewed and offensive bias against homosexuality.
LikeLike
I think that it would be better to say that I am FOR natural sexuality between a husband (male human being) and a wife (female human being) who desire to raise a family together.
LikeLike
Do you think you are the only one?
I am for Catholic marriage! Two people joined together for life, becoming one flesh, wanting children! Lovely!
Show me anyone who comments from a gay perspective who disapproves of straight couples!
We just recognise that God’s creation has more variety than that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare, I stated what I was for.
LikeLike
Francis, there you go again, committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. You spout your homophobic blasphemy, and claim it is “God’s Will” and “reason”. So you bar yourself against the truth. You can never be forgiven, because you can never repent. You are an awful warning to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May You receive God’s healing Clare.
LikeLike
You prove my point!
LikeLike
I understand. I wish you well.
LikeLike
“I understand” says Francis. Poor man.
LikeLike
I think I do. It’s a tough life you have, arguing with people like me
LikeLike
I am not arguing with you, Francis. I know you are incorrigible. I am laughing.
I wish you well too, but I see no hope of it.
LikeLike
Well. Magnets have two poles for a reason, and has to do with balance. Somehow, humanity will find its way to the center again.
LikeLike
Oh wow. You really think everyone will become homophobic again? You are more deluded than I thought.
LikeLike
What’s the history with Francis? I can’t quite remember. Is he a friend of Bigot?
LikeLike
No idea. He has been hanging round my blog since 2012. He is the perfect illustration of the obsessive Christian homophobe. He might be with that Scots woman, whatsername, that Catholic who hates the Pope as a backslider.
LikeLike
Yes, he does look like a Catholic Truth regular. They all have names like that, and opinions like that. I’ll try and do some proper lurking later.
LikeLike
No. I think that rationality (with emotions in check) is at the center, not irrationality (with emotions out of control).
LikeLike
So- no homophobic hatred, Francis? Dare I hope?
LikeLike
Yes, no homophobic hatred.
LikeLike
But- do you recognise homophobic hatred when you spew it?
LikeLike
Some of the things which I state may seem coarse, but they are not stated because of hatred or fear. Indeed, they may hurt your feelings (depending upon how you feel the words are intended), and I am sorry for that. This is a difficult medium.
LikeLike
The point about your hatred, Francis, is that you are unconscious of it. It is congealed hatred, which you have grown up immersed in. You even imagine you are “loving”. That is why you commit the sin against the Holy Spirit.
You do not hurt my feelings. I look at you in horror.
LikeLike
No, you are projecting a phantasy or a profile onto me. You don’t know me. I intend to teach, not hate nor force anyone to follow what I state. Also, what you say is sin against the Holy Spirit is not. Refusal of God’s Mercy, for example, would be a sin against the Holy Spirit. That normally happens when a person consigns oneself to Hell, choosing to hate God and everything God stands for – wanting not to be in His Presence…that would be an unforgiveable sin since, by one’s own choice (not being forced), one chooses to hate God and all that He offers.
LikeLike
It is because I knew you would be able to come out with all that about the sin against the holy spirit, that I pointed out to you that you had committed it. You reject God and God’s good creation for rules made by homophobic men. You have made your own repentance impossible.
I know you well enough, Francis, from the boring drivel you excrete. All those comments on my Blog! All that obsessive whining about gay people! It is not hard to know your reality, nor your false image of yourself.
LikeLike
Francis, would you say that when your god creates men or women who are unable to reproduce due to their biological makeup that he is robbing them of their natural dignity and humanity? Would you say the same of someone who chose not to marry? Jesus and many of his disciples chose not to marry, did they rob themselves of their true fatherhood and dignity? It’s a very silly argument.
I know many gay people who contribute immensely to their communities and to the life of humanity, another silly and baseless argument.
Most people who have sex, regardless of their marital status and orientation, have oral sex. If it disgusts you it’s because you’ve been messed up by your religion or some other event in your life regarding sex. It’s not a mysterious substance, read some biology books.
Perhaps you should seek professional help about your problem with perfectly healthy and natural sexual contact.
LikeLike
I would not entertain such a discussion.
LikeLike
Do you understand the difference between sacrificial love and selfish concupiscence?
LikeLike
Yes.
You clearly do not, because it is there in front of you, in the gay couples you come across- especially on the internet, there you are on so many blogs- yet you do not see it.
LikeLike
@Francis Philip, what are you saying? Did your god then rob men and women who can not have children and priests whom he alledgedly chose to call from their true fatherhood, motherhood and dignity? Are couples who can not have children then not to have sex as it would only serve the false god of sexual intoxication and selfishly rejects to contribute to the life of humanity?
Did you notice you really did not answer to me? You are not answerable to me, but I am curious as to why was that? If you will not entertain a discussion on my questions, then at least to your own benefit, ask your self. Did you actually lack any answer as to what harm homosexuality would cause? No surprice there, that is because it does not as such cause any harm. And that is how the morality of any human conduct should be considered, not some arbitrary commands from alledged imaginary entities, that have not ever been as much as to exist by any even remotely objective method.
There is nothing mysterious about the “seed of human life”. It is a biological agent well researched and well known. But oral sex – if that is what you really mean – is a lot less frequent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, as lesbians are not really into that, no matter what cheap porn would suggest. You bringing this point up is on the same level as claiming homosexuality should be considered immoral because some homosexuals (though not as many as heterosexuals) eat sausages.
