On its website, NARTH reprints a disturbing article, The Myth of the Gay Gene, written by Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, Ph.D. It was reprinted from the December 2003 issue of HPR. In his tirade, Austriaco seems to compare homosexuality to rape:
Gay activists often assert that homosexuality is natural because homosexual behavior has been observed in non-human animals. Recent research has also shown, however, that rape – called forced copulation by socio-biologists is common in nature. [31] For instance in wild orangutans, most copulations by immature males and almost half of all copulations by adult males occur after fierce female resistance has been violently overcome by the male. [32] According to the revisionist argument, the common occurrence of rape in other animal species would suggest that rape even in human societies should be considered natural. But this is false.
Human sexuality involves free acts of self-giving which are best manifested in the complementary union of bodily persons that occurs during marital love. Regardless of what happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom, both rape and homosexual behavior are incompatible with an authentic understanding human personhood. They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures. Both fail to realize the total self-gift of persons that ought to accompany every sexual act. We are persons and this makes all the difference in the world.
Although this article is from 2003, it underscores NARTH’s barbaric and backward view of homosexuality. Clearly, the group agrees with its contents or they would never have posted this offensive article. NARTH takes clients as young as three years old. In my view, it is child abuse to expose LGBT youth to such ideas or to disseminate such messages to the parents of these children.
California Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative bodies in other states that are considering banning reparative therapy for minors should be aware of what such groups are saying about LGBT people. Once legislators are fully educated on this issue, there can be no doubt that reparative therapy is not really a form of legitimate therapy at all, but a clumsy effort to wrap medical language around homophobic opinions. The goal is not to help — but to harm LGBT people and their families. This is precisely why these charlatans must be put out of business.
He did not compare homosexuality to rape, and your lack of reasoning skills here is alarming, to say the least (though, in my opinion, that’s par for the course on this site).
He merely stated that pro-gay activists who want to advocate homosexual sexual activity as “normal” based on nature studies would also be forced to conclude, if they are to be consistent, that rape is also “normal,” given that “rape” is part of animal kingdom practice for procreation.
Not once did he compare homosexuality to rape — not once. But that is what your post leads people to think. Really?
I would just like to say something on this point. At one time it used to be said that homosexual behaviour is “unnatural” for us because animals don’t do it. It has now long been known that that is a load of rubbish: they do. But the argument that it must after all be “natural” and right for us because animals do it should not be used either, because it is equally flawed. There are two errors in that argument. The first is to suppose that if animals do something, then that justifies our doing it: it doesn’t – and to that extent Austriaco is right. The other error is to suppose that we need to justify either our sexuality or our so-called lifestyle by appealing to an animal model: we need no such justification.
Human sexuality is much more complex and has a far richer meaning than animal sexuality, and therefore an attempt simply to transfer the concepts of sexual orientation, heterosexuality, homosexuality etc., as we understand them of ourselves, to animals is scientifically dubious. Even if human homosexuality has no exact parallel anywhere else in the animal kingdom, that does not matter in the least. As the American biologist Douglas Futuyma put it (although he wasn’t referring specifically to this matter when he wrote it):
“At no time has anyone ever explained why human behavior should be modeled on nonhuman nature.”
What animals do or don’t do can tell us nothing whatever about what we should or shouldn’t do.
As for Austriaco’s assertion that homosexual behaviour is “incompatible with an authentic understanding human personhood” and that it is “unnatural” (whatever that is supposed to mean) because it violates “our natures as embodied spiritual creatures”, that is just high-sounding but meaningless verbiage.
“…incompatible with an authentic understanding (of) human personhood.” (sic)
Since we’re not ‘real, authentic’ people, the typical outcome of jargon like this is a one way ticket in a cattle car.
Billy Birch:
Just like NARTH wasn’t endorsing slavery a few years back, huh?
Apparently, you must lack reading comprehension skills. The article says:
“They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures. Both fail to realize the total self-gift of persons that ought to accompany every sexual act.”
The words “they” and “both” are a comparison. If you can’t understand what this simple test in logic, there is not much we can do for you here.
Billy said “He did not compare homosexuality to rape, and your lack of reasoning skills here is alarming, to say the least”.
Yes he most certainly did make that comparison. He said “rape and homosexual behavior are incompatible with an authentic understanding human personhood. They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures. Both fail to realize the total self-gift of persons that ought to accompany every sexual act”.
