Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
For example your idea of the 'good pedophile' (someone who has a sexual attraction to children but never acts on it) is doing a good job with his life. We might applaud him for moving on, getting married, and having children despite the fact that those urges might never go away.
I know, I know, before you jump down my throat. I understand the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, (lawfully and morally) that there is a huge difference. But the religious wingnuts DO NOT. If anything their actions show that they hold pedophiles in higher regard than homosexuals.
So if a pedophile can, and should, do it, why not homosexuals? That could be a religious wingnut response, and how do you counter it? You can go to the "between consenting adults" is much different but they view the two in the same light. Both are sinful.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely curious about the thoughts.
I do want to qualify my question as to why I asked it. As a proponent of equality in a shithole like Utah, I read these articles and instead of seeing "hey, look! small steps towards progress!" I see something different. I see them hunkering down to a more defensible position.
"Pray away the gay!" is stupid and useless and one can point to dozens of studies that say "Uh, no you can't!"
However, the position of "Yes, you'll still be a homosexual, but your love of Jesus can help you shun your earthly, sinful desires. Just look at all these successful examples!" isn't as easy to counter.
I might just be a pessimist though.
@6
As if they care about being fair to women.
The more freedom society and the law grant them, the less reason to subject themselves to the misery of a sexless and repressed life. And the religious right knows it.
I see where your pessimism comes from. Sure, there will probably always be closeted religious gays. But their numbers are eroding, and they will keep eroding, because the tide has turned and there ain't no going back.
This was a devastating post, Dan. Well fucking done.
Natural and innate or learned or chosen.
Doesn't matter.
And they don't really care....
They believe it is wrong.
Sort of like Danny believes pedophile behavior is wrong.
Exodus can do for homosexuals the exact same thing that Danny can do for pedophiles.
And with the same justification.
Would that be better for the resulting kids? While they wouldn't grow up seeing parents in love or in lust with each other, they would avoid seeing the conflicts, guilt, and feelings of inadequancy of an unacknowledged mixed-orientation marriage.
There's the problem with using an unchanging piece of text as a cornerstone of Faith. Beliefs and people adapt and change. Mindsets change. People learn, grow and develop. The texts do not.
So the belief that it's sinful has to have LEGITIMATE reason now. That's the change that is slowly being acknowledged by the church.
The Bible wasn't written by infallible people without bias. Even the church acknowledges this when they say "Jesus was the only perfect being." So unless Jesus mentions homosexuality as an abomination....(Hint: he didn't) then the text itself is not infallible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the bible is overpriced toilet paper.
Lovecraft, Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Federalist Papers all have outdated, sometimes harmful stuff in them. So why do people still read them at home and at universities? Because there's good stuff too.
well.
we said nothing about 'the church'.
or the bible.
or sin.....
we compared Danny's condemnation
of pedophile behavior
with others' condemnation
of homosexual behavior.
And Danny's declaration
of what is acceptable behavior
for pedophiles
with others' declarations
of what is acceptable behavior
for homosexual.
Goose. Gander.
Pot. Kettle,,,,,,,
http://www.theonion.com/articles/church-…
Is it only a hate crime when the victim agrees with Danny?
Why is consenting homosexual sex between two adults wrong?
I.E. If you start by assuming the conclusion, you reach that conclusion. It is interesting that someone actually is proud of announcing aloud the flaw in every single pro-religion argument.
My best guess: 2,000 years ago, a guy spoke of issues in a way that rang true to many people of the time and others wrote it down and propogated it. And then the usual power plays and politics insued.
Was he eloquent? Clearly. Wise? Probably. Quoteable? Absolutely. With enough god-like powers to ensure "His words" stayed true? Definitely not.
A guy said some stuff. Some but not all of which can be helpful, insightful or inspiritional. Jesus, Richard Bach, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, and the homeless guy on the corner all fall into that catagory.