Is eating pee, poo, or vomit immoral? No. They may be considered unhealthy, but there is nothing really immoral about either, as long as it is the free choise of the person to do so, though the obvious harms are easlily proven. Not so with oral sex or homosexuality. Correct? Otherwise you would have allready used your opportunity to show the harm. Would you not? But you can’t, can you?
LikeLike
If you claim no faith in God, then I do not see what you write since without God, there would be nothing.
LikeLike
Fantastic! The ultimate cop out.
LikeLike
What?
LikeLike
Raut smashes your nonsense to pieces, and you ‘can’t see’ what he’s written.
LikeLike
What?
LikeLike
This is what happens in the afterlife when people choose to hate instead of love…they remove themselves, by theirOWN choice from the One Being required to sustain them eternally. They are forgotten, unseen, and unheard and without love. People can know and appreciate God by reason alone.
LikeLike
I see. So you view your twisted obsession with hating gay people as ‘love’ because you’ve decided their very nature is evil and an invisible God wants you to do his dirty work and let them know? You clearly don’t appreciate much by reason.
LikeLike
How do my words get twisted into “hating gay people?” I have seen this twisting my words consistently on this site. I do not hate gay people; I love gay people of good will. Note that the act of love is not defined by sexual relations. Also, note that a person of good will is a person of honestly good intentions. The word “good” is not easy for all to understand, however, especially where immorality and corruption abound.
LikeLike
You love gay people of good will? Is that the celibate ones who believe their natural urges are sinful? That would be a tint proportion. Most gay people these days are thankfully free from all that.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
Would you like to explain what you mean by love? Abusive spouses often declare their love. It can be meaningless. I personally don’t have qualified love for any group of strangers, but I do think people have the right to live as they please when they don’t harm others.
LikeLike
Yes, there are good definitions of love, and love (an action) does not abuse a spouse. So, for example, it would be an act of negligence to give your spouse heroin because you wanted her to feel good. Heroin would then addict her, and cause great harm to her life.
We really, truly must be in touch with God often in prayer and in obedient ascent to His commands to love Him (obey His words and wisdom) and love our neighbors. The ability to love truly takes prayer, instruction and time to develop the ability to think and act selflessly, morally and ethically. We believe that God is the source of all good, and that the grace to love comes from Him, Who is Love Itself.
LikeLike
Francis! The sin against the holy spirit! You know that choosing hate not love is rejecting God; but you fail to see that you are the one choosing to hate! You fail to see Rautakyy’s reason, but blah that your idiocies are “reason”! So you cannot repent!
LikeLike
How do you arrive at the presumption that I hate, and what is it that you perceive that I hate?
I see that this is a constant theme on this blog – the accusation of hatred without reason.
LikeLike
Well, I answered that on my post Comfortable Words where you commented praeter nauseam. There is a great deal of blah about Love, but we judge a person by the ordinary consequences of their acts. Your attitudes cause gay people to fail to thrive. That is hate.
But look at your words even on this post.
gay sex is about as logical as a man vomiting into another man’s mouth?- gay sex thwarts life, and in turn, God Himself.- How would it be any more natural than eating another man’s vomit or human excrement…
Also, you compare us to drug addicts, claim to wish me well while spewing your hate, project your “irrationality (with emotions out of control)” onto others, accuse me of projection, call the lovemaking of married gay people “selfish concupiscence”, and claim that only you, here, “know and appreciate God”.
Your whole presence here is an explosion of hate. You do not realise it, because you have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not hate. It is a rational analogy to the reality of the design of the human body and how some go to extremes to misuse the human body for pleasure primarily, not realizing what, in reality, they are doing.
People can be addicted to harmful drugs; likewise, people can be addicted to the act or orgasm of sexual intercourse and all that entails, so much that they misuse, abuse or misdirect the act in ways which are quite contrary to nature and nature’s purpose.
People make a life around drugs; they also make a life around the sexual act, allowing a particular misuse of the act to be their first and foremost “identification card.” Instead of being a mother or a wife or a friend, and all of the love those things entail, one calls oneself LBTQ, named only for the style of sexual orientations and action. This action really almost eliminates their ability to raise a family without going to extremes to create a family around their extremely complicated life. They can and should be much more, and much happier in more natural circumstances, wanting family life more than the sexual life. And there is loving hope and help for all such persons who desire it.
As most should know, sexual urge is very strong in animals and in humanity, the sexual act is often abused and misrepresented (I.e., in pornography which teaches a dire unreality of the purpose of sexual intercourse and casts a dark shadow on the true dignity of the natural act of human sexuality). I think that often times, people have been misled or not guided or not treated appropriately in their childhood, and this can help lead people off the track. Parents and relatives can often be the cause or the failure which did not help the child find his or her best way.
So, yes, I used a shocking analogy to get people to wake up a bit and think more about the reality of what they are doing to themselves, not out of hatred, but out of a desire to give Light.
LikeLike
“Eliminates their ability to raise a family”. So, you imagine that gay people, if we felt enough shame about it to suppress it completely, could have happy heterosexual marriages? Really? Have you seen the heartbreak that causes, to the gay person and to the spouse, and to the children?
How arrogant are you? You presume to understand the reality of others’ experience better than they understand it themselves. This makes you very boring. You are like a man at a football match screaming “The grass is red! Why is the grass red?” The grass is green, Francis.
Open your eyes, that Christ may heal you!
LikeLike
Children have to be helped to love family and friends, to seek the responsibility of motherhood and fatherhood, instead of loving the sexual act; instructed to understand the sexual act as a means to a good end, and not as an end of itself.