He said gayness is unnatural just as rape is unnatural and both are bad for that reason. He’s wrong on both counts. Both rape and gayness are most certainly natural and consistent with human nature. Something being natural doesn’t determine whether or not it is good or bad, what determines whether or not something natural is good or bad is whether or not it harms others. Rape harms others, gayness does not. Rape is bad and gayness is good although both are entirely natural behaviors for humans.
How hypocritical of those hack “scientists”. At first unnatural was evil, and now it’s good to these people? Since truth seems to waffle on this subject far more often than I’d like, truth is worthless.
I am only after the facts.
The facts prove NA”R”TH are total hacks.
Billy Birch, you are broadly right, but he does in fact compare homosexuality to rape in one respect, viz. when he says that “both rape and homosexual behavior are incompatible with an authentic understanding [of] human personhood.” What he presumably means is that homosexuality is incompatible with HIS understanding of human personhood. I see no reason why anyone should be the slightest bit concerned about that; I certainly am not.
He is undoubtedly right in exposing the “Animals do it, so it’s O.K. for us” argument as erroneous. I have already explained above why that argument should not be used. Our sexuality needs no defence of that kind, even if the argument were sound, which it isn’t.
Of course the good father is an expert on human sexuality. He is celibate after all.
Billy, you claimed that no comparison was made, then went and spelled out exactly what comparison was being made. That’s like when Margeret Srivistav claimed she wasn’t playing the victim by playing the victim. Do you anti-gay bigots ever think before you say something, or are you just so wrapped up in your heterosexual priviledge that you honestly think we’ll just take your lies at face value?
William is absolutely spot on. Homosexuality in animals is a response to an idiotic argument, It was never a pro-homosexual argument in itself.
I’ve never met a single LGBT advocate in the world who made the argument that animals have gay sex, so therefore pass ENDA or marraige equality.
It is remarkably ignorant anti-gay activists who argue that they’ve never seen gay sheep, dogs, pigs, goats and horses, so therefore homosexuality is unnatural unique to “fallen” humanity.
When such an dumb argument is made, it is important to point out that these folks are wrong and that homosexuality does occur within the animal kingdom.
It’s called education. Which is 95% of what LGBT groups exist to do.
There is nothing remarkable about their ignorance. It is willful ignorance and a deliberate avoidance of the truth – e.g. lying, which in the parlance of nearly all anti-gay people is bearing false witness.
I think the comparison is devastating to children who see this online. If a teenager is gay or wrestling with being gay, reading something like that can put bad feelings into their heads about themselves. My email is farrelledward2@gmail.com and I would love to hear from those who visit this site and who are gay wrestling with the fundamentalists and their anti gay agenda.
Wayne,
“Apparently, you must lack reading comprehension skills. The article says:
“‘They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures. Both fail to realize the total self-gift of persons that ought to accompany every sexual act.’
“The words ‘they’ and ‘both’ are a comparison. If you can’t understand what this simple test in logic, there is not much we can do for you here.”
Regardless that “both” are violations of our natures, the one is not synonymous with the other, nor did the author admit such.
Again, the *basis* for his comments regarding rape was *the study of nature.* If pro-gay advocates want to vie for “normalizing” homosexual practice *based on nature,* then one should consider the practice of rape in nature as well.
He in no wise whatsoever even hinted that homosexuality was tantamount to rape, as you are trying to spin the issue here.
Billy, explain how something that appears in nature is a violation of nature.
Also, explain how equating being gay to being a rapist is anything but an attempt to connect the two morally.
Furthermore, both sides of the nature argument are strawmen used by bigots such as yourself. Our argument is that we live in a country that promises equal protection under the law.
I’m wondering how much NARTH is paying you to come here and lie on their behalf.
Yeah, Billy, he certainly is making the comparison. And you are completely full of s**t to pretend otherwise. Furthermore, gay activists don’t make the argument you claim. It is anti-gay activists that claim homosexuality is unnatural and are so stupid they often claim there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. That we correct these imbeciles from time to time is not the same as having it be our argument for equality.
I’m not sure how your ilk does it. It must feel good to lie through your teeth and find absolution by bedtime because you lied in the service of your lord.
Billy said “Regardless that “both” are violations of our natures, the one is not synonymous with the other, nor did the author admit such.”.