"No one ever has uncertainties about how to read it" is the overlooked second half of that sentence. And the entire problem is solved when said argument concludes with the person making the argument asserting their interpretation as fact. Q.E. fucking D.
I am annoyed that this is even a topic of discussion anymore. Gays are gay because they are gay. Straights are straight because they are straight. The end.
(Not quite fair: one 'natural' refers to sinful human nature, the other to the 'natural law' implicit in Creation and laid out for you by Aquinas & co..)
For example, the term 'gay marriage' is amusing..because all marriage is gay. Marriage is a way for a so called man to hide behind a female. It says, I am a heterosexual...by default.
But the true heterosexual would never stand for it. Heterosexuality is difficult especially for guys. Girls are difficult. Pretty girls are impossible. What most straight males settle for is some compromise of what they really want...but the result is a lot of internet porn, and getting drunk at conferences and calling the escort service from the local Craigslist. It comes out. Eventually.
The answer to this comes in two parts. "We believe that it's a sin" CAN be questioned. The church's doctrine has and will be questioned and when it just doesn't match up (I.E. slavery) the doctrine has changed.
So when it's questioned and compared to pedophiles you boil it down to human rights. Pedophilia infringes on the rights of one or more parties (a child cannot consent) whereas marriage between to consenting adults hurts no one.
@38 Wow. Just, wowsa.
#40
cf. 24
As in: http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
But why the condescending use of "Danny"? I cannot take anyone seriously who does that.
It's like Weight Watchers admitting that their clients will still be overweight and constantly hungry.
Not that I'm agreeing with crazy fundie bullshit. Just saying, they needed a better PR team.
Exgay therapy fucks up families on a completely different level than we'd previously realized!
I just realized: a lot of what drives the MRA thought process is a misidentification of the ways in which patriarchy harms men as results of feminist progress. It's like when all of the historical evidence shows that cutting taxes for the rich harms everyone, and the economy's health generally, but the anti-tax crazies argue that the problem is simply that we haven't cut taxes enough. Join the Light, MRA guys: equality is a functional, friendly place where men and women and persons who don't conform to binary gender norms are all better off.
I personally know one lady who married a gay guy. He didn't disclose he was gay beforehand - because he's an asshole who happens to be gay. He actually fucked a guy at a party he and his wife were attending ; common friends kept company to the poor wife while the deed was being done in the next room. Some friends - If I had been there I would have called the cops on him. Disrespect like this, I just can't.
They have several kids. She's depressed. She doesn't want to leave because he's an asshole and it will be hell to fight him over the kids. And now she has a serious illness and it's even less time to leave. They are not religious.
The real victims there are not the gay men who so desperately want a fake life. It's those heterosexual women who have been trapped in lustless marriages - by religion (who dosen't care one bit about women) or by the noble womanly duty of helping out a poor man to turn his life around (bullshit traditionally heaped on us females from birth) - and even more by their gay husband himself, who thinks it's OK to deprive a heterosexual woman of her chance of finding a more suitable partner, while oftentimes continuing his homosexual relationships on the down low.
Of course, since he's a total asshole, the creep above is jealous, and hell-bent on keeping his poor wife on a tight monogamous leash. He doesn't need to, she's already given up on any satisfying sex on this life or the next, or on any kind of happiness for that matter ; but he still has jealous screaming fits. The kids are not doing so well.
You sure you are not a Glenn Beck listerner on the sly? Just for kicks? Because his Joy-in-suffering-of-others attitude best correlates with your wolfishly anticipation of seeing a family "exploding", so you can smirk and satisfy your sense of superiority. How grand of you that you will graciously step forward to help the children at that time. Yes, how grand.
Not a whole lot of good vibes or love coming off of you, there. Your gay relative may have a beam in his own eye, but you have more than a mote in your own.
Couldn't watch the first video! Too much high drama!
Oh, the wife knew all right at the moment ; she's the one who told me, years later.