LikeLike
So if you start young enough, to get them to suppress being gay, they can become happily married?
How many suicides will it take to change your mind, if all the suicides till now do not do it?
We really, truly must be in touch with God often in prayer you say. Excellent! Yes!
But why do you never do that?
If you did, your eyes would be opened to God’s good creation, and you would repent!
You pray to yourself!
LikeLike
No, Clare. It has to start very early, so that as they grow and experience these attractions, that they are strong enough, and loving enough to desire to give and protect human life in a family with a loving spouse instead of desiring to build a life primarily around a particular sexual act or activity. Most parents probably prepare their children for college and career/ financial success, but avoid preparing their children to be able form families, rarely speaking of family and married life, the good of motherhood and fatherhood, etc. the parents need to be the primary instructors, but they often fail because they, also were not prepared, especially for current, media-saturated culture where people find it difficult to know right from wrong, better from worse, etc.
The suicides occur probably due to many complex scenarios, one being basic negligence.
LikeLike
So being gay is completely curable, with the right nurturing? If the child is gay, that is because the parent is a Bad Parent?
LikeLike
If the child is not gently encouraged to fulfill his or her life according to his or her biological design and capability and then later to respect and embrace the dignity and beauty of marriage and family life which has made human life lasting on earth, then I think the parents have failed their child. Many parents fail by their own very poor example. Others fail because of ignorance. The children then go their own way, and some get into trouble and need help getting out of trouble.
LikeLike
Are you a parent, Francis?
How many gay people do you know?
LikeLike
Not many. I worked with a person many years ago who had had a sex change operation.
LikeLike
Are you a parent?
Did you use the name and pronouns as desired by that trans person?
LikeLike
Perhaps, Christians are obsessed about homosexuality, because their religious upbringing has handicapped them from accepting how morality is formed in the reality. One of the main exucuses they have in holding on to their indoctrination formed identity, no matter how absurd a god as a claim actually is to an adult who is at all able to consider the likelyhood of anything, is that morality is something derived from their particular god’s arbitrary commands. Especially the ones they agree with, not so much with the ones denying pork, shrimp and tattoos. Or the ones totally disagreeing with each other, like should a man have a long or short hair.
All religions are obsessed about sexuality. And why not? It is a great source for guilt and anyone with even a whim of conscience is more easily controlled by building guilt upon them. Homosexuality is an exeptionally good source for guilt, because it is a minority group within the sexual context.
Kids, while learning how sociality works, pick on differences and learn to gain social high ground by putting others down. So, a fat kid, a slow kid, a handicapped kid, and a kid not fitting the preimposed gender roles are easy targets. We adults see such as wrong today because we understand, that it is not fair to attack people just because of differences and try to teach it to the children too, but if we ourselves have a prejudice and an ikky factor from our own youth and a cultural excuse not to protect one of these victims, then we teach the other kids it is ok to pick on such people and feel ikky around them. Then, as it happens, a holy scripture was written by a dude, who had the same ikky factor as we do and it all fits. God does not accept a certan group of people because they are different from us. Hooray! What a benevolent creator entity indeed?
Then there is this sickening idea of sexuality existing only for procreation. As if we could not have sex just to show affection? It is effective for any religion to grow, for as long as the sexuality of women is treated as means to produce as much offspring as possible, then the men have sex at their whim, and the religion grows as the population grows. Christianity for example has throughout centuries grown mostly on two fronts, forcible coercion and population growth. The Native Americans for example might have been much better individual fighters than the European Christian immigrants, but to their demise they practiced population controll, because their lifestyle could only support so many people in a vast area of land. And what choise did they really have not to turn into Christians?
LikeLike
I totally agree! There are so many other things, real problems to worry about.
LikeLike
It’s one thing to convince them that their interpretation is based on ignorance and discrimination, but it should be easy for them to understand how far down the priority tree gay sex would lie, even if it was a sin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, if you feel certain it’s a sin, it still doesn’t matter any more than any other sin, like lying or others that are actually destructive and harmful.
LikeLike
You see what Francis Philip does in his comments? He dehumanizes gays with his comments, something many christians do. Also, he reduces individuals to a single sex act when members of the LGBTQ community – like everyone else – have multi-faceted lives. BUT, when you parrot what a centuries-old text dictates for behaviour and when you have an imaginary bully to hide behind, I guess you don’t have to use your brain and good sense.
It really is quite amazing what some people will do in their efforts to project moral superiority.
LikeLike
By associating itself with things such as survival of the race, Christians think they have rights to discuss who sleeps with who and how. It is, to say the least, presumptuous on their part and goes mostly to show their ignorance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mak, that’s a very Rousseauian turn of phrase. Most elegant 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
And of course, Makagutu, at the head of these are a bunch of guys in frocks who have taken a vow of celibacy. Seems to me if you ain’t going to play the game, don’t presume to make the rules.
LikeLike
Leave alone that, Xandrad, the two men they claim as authority one died too soon and one was never married thinking the end was nigh. Silly people, I say
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure it’s that straightforward, in terms of dehumanising. He’s one of those Catholic ‘sinners’ wallowing in disgust with himself. It’s repulsion feels as if it’s directed inwards. Very sad.
LikeLike
And at one time it was black people marrying white people. If it’s not one “cause,” it’s another. It seems some Christians are simply unable to do as their savior preached … love one another.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan, it never meant love everyone. It meant love your fellow Jews, especially because, if he was, he was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew.
