There have been a few religious bigots popping up in the letters page of the metro after this article appeared about trying to "cure" homosexuals. It's the usual it's unnatural or "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bollocks. I've commented on the "not natural argument" before. Anyway, I got this letter in today.
"Monday Man, am I to assume that the only reason you are a homophobe is because you actually believe a discredited bronze age fairy tale? One about a man and a woman who got punished for eating a fruit, even though they did not know what right and wrong was until after they ate it? As for the "arguments" about normality, that's the argument from democracy fallacy. It's a bit like saying gang rape is acceptable because 9 out of 10 participants report a positive experience of it."
"Monday Man, am I to assume that the only reason you are a homophobe is because you actually believe a discredited bronze age fairy tale? One about a man and a woman who got punished for eating a fruit, even though they did not know what right and wrong was until after they ate it? As for the "arguments" about normality, that's the argument from democracy fallacy. It's a bit like saying gang rape is acceptable because 9 out of 10 participants report a positive experience of it."
9 comments:
Bloody hell
I know David's church want to "cure" gay people so I don't see it as too surprising that others want to do something equally as stupid.
I remember when I was younger I simply didn't understand what being gay was - I thought it was simply something I wouldn't do but was aware that people were highly uncomfortable with it for some reason.
Funny thing is I never really thought about it properly until I started listening to Marilyn Manson and I suddenly realised that that it really didn't matter who or what you were as long as you were not being violent about it. I have always felt with nutters like Manson that he is drawing attention to the fact that yes he is different, yes he looks frickinn weird, but if that is all that is wrong with him, look at the effect of something like religion where real harm, physical and/or mental, occurs yet it is accepted in cases where if it was not religious it would be seen for what it is - harmful.
It's people's perceptions that are wrong because of popular opinion mostly encouraged by media and religious hype.
I went to see the Watchmen film with a few friends and one of them said "But there is a naked man walking around in that film, won't you be uncomfortable?"
Why would I feel uncomfortable looking at a naked man? Its not like I haven't seen one before.
To be perfectly honest I thought he looked brilliant, though he had the kind of body that I could only achieve with ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery! :)
I do wonder if it is possible to get this ridiculous "ick" factor out of society?
Could the Zeitgeist really change enough that we can focus on what actually is harmful rather than what can only be perceived so?
Hey ho, we can but hope
Great response to the article Billy, very interesting
It's funny that at primary school you used to call the guyswho kissed girls gay :-)
I think the best we can do is attack what for many is the root of their bigotry - the bible. Having said that, I wonder if homophobia is something more basic, and religion is the tool to spread it.
It does disgust me how literal belief in Adam and Eve strongly correlates with bigoted views. Answers in Genesis (need to clean my keyboard now) play this up a lot. And to think they say atheists have no morals
I had a follow up letter in today that I'll post later
"It's a bit like saying gang rape is acceptable because 9 out of 10 participants report a positive experience of it.""
Priceless
"But there is a naked man walking around in that film, won't you be uncomfortable?"
Bollocks - When the wife hears about this, she will be straight down the DVD shop...
I will confess that I have not seen Brokeback mountain (or whatever it’s called) because of what I 'heard' about a certain sex seen.
But what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them so long as nobody gets hurt, but I still don't think I am ready to watch it though as entertainment.
Each to their own and all that.
So has the Christian ever given a good argument why homosexuality is wrong? (Apart from the bible says it so)
Util they do, they can F..k off.
The closest thing to an argument I have heard was “It’s not natural because they cannot reproduce”
However this is bollocks as Billy pointed out on the later post… what about those who are infertile for whatever reason?
I’ve also heard, “What if we all became gay, our human race would die out?” Again, bollocks. One, our Christian friends will still be breeding like rabbits I assume since they could NEVER be gay, and two, the same argument could be made about Catholic priests. So are Catholic priest immoral…. Well, probably but please no jokes about young children.
Have to go
Lee
Enjoyed the letter.
The Watchmen full frontal nudity is actually somewhat disappointing (although the changed ending isn't as bad as it could have been). The author apparently had a choice of 27 different cocks, so kudos on him for not going for a footlong one ;-).
Brokeback mountain sex scene is very brief, not terribly graphic (nor very realistic; anal sex is never THAT easy).
Not sure if homophobia is necessarily the right word to apply to the bible even if one grants that it opposes homosexual practise ( which I don't ; Im'm a liberal christian). The word homosexual was obviously just coined in 1869 and I don't see how you can easily assume that the Bible *accepts* the modern gay/straight dichotomy and condemns the former ( liberals have argued that as Paul is talking about leaving their natural sexuality then he is hardly condemning homosexuality per se, which also relates to the argument that he was talking about male cult prostitution and not all forms of same-sex at all times).