None of us cliamed he said rape and gayness were synonymous. What he said was that rape and gayness were both bad, he claimed they were both immoral. And it is a lie that both are violations of our natures, both are entirely natural for humans but only one is a wrongoding (and it ain’t gayness you moron).
Billy, you have provided us all with a great example of why people should be honest with themselves.
And gluttony is in the same class as genocide.
The post doesn’t really argue anything other than condemn and seek to “put out of business” NARTH because it holds homosexuality to be sinful.
This is why folk like NOM argue that churches, etc. ought fear that approving marital equality will result in a direct move against churches who disagree?
Oh Melinda. Another shill for Christ. You mean the same sleaze bags at NOM who were caught with a memo promising to drive a wedge between gays and blacks and Hispanics? Yes, they seem so credible. And you seem unbothered that in all the places in the world with marriage equality fundies are as vocal as ever, and certainly not silenced.
Melinda, it must be tough to be a person driven and motivated by paranoid delusions and faux persecution. You certainly are a martyr in your own mind.
Melinda, if you Christians and your churches weren’t agents of corruption and deceit, you would not have to be so paranoid. AT ALL.
But no, you lot use us, and practically everyone else you hate (and yes, I know the real history you tried so hard to whitewash), as scapegoats while you prey on women, children, and anyone with any sort of disadvantage. You attempt to torture and subjugate humanity, and you expect anyone to have any sympathy for you? Sorry you mistake humanity’s increasing disapproval of your appalling behavior for attacks against you (seriously, why do you lot do that? It’s quite annoying), but you’ll just have to accept it until you clean up your act.
Furthermore, if gluttony is the same as genocide, and that’s sin, and sin is evil, why do you lot cheerfully participate in both, and so often?
Melinda said “And gluttony is in the same class as genocide.”.
You’re missing the point Melinda. Just as it would be absurd to claim gluttony is a moral wrong in the same class as genocide its absurd for Narth to say gayness is a moral wrong in the same class as rape, or as they put it “violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures”.
Melinda said “The post doesn’t really argue anything other than condemn and seek to “put out of business” NARTH because it holds homosexuality to be sinful”.
No, what its saying is that its despicable for Narth to claim gayness is a moral wrong in the same way that rape is a moral wrong. Narth is promoting ideas that some people use as justification and motivation to perpetrate violence on gay people. Narth deserves to be condemned for that and like any business that sells a fraudulent and harmful product it should be put out of business.
Melinda said “This is why folk like NOM argue that churches, etc. ought fear that approving marital equality will result in a direct move against churches who disagree?”.
You act like anti-gay churches are innocent parties when in fact they promote the idea that gay people are deserving of eternal torture. Your anti-gay churches just as much as Narth are helping to create an atmosphere that encourages the abuse of gay people. Despite that no one is trying to deny churches the right to be as big of bigots as they want to be so spare us your faux victimhood. Gays and lesbians are the victims, not your despicable churches.
“You’re missing the point Melinda. Just as it would be absurd to claim gluttony is a moral wrong in the same class as genocide….” PLynn
No. That is the point. Two things can be in the same class and not equivalent.
The argument made in this post is made all the time–that to identify one ‘sin’ is to equate it with the worst and most vile evil–which is not fair–and hence must be defined as some kind of hate victimizing the innocent.
I am not claiming one ounce of being victimized–and I frankly was not aware I owned any churches. Pointing out that the apologetic in the post paints one into a corner of trying to shut down speech, religion, opposition, etc is not a claim to any kind of victim status. It is to hold up a mirror–whether or not TWO wants to see the enemy.
Bottom line–NARTH does not do, in the statement, what this post alledges.
This site exposes alot of ugly. There is no need to create strawmen to pour on gasoline–unless what TWO wants is more fire–ie. to take “ugly” and make it the face of anyone who disagrees. Haven’t you experienced enough of that prejudicial demonizing?
“Melinda, it must be tough to be a person driven and motivated by paranoid delusions and faux persecution. You certainly are a martyr in your own mind. ” W Besen
Sometimes you know invisible people that write a couple paragraphs–and sometimes you haven’t a clue.
“You act like anti-gay churches are innocent parties when in fact they promote the idea that gay people are deserving of eternal torture. Your anti-gay churches just as much as Narth are helping to create an atmosphere that encourages the abuse of gay people. ” PLynn
I don’t think churches are innocent. I think they are profoundly guilty.