LikeLike
The New Testament never says that a Christian is supposed to judge those who are not Christian, the people that claim to be Christian that force their beliefs on others are not led by the Holy Spirit, which means they are NOT Christian.
The New Testament says that a Christian is supposed to judge anyone that claims to be Christian that practices sin & remove them from the church, homosexuality according to the Bible is wrong, but if a person that practices homosexuality isn’t Christian, then the person is not to be judged by the church, the New Testament says that God is the judge of those who are not Christian, not the church.
A Christian is someone who is led by the Holy Spirit, no one led by the Holy Spirit would ever do the opposite of what 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 says, that should show you how many people there are in the world today that are not truly Christian.
1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves
LikeLike
My policy is to waste as little time as possible responding to parsons like you.
You seem to be so full of yourself thinking you are the one with the right spirit then go ahead and quote Paul.
Paul wrote all he wrote from visions. Not from any direct encounter with Jesus and if you are going to quote him, remember he holds no authority
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m Christian, Paul was Christian, therefore I agree with what God had Paul write, if you don’t agree, that’s great, my comment is meant to show truth to those who are supposed to see it, I haven’t insulted you, yet, you insult me, why is that? I am definitely not full of myself, I am born of the Spirit, just as Paul was born of the Spirit, if I say I am Christian, yet do the opposite of what the New Testament says a Christian is supposed to do, would you believe I’m Christian, I sure hope not 🙂
LikeLike
Presumably you wouldn’t preach against homosexuality though, because you think if people are Christians they aren’t gay, and if they aren’t Christians it’s irrelevant to you because they’re not born from above.
LikeLike
I don’t preach against homosexuality, but I do turn away from anyone that claims to be Christian that practices sin, just as 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 says a Christian is supposed to do
LikeLike
Exactly! Or preaching that the Bible says slaves must obey their masters. All society will fall apart if we free the slaves!
LikeLike
I once addressed this in one of my blogs and I’ll repeat those thoughts here.
Firstly, I would ask anyone to define “gay sex”. What exactly do they mean by ‘homosexual acts’?
We first have to look at the root of the word “homosexual”. It is one of those ghastly Greek-Roman ‘hybrid’ words (just like ‘television’ – another such abomination in language) of homos (Greek), meaning ‘same’, and sexus (Latin), meaning ‘gender’), thereby giving us “same sex”.
The word ‘homosexual’ first appeared in a German language pamphlet, published anonymously in 1886 by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, against a Prussian anti-Sodomy law. It entered common parlance after psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebbing published his work “Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie” (Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study), in which he used the terms “homosexual” and “heteorsexual”
As it merely means “same sex”, in the broadest terms under that definition there are a great many acts which could be deemed ‘homosexual’, even anything as innocent as two men or two women shaking hands.
Alright, we all know the Holy Wullies are not referring to that, but to that thing which they all go on about, which we all talk about online, but seldom actually name it. Look out, I’m going for it, Grandma, cover your eyes;
Anal intercourse.
Got over the shock, everyone? Okay, then I’ll continue.
So, it seems to me what many are so opposed to when they talk of a man laying with another man as with a woman, what they are actually talking about is anal sex.
Is anal sex an exclusively “homosexual act”? Not one jot of it. Strange as it may seem to the “Thou shalt not” brigade, there are women who enjoy anal sex, there are bisexual and bi-curious men who enjoy it, there are lesbian woman who enjoy it with a strap-on, and of course there are straight, wholly heterosexual men, who enjoy it with a strap-on with their female partners. Oh, and strangely enough, although they are few in number, there are gay men who do not practice anal sex. There is simply NO WAY that anal sex can ever be described as a “homosexual act”, for the simple fact it is not exclusive to one gender, and not all gay men actually do it.
There are actually very few sexual acts which can be described as exclusively “homosexual”. There is however one, and we all do it – solo masturbation (yes you do – you can try and fool yourself but you’re not fooling me). Seems to me therefore that those who judge and accuse would do well to think on that and get the beam out of their own eye first.
Neither can “homosexual acts” be described as “unnatural”, as same-sex sexual interaction is extremly common in nature, and particularly among mammals. Why then should it be so surprising that the animal known as homo-sapiens should be any different? I’ll tell you what IS unnatural; the missionary position. We are simians, and the vast majority of simians have the female presenting bent over and the male entering from behind. So all you guys, get off from on top of your women and stop that filthy, perverted, unnatural sex act at once.
So, if we can discount sex in a homosexual relationship, what else is there? There is love and companionship. I’m an atheist, but I’d like to see just where Jesus EVER spoke out against love. If there are any who think a man cannot love another man, I would suggest that David and Jonathan would tell you that you are very, very wrong.
Nor can the justified sinners complain that gay men and lesbian women are redefining marriage. Contrary to what they think, the Bible does not say – anywhere – that marriage is one man / one woman, but the norm in most Biblical marriages is in fact polygamy – which some of the same people complaining against same-sex marriage bizarrely claim it will lead to – that and incest, despite that being extremely common in the Bible.
And bigots, neither can you claim marraige is for procreation only. If that is the case, then your churches must stop marrying elderly people, people unable to conceive through disability, couples who have no wish to have any children, and asexual and celibate couples who marry purely for companionship. Your churches do indeed marry such people, so by trying to move the goalposts, it is YOU who are trying to ‘redefine’ marriage.
And finally, if you claim that your Bible and your Bible alone defines marriage, then I’ll leave it to you to tell all those married under other faiths and those of no faith who are married that their marriages are not valid.