"It's a bit like saying gang rape is acceptable because 9 out of 10 participants report a positive experience of it."
LOL
Nicely pwned.
'bronze age fairy tale' - I love reading variations on this theme, along with the sky fairy one, Dawkins certainly has intro'd a lingua franca here - or was it someone else first? - that some atheists do seem to like to parrot!
having said that billy, it did make me laugh :)
On which note, another unreflected cliche that seems to get aired a lot is the one that everything's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Strikes me as a pretty tired and superficial 'insight'. I guess no-one would get 'hurt' if I watched telly non-stop for a week, but I'm not sure it would be the 'best' thing for me or by consequence my friends or indeed the world which I might impact more positively by doing something else!
I'm not going to wade into the homosexuality debate today - my lunch hour's already over - but the same thing as I say above could certainly be said about other activities that people say 'as long as no-one gets hurt'- eg watching porn. ie when you look a bit deeper, is it really so harmless - to your mind, heart, and by extension your life, relationships and the little corner of the world you impact?
Hoe that makes a bit of sense. Come on guys, if you're going to attack the bible and Christianity, let's have a bit of originality and depth!
Go somewhere like Africa or South America and experience the bible and Christianity's power there and you might find them harder to dismiss. Go on, wake up and smell the global non-western non-rationalistic coffee, might do you some good! :)
Ah yes, Africa: home of the leaders of the GAFcon movement, such as Peter Akinola who is in favour of jail sentences for people who *attend* gay weddings. No offense, Bruce, but that's the last place you'd look for Christianity at its best.
>>>>>>>>>>>eg watching porn. ie when you look a bit deeper, is it really so harmless - to your mind, heart, and by extension your life, relationships and the little corner of the world you impact?
You can say that porn is unconscionable from a Christian ethical position (due to the spiritual harm?) but that's not the same thing as claiming that it has objective scientifically measurably harm. It doesn't. I know quite a few women who would probably regard your average porn-using secular guys as bit more normal and healthy than e.g. a fundamentalist (or evangelical) Christian. Gagnon - in his allegedly definitive - The Bible and Homosexual Practise makes use of Paul "kicked out the APA for research abuses" Cameron's infamoulsy dodgy statistics, and invokes the "Dutch Study" on poor outcomes for same-sex partnerships. Except the latter study was actually for HIV/AIDS research and excluded anyone over 30, making it very dishonest that it's invoked to "prove" the harm of homoexuality. How many 29 year olds - gay or straight - do you know who're in ten year old monogomous relationsips, for example? So I'm not sure the Church does itself any favours by assuming that spiritual harm correlates with other kinds.
Hi Bruce, hope you are well
'bronze age fairy tale' - I love reading variations on this theme, along with the sky fairy one, Dawkins certainly has intro'd a lingua franca here - or was it someone else first? - that some atheists do seem to like to parrot!
Everherad of independent thought or great minds thing alike?
On which note, another unreflected cliche that seems to get aired a lot is the one that everything's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Strikes me as a pretty tired and superficial 'insight'. I guess no-one would get 'hurt' if I watched telly non-stop for a week, but I'm not sure it would be the 'best' thing for me or by consequence my friends or indeed the world which I might impact more positively by doing something else!
This in itself is a cliche. Do you actually have anyevidence that homosexuality is bad for you? Quite a few homosexuals that I know are actually doing quite well (except for when bigots set about them)
Hoe that makes a bit of sense. Come on guys, if you're going to attack the bible and Christianity, let's have a bit of originality and depth!
Well, as usual, I await (in vain) for some deep input from you. It is also wrong to expect "non originality" to not attack a position. Plato for example destroyed divine command theory with the euthyphro dilema.
Go somewhere like Africa or South America and experience the bible and Christianity's power there and you might find them harder to dismiss. Go on, wake up and smell the global non-western non-rationalistic coffee, might do you some good! :)
Are you serious? African bishops are murdering babies through their retarded contraception dogma.
Cerebsboy,
I agree. Like you say, even if you could show homosexuals did lead "worse" lives, that does not mean it is "spiritually wrong".
As many christians like to boast, being a christian is not necessarily a "healthy occupation". It is a further inconsistency in the fundie "logic"
As for porn, I would rather people can get rid of their sexual frustrations by whacking off to a video than by harrasing women - or worse.
Post a Comment