Ah, so the diety of the Christian Bible/founders of the Christian religion were latently gay! Just like Bert and Ernie, and Batman and Robin…how witty!:rolleyes:
And, how irrelevant to the fact that those who take the Bible as gospel believe that their deity hates homosexuality.
Or they believe that a Deity capable of hating His children is unworthy of worship
You are singing my song! I say this to people all the time when they paint a picture of a God of hate. People make their God smaller than themselves.
Scotty, beam me up. 
I’ve been successful both lowering homophobia in religious women, and turning them from anti-SSM into pro-SSM. “Because Leviticus says so” never entered into it. They’re all as religious now as they were back then.
Nava:
Maybe not explicitly, but was their original position based on ideas like “it’s not natural” or “man-woman is the way all societies define marriage, that’s the way it’s always been”? Because that societal attitude comes from the dominant religion.
I’m sure they are. But for many, it takes some thinking through to separate their personal religious beliefs from the notion that that’s how all people must feel. But once they get there, I’m sure they still keep their beliefs personally.
Czarcasm - hear, hear. I keep seeing posts by Trump apologists and I just can’t understand or believe them. How can they deny his racism, his crudeness, his misogyny and everything else? How can they ignore and/or deny his complete lack of facts, logic and real policies? How can they deny his thuggery during rallies?
It’s so bad that the media has normalized his lying. I’ve seen numerous references to the “campaign Trump”, who just completely BS’d his way to victory but, “hey, that’s ok! It’s just the campaign Trump!” As if it’s normal and acceptable to lie and BS through a campaign. Because what really matters is the “President-elect Trump” - as though the two are completely disconnected somehow.
And now we are supposed to separate the supposedly “gay/race friendly” talking Trump from the one that is appointing the homophobes and racists?
“How dare you accuse Trump of masturbating in public! That was his right hand grasping his privates, not him!”
They may have something in common.
He would have an aide do it, but if he uses his own hand it looks normal size.
Think he uses the whole hand?
I’m impressed that any Republicans/Trumpsters now believe that criminals, such as arsonists who sin against society or gays who sin against the Lord thy God™, might be capable of being reformed or rehabilitated. I thought the standard mantra has always been “lock 'em up and throw away the key” (except for the ones they just want executed). Thank heavens for progress!
I agree, but I think that more needs to be said, because homophobia has been widespread in cultures with many different religions and with none, and that can lead people to infer that religious doctrine should not be held to account.
Of course, bad ideas such as homophobia originate from men, not religion, because religion itself is a creation of men, it was not originally imposed upon us externally. But how do bad ideas tend to proliferate “efficiently” within a culture, how are they transmitted consistently from one generation to the next? The scourge of organized religion, and the reason for its tenacity, is its capacity to transmit bad ideas efficiently between humans whilst holding the ideas exempt from critical examination as “sacred”; and, of course, demonizing those who question the dogma. (This was precisely the gambit of the “Islamophobia” neologism, a deliberate attempt to conflate criticism of the bad ideas in Islamic doctrine with racism against culturally Muslim peoples.)
I think bad ideas such as homophobia can proliferate in both secular and religious cultures; but the religious mechanisms of transmitting the bad ideas of men from one generation to the next tend to be the most refractory to the advance of enlightened and tolerant civilization.
This continues to mystify me. And alarm me.
Nope, neither.
For homophobia: their issue was much more with two men (which gets bandied about a lot more than the image of two women) than with two women, and it was mainly due to associating “sex between two men” with “anal sex” (which again is the popular image and turns out to be incorrect), and to personally finding anal sex about as attractive as sex with a porcupine. Add two women to the equation, remove anal sex as a “requirement”, and suddenly the idea of “some people want to hug, cuddle, and have sex with each other while being of the same sex” became a lot less yucky.
For SSM: first, I asked what kind of marriage were we talking about. Church marriage? No, therefore Church opinions are not relevant, whichever Church we happen to be talking about. Natural marriage? That already happens between two people of the same sex (and here all those women nodded). Civil marriage? Yes, this is it: the recognition of natural marriage by civil autority.
OK, what are the requirements of civil marriage? It doesn’t require the two people to live together. Or to have children. Or to be open to children. Or fidelity. Or communal property. It’s just a way to make it easier for two adults who have decided they want to be each other’s “first contact” to act in such a way, and if they want to share house or property or children to again make it easier. So if the people who want to be responsible for each other, or to share each other’s lives (and who may already have been doing so for years) happen to have the same groinal bits, can you think of any reason why that should be denied?
None of them could. In one occasion, I was talking to several women (catechists in my mother’s parish; Mom had already gotten the come-to-civil-court speech before) and one of them piped up with “heck, Carmen here and I are widows, and as God is my witness I have no interest in taking her to bed, but I’d much rather have her making my medical decisions than I’d have my mother!” (said mother being crazier than a bag of cats on LSD). Again, nods all around…
The ladies Nava has spoken to are probably Catholic. Over the centuries the Church has some problematic aspects but taking every word of the Bible literally is not one of them. (And these ladies can distinguish between the sacrament of matrimony & civil marriage.)
The American Religious Right springs from Protestant Fundamentalism. You’ve heard of Cafeteria Catholics who pick & choose among Church doctrines? There are also Cafeteria Fundamentalists who follow only the Old Testament prohibitions that do not inconvenience them–while claiming every word of Holy Writ as Inerrant.
The Religious Right decided to recruit some Catholics–about the time the Klan dropped Catholics from their targeted groups. But it’s an uneasy alliance.
Nowadays, quite a few Christian denominations have risen above homophobia & even perform Single Sex Marriages. The Catholics are still against SSM but the Pope is fairly tolerant to LGBT folks.
A couple of centuries ago, all Christian churches supported slavery. They got over it. Some sooner than others.
And they tend to be the kind of Catholic who wish Mass still took place in Latin with the priest looking up towards the altar except for the sermon; the kind who think Benny XVI was a leftist (don’t even mention John XXIII in their presence: in their view, he was the Devil’s own get. By a nun. Probably Luther’s wife).
We are told this happens all the time. Yet nearly every instance anyone has ever shown to me, I find they actually did do something racist, albeit accidentally. And, more often than not, they were never even called “racist.” Someone tried to point out the racism, and they got offended. Only after that did it escalate into people calling each other racist.
That what makes this more difficult. We have to pretend that things aren’t racist (basically being PC), while our ultimate goal is to convince them not to do or say these things because they perpetuate racism.
And we have to do all this without feeling contempt for these people. Because it is impossible to convince someone who you hold in contempt. Even my old adage of always feeling empathy for everyone isn’t enough, because I’ve found you can hold someone in contempt and have empathy for them at the same time.
For someone like me who is really big on my integrity (as I say, I. Don’t. Lie.), I intentionally have to be disingenuous for the greater good. And that is so, so hard!
There are several versions, actually. But this is a digression.
It kind of does if the impetus for the view is Biblical authority.
And yet in my experience when you dig down you discover that the belief that homosexuality is icky comes first and the Bible is used to justify that view rather than finding that the view comes from the Bible. Which is supported by your dismissal of the " smart-ass why do they wear mixed fabrics tangents" above - if you’re selecting passages which support your views and ignoring passages that don’t, it’s a strong indicator that your personal belief/opinion trumps scriptural strictures. If the Bible didn’t say anything about homosexuality do you think most Christians would genuinely be fine with it?
Anyhoo: Ken Blackwell. Man, fuck that guy. But not literally, because that would be gay.