Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to The bible thumpers are picking on the fags again
TVBlogger - a Christian church leader taking this position was inevitable
Especially when one considers that the current position as held by most Christian denominations towards homosexuality is an undefendable position. The inconsistancies of either the definition of God as being infallable or the fallability of what is written in the bible, are pitted against each other with this issue. The obvious choice for a believer is to side with an infallable God. This renders the words in the bible as fallable but that can be blamed on mankind and hundreds of errant translations.
posted by
gomedome
on June 19, 2006 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Just thought you'd be interested.
This story just came out on Reuters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc_2
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 19, 2006 at 2:14 PM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - we are of the same mind on this issue
I agree that the intent of my posting gets me off of the hook for any implication of using the term "fags" in a derogatory manner. (But we must consider the source of this suggestion) I feel that we cannot look for explanations as to why someone has sexual preferences different than our own other than in the course of better understanding human sexuality as a whole. Like who cares why someone is different? Needing to justify that difference is a sad way for anyone to live.
posted by
gomedome
on June 19, 2006 at 12:00 PM
| link to this | reply
I think there are many factors...
that could contribute to someone being gay. I used to be solely in the "born with it" camp but have had my mind changed by a gay friend. He believes he is gay because of his distant relationship with his father and what I'm guessing may have been some abuse by a relative. Yet another friend was clearly born the way he is and couldn't force himself to be attracted to women any more than I could.
There was a show by Morgan Spurlock called "30 Days" in which he had a conservative Christian college ahtlete from the midwest live with a gay man in San Francisco for 30 days. He was stubborn and unchangeable until he went to a support group for friends and family of gay people and heard their stories. For the first time it clicked that he wouldn't want anyone to treat someone he loved, the way he'd been treating gays. It changed his heart completely. Perhaps we just need more gay family members in Christian homes before we'll see a change with them.
And for the person who thought your use of "fag" was disrespectful... it's not offensive anymore unless your intention behind is to be offensive. Most gay men use the word frequently and while I'm still uncomfortable with it, they wouldn't mind if I did too.
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 19, 2006 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - the case of hermophradites is a good example
Though there is much confusion surrounding this physical human anomoly. In recorded history there have been very few true hermophradites but there have been some and their existence is irrefutable. Do they get a bye from the sinners category simply because they can prove an inherent physical anomoly? Is that what it takes to be accepted, to prove that you have no choice in what your preferences are? It's sad isn't it?
posted by
gomedome
on June 19, 2006 at 11:21 AM
| link to this | reply
human genome project, pkcricket
lots of genes there -- i think several millions
did you knkow that there are theologians and archeaologists that say King David never existed -- purely because they haven't found real proof of his existence?
just because you can't find something dsoesn't mean it does not exist.
creationists say thisd about "missing lnk" fossils -- that evoutino must not be true because the missing lnks haven't yet been found.
people are still digging in Jerusalem.
people are still searching for fossils and finding new ones all the time.
and people are still researching the genome project.
just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it won't be found.
i think we've got to talk about hermophradites -- those with both male and female organs -- are they sinning? is that a choice? a gene for that probably hasn't been found yet either has it?
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 19, 2006 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
NOPEACE - there probably is some form of twisted logic in your
statement that is discernable only to you.
I've never heard you say anything intelligent on this subject, I'm not holding my breath that you would start now.
posted by
gomedome
on June 19, 2006 at 10:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
"The Bible Thumpers are picking on the fags again?" WOW! I can't recall any "bible thumper" ever referring to homosexuals in such a derogatory manner. Maybe it is you who through your own subconciousness is picking on the "homosexuals" indirectly of course.
posted by
NOPEACE
on June 19, 2006 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - you are correct in saying that there has never been anything
conclusive discovered in finding a "gay gene".
Studies in this area have uncovered precious little in defining why homosexuality is a precondition. As a matter of fact, all areas of the human brain have been studied in this regard, with similar inconclusive findings. Still, we must ask ourselves why people would choose something that makes them outcasts to the majority of society and causes estrangement amongst their own families and communities? If this preference could be turned on and off, which it being a choice would indicate, why again do so many people choose to lose everything by making this decision? Sorry but I can't buy that such a great number of the human populace would choose to be outcasts and when one considers the disproportionately high suicide rates amongst gays and especially gay teens, there has to be something more to it. Trauma during youth has been proven to be entirely inadequate as an alternative explanation, as homosexuality is not exclusive to disenfranchised or traumatized youth. The real answers as to why a certain portion of the populace is gay will never be found when so many efforts to explain it are so laden with agenda. Both from those who want to reconcile what they feel is a sin with their own religious beliefs and agenda from the gay community itself. The sad truth is that understanding this naturally occurring phenomena can only come once agendas are put aside. That day will never come without the full acceptance of gays by the majority of the populace who are not gay.
posted by
gomedome
on June 19, 2006 at 9:49 AM
| link to this | reply
I avoid going out of my way to say "homosexuals are sinners!" I think it is a sin, and i think it is a choice, but then again, it is a sin to lie, and to be proud, both of which are entirely choices that I make every day in some way or another...so I really should be saying "Sarah, you're a sinner!" But, I'm covered by grace, so, I work on intentional sins, and then ask for forgiveness of my unintentional sins.
But, back to homosexuality...I don't understand how it could not be seen as a choice. I studied it for a little bit in high school because my science teacher was rumored to be a lesbian, and it scared me, and I wanted to know what my stance should be on it. So, I studied Scripture, I studied scientific journals, anything about what homosexuality is and what the Bible says about it. The "scared" part came from my own immaturity as a person, of being frightened by things I don't know or understand. I'm beyond that point now, so please don't use that statement against me.
What I did find was that there isa wishful thinking by the homosexual community for finding a gene that produces homoesexual behavior and tendencies. But, it wasn't found by the scientists working on that whole human genome project. Based on the science of the law of natural selection (which I do not view as evolution, or even micro-evolution), only the genes that produce offspring to carry on the species will survive in reproduction. Therefore, two females cannot mate and produce a child in themselves, therefore, if they had a homoesexuality gene, it would not be passed on to the next generation. But we find in history, a standard of 5% of all human population being homosexual. If it were a gene, then it would either duplicate itself and increase the ratio, or it would fall out of reproduction and become extinct.
I do think that there are a lot of things that happen in a person's life (social traumas, and other traumas that happen to people) that would incline a person to choose...almost to where it seems it isn't a choice, but it is...homoesexuality over heterosexual relations. Based on these events, a person is more inclined to choose a certain lifestyle for...attention, uniqueness, safety, seclusion, etc. This is my view...take what you want of it... Thanks... Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on June 19, 2006 at 9:15 AM
| link to this | reply