On what ground do you argue that any human is deserving of life, liberty, or justice?
“Furthermore, if gluttony is the same as genocide, and that’s sin, and sin is evil, why do you lot cheerfully participate in both, and so often?” Aulton
Well I’m not sure who my “lot” is–but I’m not interested in ignoring the various forms of genocide and gluttony in which I participate as an individual, as a US citizen, as a Christian–as my only real fear is of my Creator.
What a bunch of crap Melinda. First of all, trying to put two things in a class together is an attempt to equate them. That’s what catagorizations are for.
Every time you post here it’s some variation of “well your side does it to”. I’m starting to suspect someone pays you to make the bullies look like victims. No one is infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech. Where do people like you get the idea that criticism is the same censorship?
Bottom line, NARTH says being gay is morally equivalent to being a rapist. There’s no way to dress it up.
Quoting someone verbatim is not creating strawmen nor is it demonization.
If you didn’t think churches were innocent, you wouldn’t be trying to defend their behavior and paint them as victims.
If you really wanted to know about your participation in genocide, you wouldn’t be defending the people leading it.
And if you really feared your creator so much, you would pay attention to that little thing about bearing false witness.
Well Melinda, your “fear of [your] Creator” is strictly in your own head.
So fear your “creator” (for whom there is no verifiable evidence of existence at all, just personal testimony and anecdote) all you want, but please don’t complain when non religionists and other religionists besides fundagelical christianists, oppose the demonization of LGBT people.
You see NARTH, NOM and all of these beneficent organizations don’t just want to convert people to heterosexism and buybull-based christianism, they want to politically prevent ALL LGBT people in the country from having the same rights and privileges that YOU do. They don’t care about the many christian identifying people and their denominations that are LGBT supportive either, because it doesn’t meet THEIR definition of what christianity is all about. So its really a political battle, because the forces trying to keep my 12 year old marriage to my husband from having legal standing (with all of the attendant financial benefits) use fundagelical christian arguments about choice, “lifestyle”, blah, blah, blah ad nauseam to thwart us. And want to thwart their fellow christians as well! Of course they don’t believe their christians if they don’t follow the fundagelical party line, so it doesn’t matter. All for the work of “The Lard!”
I think it disingenuous of you to think NARTH and the holey “Father” who wrote this tripe had anything but the intention of linking the two in the minds of their readers. But then I stopped apologizing for christianists after my deconversion from christianity 3 years ago. Looking from the outside after 40 years on the inside, it never surprises me anymore what christianists will say .
Melinda:
Austriaco has said that you can’t justify doing something on the ground that animals do it. He’s right. No human behaviour (including homosexual behaviour) either can be or needs to be justified in this way.
While Austriaco presumably doesn’t think that homosexual behaviour is as bad as rape – at least I hope that he doesn’t – he has said that it is wrong, and that it is wrong FOR THE SAME REASON that rape is wrong: “They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures.” That is trash. There is no more reason to suppose that homosexual behaviour as such violates human nature than to suppose that heterosexual behaviour does.
Melinda,
why would NARTH re=print something from back in 2003 except to stir up hatred and fear?
Comparisons to rape are particualry egregious and it is you putting up the strawman that this Austriaco character is merely using logic (in whatever twisted form) to advance/defend a particular position.
Is rape really the only thing he could have used? How about the practise of harems in Mountain Gorilla? Sinful in man, ‘natural’ to apes. That would at least have avoided offesne.
But no, the raison d’etre is hate. Nothing like a scream of ‘rape’ to engender fear.
P.S. The suggestion that gluttony and genocide are in in any way in teh same ‘class’ betrays a good deal more about your lack of moral proportion than anything else.
Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.
If gay activist for once accept the fact that homosexuality is unnatural people would be less homophobic and the church will be much more tolerant.
Stop being childish. Accept the reality. Why do you give so much importance to sex. It is just another human activity. Only difference is that homosexuality does serve no purpose other than sexual pleasure.
Animals have homosexual intercourse because they are confused. They do not have feelings or they are not gay.
Hank, if animals don’t have thoughts or feelings, how can they be confused? It would seem to me then, by your argument, that animals are completely tabula rasa throughout their lives. (I guess it is impossible to make a cat angry then, since cats don’t have feelings.)
