Entry posted by jerdge
335 views
In response to Kalasin's "Couple of thoughts on homosexuality".
[...] every human being is ultimately [...] equally loved by God[...]
everyone is equally filthy in God’s sight
God loves filth then?
Jokes aside, as a former earnest catholic and religion teacher which eventually lost interest in religion, I consider Kalasin's blog entry very respectable in its intent - indeed we need to make distinctions among the very wide spectrum of "anti-homosexuality" groups - and ultimately very silly on a number of points.
Unless one is given the bible from god her/himself I don't know how the text can be considered infallible, if (at the same time) the people that originally told/wrote it and those that later passed it on/translated it are all considered fallible.
Why men and women's partnership would be "best suited" to raise children? Heterosexual couples that can't have/adopt children are in any way less "worth" because of that? Do children need a men and a woman to be raised? Are widows "lesser" parents? Why not have families with a man and several women? In many societies they think that that's good... Why not 2 females and 3 males, for that matter? What sex has to do with raising children, anyway? Unless one thinks that parents should have sex with their sons/daughters I don't see how the sexual orientation of parents has any relevance with their capability to raise children.
Why is this world "fallen"? Where did it fall from?
What is a "distortion in nature"? Who decides what is "natural and rightful" and what is "natural but distorted"? How does s/he decide that, and what do they base their authority upon, anyway?
If "natural" is "good" (it isn't IMO) it has to always be good; if it's good only when it's good for other reasons then it isn't really good; isn't the "natural and rightful" label just an attempt to exploit the (undeserved) positive connotation of "natural" to support one's own convictions?
If an almighty creator intended us to live in some other way, how comes that we're living in this one? Isn't s/he the creator? Isn't s/he almighty? (Sure, our freedom musts be respected to the point that we're free to be bombed, or to be interned in extermination camps, or to be raped as part of ethnic cleansing...)
Sexual diseases did not come about and are not rising because of the "sexual revolution" of the twentieth century. Sexual diseases were much more common in the previous centuries, and AIDS's rise is especially explosive in Africa, anyway, in most of which the very concept of "sexual revolution" is probably not even known (especially in those parts of society - the poor ones - where AIDS's rise is most prominent). The idea that people didn't have promiscuous sex before the "sexual revolution" is of course wrong: what the sex revolution changed is that (some) people started to believe that they shouldn't need to hide their sexual activity. Homosexuality, by the way, "always" existed, it's not a XX century "byproduct".
I have no idea about the rate of sexual diseases among homos compared to heteros. The spread of diseases among a population with a certain condition is anyway certainly not a good criterion to decide over the "morality"/rightfulness of that condition, otherwise we'd have to conclude that being a child, or an elder, is wrong. Countless other examples could be made.
Christians should love sinners, at least for the very good reason that otherwise they couldn't love anybody, but christians (and most other religious people, to be fair) should also stop applying the concept of "sin" to other people. Everybody needs to understand that it's disrespectful to call "sinners" those that disagree with their (often highly minority and narrow) personal beliefs over aspects of life that don't affect/harm the rest of society. "Tolerance" is often just another way - albeit a benevolent one - to look down upon someone.
Kalasin, as a former churchy myself I fully understand your position. I invite you to embrace the revelation that your personal judgment is literally the only compass you have to tell right from wrong - it's the only validation you have for your belief that the bible is infallible, for instance - thus you can live better (more rightfully) and more honestly (nearer to the truth) if you just become transparent about it. Following someone else's beliefs is not only silly, but impossible.
You can be right/wrong much better by your own, and in fact you can't do anything else.
12 Comments
Recommended Comments