Conclusion; whichever way you look at it, religous objectors to LGBTQI people and equal marriage do not have a leg to stand on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you summed it all up beautifully! There is an obsession with anal sex (like in the last post) that makes no sense at all. I like that the missionary position is unnatural too.
“And bigots, neither can you claim marraige is for procreation only. If that is the case, then your churches must stop marrying elderly people, people unable to conceive through disability, couples who have no wish to have any children, and asexual and celibate couples who marry purely for companionship. Your churches do indeed marry such people, so by trying to move the goalposts, it is YOU who are trying to ‘redefine’ marriage.”
Applauds!
LikeLike
Rome has never actually fallen. Yes the Goths ravaged the city, but the influences of Rome, and it’s power as expressed through the Roman Catholic Church are still very real and felt by every human in the Western World.
Is it in it’s old Caeseric form…no, but Romes power and influence are alive and well. To say that Rome’s decline came because of it’s acceptance of homosexuality is to ignore it’s rise to power while accepting homosexuality.
It’s a false dichotomy and does not hold up to scrutiny on a couple of fronts.
LikeLike
Sooooooooo violet, one of the common thoughts here is: how could anything be immoral if it doesn’t hurt anybody? Wow, a genuinely new question………………..
Meanwhile the US is being ‘weakened’ by the same push for tolerance affecting the majority yet being the minority. Other than this obvious lop sided decadence, nooooooo, no body is affected.
No, no military personnel have been asked to keep quiet because of their bold recognition of the ranks being weakened and influenced by the gay agenda. Read the opinion of Army Major General Patrick Brady, (Medal of Honor) and how the military is being purged. Under Obama, the military has never suffered such a lack of morale. The voice of men must be silenced!
Turn on the television, and gaydom is pushed, promoted, preached, and practiced. I guess you didn’t get the memo where certain business people have closed up shop, but noooooooooo, no body is hurt. Apparently it is not immoral to force ones way upon they who decline, then charge them with intolerance for not promoting your agenda..
It is extremely shortsighted NOT to see the effects of homosexualism at every level of society but as far as your leading sentence about being obsessed? Ah, no, just read the comments at your very post, it is obvious by the gutter speech just who is really obsessed.
Then again, it may be even simpler. If you deny the existence of sin, then nothing is immoral, everything is good, and if you want to steal, lie, or kill, go for it, after all, it’s just somebody’s opinion that it doesn’t hurt anybody.
LikeLike
So the best you can come up with is that handful of horrible people who discriminated against gay people haven’t stayed in business? Try harder. Gay people have been attacked, killed and driven to suicide for hundreds of years and more. Sheer ignorance.
LikeLike
How is homosexuality weakening the army?
LikeLike
For starters, WAR isn’t pretty.
Ever heard of soft clothing and king’s palaces?
I’m almost sure you will laugh this to scorn, but your question is oblivious to the reality to the blending of the sexes, where female is male, and male is female; other than that, nope no harm at all……………..
LikeLike
Could you explain that in English please?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit, that I have not read the opinion of Army Major General Patrick Brady, (Medal of Honor), but the idea that homosexuality is damaging to the “morals” of US army is funny. But what I hear the US army has been lately pushed into a nother direction of having become very religious, instead of the secular force it used to represent. That does sound like a very troubling development, because with religious zealotry armies become less responsible and because there are people from various different religious aspects, it may become really divisive and an actual harm to their fighting morale.
When I served in a completely different army from the aforementioned, I had a corporal who was rather openly gay. When he was not promoted to sergeant and a nother dude (who was considered far less capable soldier and leader by the ranks) was promoted instead of him, I was very surpriced to notice how it damaged the morale of almost all the rank and file guys. Even the more or less homophobic dudes were appalled at the injustice. Maybe it is the prejudices of the officers (such as our good general), towards homosexuals, that puts down the morale of the entire corps in the US too. Just like it did when black people and women were treated with similar prejudices in the aforementioned military.
LikeLike
Let me give a different example. My husband’s father (well before we were married) was approached by an officer for sex. Sadly, for the officer, husband’s father was not gay and threw the officer overboard. Perhaps if there was no stigma around, that incident might never have happened. And no, the ship didn’t go back. And yes, my husband’s father was court-martialled.
A lose-lose situation.
LikeLike
@rautakyy
You said you did not read the opinion of the General, which is fine, but you then made a leap of illogical assertions by saying he was ‘prejudiced,, that puts down the morale of the whole corps.’
Not fine, and with this context, there really is no point in explaining it in ‘English.’
LikeLike
Maybe you should read it again vw if that’s all you saw.
LikeLike
Maybe you should make some specific points about who is harmed if you want to claim that people are harmed. How are the heterosexual majority harmed by seeing gay people on TV or by allowing gay people in the army?
LikeLike
Why is it that those who are opposed to gay marriage are “obsessed with gay sex”, but those who are pushing unceasingly for its legalization are not?
“Jesus didn’t mention gay marriage. In fact, Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality at all.”
True. He also didn’t mention kidnapping, child abuse or racism. Should we conclude that those things are fine and dandy with him?
Jesus also didn’t talk about murder, except when he said that being angry at your brother, and insulting him, and calling him a fool, is the same as murder and makes you liable to hell. (Mt. 5:21-26)
Jesus didn’t make any changes to the moral law as the Jews already understood it. The exception to this is when he makes the moral law even stricter, for example when he says that Moses allowed divorce but that “it was not that way in the beginning” (Mt. 19:8) and that “he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Lk. 16:18); or when he says that not only is adultery a sin, but that when you even look on a women lustfully you’re committing adultery in your heart (Mt. 5:27-28), and that if your eye causes you to stumble in this way then you should pluck it out rather than burn in hell (Mt. 5:29). In light of this, it would be an unwarranted conclusion to say that because Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, his intention was to overturn the traditional Jewish prohibition of homosexual activity.