If animals don’t have feelings, they operate purely by instinct. Therefore, they engage in same-sex behaviors BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL TO THEM.
Camille, explain how something that appears in nature is unnatural.
Hank, explain how capitulating to the (provably false) claims of anti-gay bigots would make them less bigoted.
The most amusing thing about this brouhaha is its wonderful demonstration of how “flexible” (or, perhaps, manipulative) Roman Catholics are when they argue from “Natural Law.” They used to say that homosexuality is unnatural because nonhuman animals do not practice homosexuality. Now, it is unnatural because nonhuman animals DO practice homosexuality.
The absurdity and homophobia of Hank’s idea above that homosexuality serves no other purpose than sexual pleasure is breathtaking. Love, companionship, bonding, finding a soul mate: yeah, all these things are only about sexual pleasure. Such bigotry.
Camille Paglia says: “And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.”
Actually, Camille, what you are saying is not correct. The penis also fits the anus quite well. And that is why anal sex is practiced and enjoyed by millions of gay and straight Americans.
Our sexual organs are also used significantly more for eliminating waste, masturbation, and casual sex with no expectation for babies — and a minority of the time for the purposes of procreation.
Furthermore, I don’t believe they were “designed”but evolved into their current state — which I have just outlined and common sense dictates have multifaceted uses.
No, the purpose of humanity is not simply to have babies. That is a simpleton view that demeans our value and reduces the mystery of life. Human beings exist for all sorts of reasons and reproduction is not necessarily the the natural use for every person. Or, we would not have gay people or infertile couples.
If the natural purpose for gay people is reproduction we would possess the mechanism that fosters reproduction, which is attraction to the opposite sex. But nature has produced millions of people without that mechanism, clearly creating another biological fact that is rather inconvenient to your theory.
Throughout the world, wherever and whenever LGBT people are free to be themselves without fear of persecution and execution, they couple with same sex mates. This is what appears to be the natural state of for LGBT people, the incontrovertible norm, and a biological fact is that many LGBT people have no desire to reproduce.
No amount of trying to fit square pegs into stale and rigid round holes can change the fact that there is more to biology and life than the drive for reproduction.
“What a bunch of crap Melinda. First of all, trying to put two things in a class together is an attempt to equate them. That’s what catagorizations are for.” PLynn
1 is an integer. 2,876,394,544,987,384,345,543 is an integer.
Melinda — your problem is that you are God fearing, not God loving or self-loving. If your motivation is fear of God, as you have said, you will say and do anything not to anger the irrational, nasty deity you have invented in your mind.
This, I believe, explains much of your belligerence, incoherence, and dishonest behavior.
There are plenty of animals that have sex for pleasure. Especially highly evolved mammals like dolphins and apes.
Bonobos seemingly base their entire social order on sex (they’re also matriarchal). Sex is a way of conflict resolution to them. And that includes things like kissing, oral sex and “gay” sex.
If humans were “meant” to have sex only for procreation, women would have an estrus cycle – i.e. they would be only be horny when they are fertile. But that’s not the cause because sex also serves many social functions.
Hank, the REAL question is why do YOU give so much importance to sex
Because, y’know, here you are, explaining the purpose of life in terms of sex.
As for the church being more tolerant if we would just shut up? Long before we were talking, the church, in collusion with the state, was murdering us. But thanks for admitting that food the church, this is about control and authority and the abuse of power.
For.not food. Damn iPad spellcheck.
The late C.S. Lewis has been much praised as an apologist for Christianity. Personally I find him pretty unconvincing in that capacity. But when he was talking about ordinary, everyday life, he did say some very wise things. Here is one that I have seen quoted:
“Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.”
Very true. And precisely the same is true of gay sexual relationships.
CamilleP said:
“in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule.”
Funny how the fundagelicals have become so Darwinian when it suits their purpose. First it was a beneficent, omniscient Gawd that created it this way and now its down to the inexorable driving force of nature.
Bonobos are genetically as close to us as chimpanzees (both are our nearest neighbors). And Bonobos have sex with each other all of the time and not just to reproduce. Hmmmm.
We need more nonreproducing folks in the world anyway, fundies: we’re at 6 billion and counting as it is. Or should we just wait for the “good Lard” and that ole rapture that’s coming any day now?