LikeLike
Agellius, indeed, and this is exactly why I think the Jesus character can only be considered a mediocre moral teacher, not among the great ones. He, as a man, was trapped by his cultural heritage – even though he clearly tried to break free of it.
LikeLike
“Why is it that those who are opposed to gay marriage are “obsessed with gay sex”, but those who are pushing unceasingly for its legalization are not?”
Yes, that was my question. I’m pushing for the legalisation of gay marriage because gay people want to get married, and there’s no reason to object. People like you object to it based on the ramblings of a really old book from another culture, and curiously focusing on specific sex acts.
I know Jesus didn’t change any laws, not one stroke. Do you eat pigs? But this is of no consequence given that the old testament only discusses promiscuous homosexual sex, again there is nothing about long term relationships.
LikeLike
Violet:
Evidently you subscribe to the sola scriptura approach to Christian doctrine, where you read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means. This would make you a fundamentalist Protestant. Am I right? ; )
But I’m a Catholic, and as such, I never claimed to believe that every Christian doctrine or moral tenet must necessarily be spelled out in plain language in the Bible, such that anyone with a Bible and a concordance can quickly and easily figure them out for himself. Thus, my beliefs are not based on “the ramblings of a book”. On the contrary, what’s written in the book is a reflection of what was believed by living human beings, after having been revealed to them by God. The people came first, then the book, and not the other way around.
In any case, if you read my blog you would see that I don’t necessarily believe there’s any point in opposing gay marriage. This is based on the fact that marriage has been a hollowed-out shell of its authentic self for the past 50-odd years. The time for outrage and disgust was when no-fault divorce and contraception were adopted on a widespread basis with nary a wimper from Christians. Since that time, marriage has consisted of little more than government sanction of people’s romantic inclinations for as long as they may happen to last, whether for 50 years or 50 days, terminable at will by either party. It’s no wonder that gays can’t understand why they should be excluded from it. IMHO, that kind of “marriage” is hardly worth defending.
(NB: This is my personal opinion and not the official position of the Catholic Church.)
LikeLike
Violet, Agellius is right. The Catholic catechism is as fruitful a source of insane vileness as conservative evangelical interpretations of the Bible. It’s just that it is very long and boring, so few people who have never been Roman Catholic bother with it. Other Violet might point you to bits.
LikeLike
Oh I’ve spent many an hour browsing round there and have quoted it in quite a few posts. It’s fascinating. I just wish we had one from each century to refer to. It’s difficult tracking down all the nonsense from papal bulls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, it’s foolish of me to think that Catholics would care what’s in the Bible, the alleged word of your god, when you have additional texts approved by a series of men dressed in gold who ordered crusades, witch hunts, the torture and murder of those with divergent beliefs, and who continue to believe that only men can be religious leaders. What a blessing for you to be part of such an auspicious tradition! 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: A “Bad act”? | Clare Flourish
By the way, my previous comment was referring to civil marriage as it is practiced in the U.S. Obviously, the Catholic idea of marriage is quite different.
LikeLike
Talk to some divorcees- some are Catholics, and recovering Catholics. See their hurt. See that your characterisation of them is stupid and unChristian. Then you might comment here without inspiring disgust and derision.
LikeLike
“See that your characterisation of them is stupid and unChristian. Then you might comment here without inspiring disgust and derision.”
“You’re right, it’s foolish of me to think that Catholics would care what’s in the Bible, the alleged word of your god, when you have additional texts approved by a series of men dressed in gold who ordered crusades, witch hunts, the torture and murder of those with divergent beliefs, and who continue to believe that only men can be religious leaders. What a blessing for you to be part of such an auspicious tradition!”
I’m just glad you guys are all so tolerant and respectful of other points of view, and not nasty and hateful like us Christians.
LikeLike
What does my “hate” achieve? It makes you feel self-righteous for a moment, or produces a derisive answer like this.
What does your hate achieve? You drive divorcees away from Christ, causing them great misery.
Why should anyone be tolerant and respectful of points of view? Your point of view is silly and hateful. The important thing is to be loving towards people, not ideas.
LikeLike
“The important thing is to be loving towards people, not ideas.”
Yes, and I am a person.
LikeLike
Indeed. You are. But what good does showing respect to your foolish and harmful opinions do you? It is loving to challenge your error. You may be brought to correct it.
LikeLike
Clare:
You write, “It is loving to challenge your error. You may be brought to correct it.”
This is precisely the philosophy of well-meaning fundamentalist Christians who go around telling gay people that their sins will damn them to hell. I assume that you give them the benefit of the doubt, that what they’re doing is loving?
LikeLike
I am aware that some of them believe they are loving, but it is as loving as torturing a left-hander into writing with his/her right hand.
I am delighted to read you saying that whether gay couples should be married has nothing to do with the behaviour of popes hundreds of years ago. Hooray! Of course not! They were wrong, and we can correct their idiocies! So, it is clearly right that gay couples be married!
LikeLike
Clare:
You write, “I am aware that some of them believe they are loving, but it is as loving as torturing a left-hander into writing with his/her right hand.”
So when you are disrespectful towards my opinions it’s loving, but when Christians are disrespectful towards the opinions of those who favor gay marriage, it’s not. Can you explain why this is not a double standard?
LikeLike
HAVE YOU NO FUCKING BRAIN??????
It is not a difference of opinion. When you condemn gay sex or gay marriage you condemn gay people, our very essence. You blaspheme God’s creation, demanding that it be less beautiful and varied than it is.
We might disagree about transsubstantiation, or the Assumption of the BVM, and that would be a difference of opinion, but your hate deforms people, and the hate of people like you, all taken together, has caused many suicides.
Enough! I told you that no opinion deserves respect. Why on Earth would a wrong opinion deserve respect?
LikeLike
Clare:
You write, “HAVE YOU NO FUCKING BRAIN??????”
I thought your hostility was reserved for my opinions only and not me personally. Tsk, tsk.
You write, “Enough! I told you that no opinion deserves respect. Why on Earth would a wrong opinion deserve respect?”
Well said. That was basically the Catholic Church’s justification for the Inquisition: that error has no rights.
LikeLike
The Inquisition tortured and burned people. I mock your stupidity. Do you think these in any way comparable?
LikeLike
“The Inquisition tortured and burned people. I mock your stupidity. Do you think these in any way comparable?”
I was referring to the principle which justified torturing and burning people. Since error has no rights, those who refuse to recant their error also have no rights. You may feel very comfortable shouting down people who disagree with you, since you happen to have political power on your side at the moment. But what if the political winds shift some day? Do you really want to set that kind of a precedent, that those who are in the wrong don’t have the right to their opinions?
LikeLike
Sorry to jump in again, but Clare by arguing with you isn’t interfering in your life, denying you any right of free speech or action. You seek to deny her a right to marry, and tell her that her god would also deny her that right. You are the one trying to harm lives, she is arguing passionately against your discriminatory actions. How can you compare her words to the Inquisition?
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “Clare by arguing with you isn’t interfering in your life, denying you any right of free speech or action. You seek to deny her a right to marry, and tell her that her god would also deny her that right. You are the one trying to harm lives, she is arguing passionately against your discriminatory actions. How can you compare her words to the Inquisition?”
As I’ve already explained, the comparison was between her opinion that “mistaken opinions deserve no respect”, and the philosophy used to justify the Inquisition, which was that “error has no rights”. They’re basically saying the same thing.
LikeLike
As I said, it’s often difficult to stay calm and kind in the face of irrational discrimination. I understand why Clare is furious and frustrated.
In what sense could we compare the proponents of the Inquisition to people being denied a basic human right? When two consenting adults of sound mind are told their love is ‘wrong’ and they should never be allowed to marry in the religious establishment of their culture, they are being denied a basic human right. And that’s before we even start to look into the anxiety and distress that such an attitude causes.
Why can’t you live your life marrying who you want to, and let them live their life marrying who they want to? Your church has changed its attitude to usury, to clerical marriage, to slavery, to crusades, to disease etc etc in its long history. Logic will prevail on this one too. There’s a loving interpretation of the Bible that many other churches have found makes more sense. Read the words of Jesus and the account of his life, and think long and hard about whether he would be so cruel to loving people wanting to live in peace.
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “As I said, it’s often difficult to stay calm and kind in the face of irrational discrimination. I understand why Clare is furious and frustrated.”
People on both sides are mad. We need to control ourselves.
You write, “Why can’t you live your life marrying who you want to, and let them live their life marrying who they want to?”
I’m not here to argue the case for gay marriage. I have long since found it to be a pointless exercise. I have already conceded that gays have as much right to government recognition of their temporary romantic inclinations (which is what today’s civil marriage basically amounts to) as anyone else.
Rather, I commented in order to respond to your unfair statement that Christians are “obsessed with gay sex”, while gay marriage proponents are not. We’re disagreeing over the same issue, and our disagreement is equally strong on both sides. If one side is “obsessed” then so is the other.
LikeLike
You have human rights. You have the right to life, family life, etc. You do not have the right to say silly things unchallenged. I would not prosecute you; but I will continue to Mock. This is mockery, you worthless fuckwit. Look! You still have all your possessions, and your freedom! If this is persecution, tell that to Shia in Mosul!
I could tell you all sorts of things- the scientific evidence for a genetic basis for LGBT, the proper interpretation of the Greek word “pais”, but you would not listen. Go on the internet! You have Moses and the Prophets- if you will not listen to them, you will not listen to me.
LikeLike
Clare:
You write, “This is mockery, you worthless fuckwit. Look! You still have all your possessions, and your freedom! If this is persecution, tell that to Shia in Mosul!”
I didn’t say it was persecution. I know what persecution is. That’s like where serious things happen, like losing your job because of your beliefs or political causes that you supported in the past. We agree that that should never happen, correct?
What I’m saying is that the principle that “mistaken opinions deserve no respect” is basically the same as “error has no rights”. You may think that you can go just a little ways down that road and then stop; limit yourself to simply refusing to listen to opposing arguments and insulting your opponents instead of engaging in civil dialogue; and never take it to the extent of denying people the freedom of expression. And maybe you can.
But I’m applying Kant’s test of the morality of an action: “Ask whether your action can be made into a universal moral law. If it can, the action is permitted. If it cannot, you must not do it.” What would be the result if everyone believed that mistaken opinions deserve no respect? Sooner or later, everyone is going to be wrong about something.
LikeLike
I have engaged in civil dialogue, personally, and seen a great deal of civil dialogue on gay rights. Right now, though, I find homophobes and persecutors disgusting and have no wish to engage civilly. If you want to learn the truth about Christianity, the Bible and LGBT, google for the site “Would Jesus Discriminate?”