I said “You’re missing the point Melinda. Just as it would be absurd to claim gluttony is a moral wrong in the same class as genocide.”
Melinda said “No. That is the point. Two things can be in the same class and not equivalent.1 is an integer. 2,876,394,544,987,384,345,543 is an integer. The argument made in this post is made all the time–that to identify one ‘sin’ is to equate it with the worst and most vile evil–which is not fair–and hence must be defined as some kind of hate victimizing the innocent.”.
No, his argument was equivalent to “1 is a very big integer and 2,876,394,544,987,384,345,543 is a very big integer”. He stated they were similarly wrong in violating human nature.” If he hadn’t intended to draw an equivalence in the degree of wrongness he wouldn’t have used rape for the comparison. That is the “go to” comparison for christians when they are calling gayness a wrondoing, they give the examples of rape, murder and theft and claim its a wrong in the same way those things are wrongs. Christians like the people at Narth constantly try to paint gayness in the worst possible light, as some kind of great evil along the lines of rape or murder. The gayness is similar to rape comparison is intended to maximize opposition to gayness in the same way that opposition to rape is extremely intense. That’s what Narth and christians like you are after, to portray gayness as a serious wrondoing in need of serious efforts to stop it. Narth’s goal is to maximize the hatred of gays or they wouldn’t have used the rape comparison in the first place.
Melinda said I am not claiming one ounce of being victimized–and I frankly was not aware I owned any churches. Pointing out that the apologetic in the post paints one into a corner of trying to shut down speech, religion, opposition, etc is not a claim to any kind of victim status. It is to hold up a mirror–whether or not TWO wants to see the enemy.”.
There you go again with your false victim status. Neither you nor Narth has any right to be free from criticism and you’re falsely claiming “speech, religion, opposition, etc. is being shut down” when you’re merely being criticized. You’re demanding that you be allowed to spew hate without being criticized for it because you’re used to a privilileged position in society where religious beliefs haven’t traditionally been criticized and you wrongly believe criticizing you for your hate speech is unfair. You and Narth deserve criticism, your going to get it, and we’re not going to stop. Stop lying and claiming anyone has tried to “shut you down”.
Melinda said ” There is no need to create strawmen to pour on gasoline–unless what TWO wants is more fire–ie. to take “ugly” and make it the face of anyone who disagrees.”.
Oh please, enough with the faux victim act. The ones creating fire are the ones comparing gayness to rape, not the ones rightly saying that’s an absurd comparison. You and Narth aren’t just disagreeing, you’re doing it in the uigliest of fashions, the face of your opposition IS grotesquely ugly.
You go, Priya!
How about some of that evidence I asked for earlier Melinda, about the existence of your fear inspiring God? No anecdotes or personal testimonies, though. Some verifiable evidence. The kind of evidence you would require if someone tried to convert you to hinduism.
Or just explain to me why God hates amputees.
Melinda said “On what ground do you argue that any human is deserving of life, liberty, or justice?”
On the basis that those things are necessary to maximize happiness and as humans there is no one and no thing that has the authority to tell us we can’t seek to maximize happiness and maximizing happiness necessarily requires we give to others the same things we want for ourselves.
Melinda, christians like you like to falsely claim there is no right or wrong without your “god” deciding what those things are. You like to claim that that is an “objective” standard while if humans decide what is right and wrong that is a subjective standard.
Well Melinda, your “god’s” definition of right and wrong couldn’t get any more subjective. Your “god” tells humans it is wrong to kill and yet kills his son. Your “god” tells humans adultery and rape are wrong and yet impregnates another man’s bethrothed without her permission. With your “god” right and wrong varies depending on who takes the action, your god’s morality is not in anyway objective.
Tell me Melinda, if your “god” told you to rape and set fire to an innocent baby and said that was moral would that make it moral? Obviously not. You know in your heart that your “god’s” mere say so doesn’t change a wrong into a right which would be true if objective morality came from your “god”. No, you’ll deny that your “god” would ever do such a thing because you know wrongness is determined by harm. You’ll say your “god” wouldn’t or couldn’t do that because you know in your heart there’s a standard of right and wrong that has nothing to do with your “god” deciding what those things are.
Camille said “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm;”.