What would be the result? A lot of mistaken opinions would be corrected. That’s a win. No-one would be hurt.
If I win, you win. You become more able to be yourself, less constrained by a false ideal of manhood which is no part of Christianity, only of Roman Catholicism. If you win, I die. You teach your vile lies to children, and the queer ones fail to thrive, become homeless or suicidal. Look at the consequences!
LikeLike
Clare:
You write, “What would be the result? A lot of mistaken opinions would be corrected. That’s a win. No-one would be hurt.”
Yes. That was exactly what the proponents of the Inquisition thought. What could be wrong with suppressing erroneous opinions? A lot of mistaken people — i.e. heretics — would be corrected, and future generations are preserved from their errors. Plus, we save souls. Everybody wins.
LikeLike
Blah.
LikeLike
Clare,
I’ve been reading this exchange (between you and Agellius) and doing a lot of head shaking. If he honestly thinks there is a valid comparison between reading a consciousness-raising piece of writing (what you are suggesting he should do) and murdering people because their views don’t align with your own (as in the Inquisitions), he’s obviously not worth bantering with. Agellius, take off your god goggles for a few minutes and actually think about what you are saying. It doesn’t appear to me that you’re doing that at all.
Quite honestly, I don’t know why you – or anyone else – would even try to go anywhere in cyberspace to extol the virtues of the catholic church. For the life of me, I cannot understand how they’ve got one person left in the pews. Indoctrination, however, is powerful – it’s plain to see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen:
You seem to be missing the point of contention between Clare and me.
You write, “For the life of me, I cannot understand how they’ve got one person left in the pews. Indoctrination, however, is powerful – it’s plain to see.”
I was not raised in the Church. I converted as an adult. Self-indoctrinated, you might say. : )
LikeLike
Even worse. Self-delusion. I suspected as much. 😦
LikeLike
: P
LikeLike
I can answer that too. Until recently, many people like you believed interracial marriages were sinful, and attempted to destroy love and condemn those relationships. You are doing the same now. It’s difficult to stay calm and kind in the face of irrational discrimination that leads to damaged lives.
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “It’s difficult to stay calm and kind in the face of irrational discrimination that leads to damaged lives.”
That’s fine. You can be mean and hostile if you want. All I’m saying is that it’s not likely to persuade people. It’s basically the liberal version of Westboro Baptist. (Do you find “God Hates Fags” signs persuasive?)
LikeLike
I’d be interested to know where I was mean or hostile. I thought we were having a pleasant exchange of views.
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “I’d be interested to know where I was mean or hostile. I thought we were having a pleasant exchange of views.”
It’s been mostly pleasant as far as you’re concerned, with the exception I noted before (poisoning the well). But your last comment seemed to be defending Clare’s position that it’s OK to be harsh and insulting towards opponents of gay marriage since they’re obviously wrong.
LikeLike
What was inaccurate about my description that you find it nasty or hateful? I have simply described the Catholic Church. If anything is incorrect I’ll be more than happy to apologise and make the necessary amendment.
LikeLike
Violet:
We Christians think that it’s best to state your opponent’s position in the best possible light, rather than the worst possible. It’s kinder that way, and it’s also more persuasive. No one is going to hear your criticisms when you state them sarcastically. Sticking with facts rather than value judgments is a good way to go about it, as you suggest in your last comment.
LikeLike
So you agree it was factual? I’m genuinely interested in understanding why Catholics are so keen to let other people tell them what the Bible means. Especially given the history if those who approved the additional texts.
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “So you agree it was factual?”
A lot of it is dubious, some is a matter of interpretation — to which you’re giving the worst possible interpretation, obviously.
But mainly, it was irrelevant to the topic. What do crusades, witch hunts and the male-only priesthood have to do with gay marriage? You were basically committing the fallacy of “poisoning the well”, in which you try to paint someone — the Catholic Church, and by extension myself — as being so stupid and/or evil that nothing they have to say can possibly be worth listening to, rather than addressing the actual statements I made.
LikeLike
What is dubious or a matter of interpretation? It’s all fact. And this is why you can’t trust the kind of people who thought witches and ‘heretics’ should be burned to tell you if gay couples should be married.
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “And this is why you can’t trust the kind of people who thought witches and ‘heretics’ should be burned to tell you if gay couples should be married.”
Whether gay couples should be married has nothing to do with the behavior of popes and bishops hundreds or thousands of years ago.
LikeLike
Indeed. Broodmare with no escape springs to mind.
LikeLike
Another perspective on what Christians are really obsessed with, from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/on-conservative-religious-activism-the-numbers-speak-for-themselves-commentary/2015/05/13/aab63e3a-f9aa-11e4-a47c-e56f4db884ed_story.html?postshare=6581431568489499
LikeLike
Violet:
You write, “I’m genuinely interested in understanding why Catholics are so keen to let other people tell them what the Bible means.”
First of all, the Bible itself was written by other people. So you’re trusting other people either way.
Second, the Bible itself doesn’t tell us which books belong in it. We only know which belong in it based on being told by other people. It’s only a matter of which “other people” you choose to trust. Do you trust the Protestant churches when they tell you what books belong in the Bible, more than you trust the Catholic Church?
For me, either I believe in the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible, or I don’t believe in the Bible at all.
LikeLike
A sensible response. I think it makes a lot more sense than many other approaches to the Bible.
LikeLike