Nonsense. By that “logic”, left handedness is not normal and is a “challenge to the norm”. Gayness and left-handedness are normal, healthy, and natural varients for a minority of the human population. If you’re going to claim they’re not “normal” in the sense that they are not typical of most humans then high intelligence, great athletic ability, or great leadership skills are also not normal. Gayness doesn’t “challenge” anyone who is heteroesexual to be gay. The challenge comes entirely from your side, you challenge gays to live their lives as you want them to, not as they want to. You have a false and grotesque sense of entitlement – you don’t have the right to tell anyone how to live other than yourself.
Camille said “Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule.”.
What about eating, isn’t that one of nature’s rules? What about finding shelter, isn’t that one of nature’s rules? What about survival, isn’t that one of nature’s rules? And for many species including ourselves cooperation is one of nature’s rules. No, its utterly abursd to claim “in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule.”, there are many, many rules in nature and they vary from species to species..
Camille said “Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact”.
Our bodies weren’t designed, they evolved through happenstance and natural selection. And features that initially evolved because they helped a species do one thing that allowed it to survive better are often used in new ways they weren’t origially evolved for. In nature if a feature of a body can be used for something it will be regardless of what were the original pressures that caused it to evolve in the first place. Nature isn’t picky, it’ll use a crescent wrench for a hammer, a butter knife for a screwdriver and a penis for pleasure in anyway possible. No fancy linguistic game playing can change that biological fact..
Hank said “If gay activist for once accept the fact that homosexuality is unnatural people would be less homophobic and the church will be much more tolerant.”
There is no logical reason to believe that’s true and there is good reason to believe its false. Those who believe people are born gay are much more likely to support marriage equality than those who do not. It follows from that that those who believe gayness is natural are more likely to accept it than those who think gays are “rebelling against nature” and “shaking their fist at god”.
Hank said “Stop being childish.”.
So, now its childish to want to have a romantic relationship with someone and live your life with them. Virtually all heterosexuals are childish then.
Hank said “Why do you give so much importance to sex. It is just another human activity.”
Gays don’t give it anymore or any less importance than heterosexuals. Look at the huge volumes of art, literature, and music devoted to heterosexual love and sex. You don’t question why heterosexuals give so much importance to sex so its absurd of you to ask why gays do. If someone told you you were’nt allowed to have sex under penalty of prison or death you’d probably be complaining.
Hank said “Only difference is that homosexuality does serve no purpose other than sexual pleasure.”.
Before humans settled down and started farming and keeping livesock they had no idea that sex caused pregnancy. For the vast majority of human history humans didn’t have sex to create babies they did it solely for the purpose of having pleasure. Sex is one of the ties that bind, it makes us care for and value our partner and seek to help them live a better life. There is so much more to sex than popping out babies.
Hank said “Animals have homosexual intercourse because they are confused. They do not have feelings or they are not gay.”.
Scientists have found gayness in just about every species they’ve looked for it in. Animals, even insects must have emotions to survive. No animal can survive for long if it doesn’t know the fear of danger, the joy of sex, the contentment of eating, the happiness of knowing all its needs are currently fullfilled. Humans are incredibly arrogant to think they are the only ones with emotions. Studies have shown many animals have a sense of justice and fair play as well. Scientists did an experiement with chimpanzees, giving them a reward of cucumber when they performed a simple task correctly. They put two chimpanzees in side by side cages and gave them cucumber rewards for simple tasks which the chimpanzees ate happily. Then they switched it up and gave one of the chimps a much more desirable strawberry instead of the cucumber while giving the other chimp the ususal cucumber. The chimp that got the cucumber wouldn’t eat it this time, started screeching and banging on the cage showing it knew it hadn’t been treated fairly. The interesting thing was that the chimp that got the strawberry also recognized this unfairness and in empathy refused to eat the strawberry instead throwing it back at the researcher. Animals are far more like us than most people want to admit.
Melinda said “On what ground do you argue that any human is deserving of life, liberty, or justice?”
Do we need a “ground” to justify any of these things? I think common sense and experience are all we really need.
In order to have worth, I don’t need to have my existence justified by a real or imaginary creator. The fact that I am here, living an breathing, is the justification in and of itself.
Your very point of view is so sad and you appear to be a slave to doctrine.
Life, liberty, and justice are guaranteed under international treaties adopted by United States and numerous other nations.
They are also guaranteed by more than half a millennium of post-Renaissance Christian tradition.