Is this love?
March 29, 2007 8:03 AM Subscribe
Loving Us Into Extinction. The therapist Jeff Lutes questions a Southern Baptist theologian's idea of 'curing' homosexuality in the womb. "Let's stop giving preachers a pass when they claim that LGBT people are "a threat" to children, marriage, the family, or Western civilization itself. Let's stand up in the pews in an act of peaceful protest when they abuse the pulpit to destroy the spirits of gays and lesbians. Let's not be afraid to call a lie a lie when they distort social science research to promote discrimination against LGBT parents."
Following up this post.
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is a followup to an open post, your own post, on a borderline LOL XIANS post. I think it is GYOB time. -- jessamyn
Albert Mohler follows up on himself and the crit.
posted by parmanparman at 8:14 AM on March 29, 2007
posted by parmanparman at 8:14 AM on March 29, 2007
Mohler: "My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know..."
Because we learned in Boy Scouts that you have to burn them off.
posted by hermitosis at 8:18 AM on March 29, 2007
Because we learned in Boy Scouts that you have to burn them off.
posted by hermitosis at 8:18 AM on March 29, 2007
I recall watching some local news-talk program one Sunday morning. It was a roundtable with a handful of local black ministers. A good portion of the show was everyone slapping each other on the back for all their experiences and fine work during the civil-rights era.
Then the subject of gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) came up.
It was incredibly disheartening to watch these civil-rights veterans immediately devolve into venemous bigots. Apparently they learned nothing over those years.
A shining example of the "I got mine, the rest of you can fuck-off" mind-set.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on March 29, 2007
Then the subject of gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) came up.
It was incredibly disheartening to watch these civil-rights veterans immediately devolve into venemous bigots. Apparently they learned nothing over those years.
A shining example of the "I got mine, the rest of you can fuck-off" mind-set.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on March 29, 2007
A Baptist leader says we're 'equally made in the image of God.' Yet he usurps God's authority when he advocates eliminating gays
Indeed. The biblical God says we should execute gays only after they have had intercourse. Anything else is usurping authority!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:38 AM on March 29, 2007
Indeed. The biblical God says we should execute gays only after they have had intercourse. Anything else is usurping authority!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:38 AM on March 29, 2007
Someone on the Internet who thinks Christians should be nicer to homos? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
posted by dazed_one at 8:56 AM on March 29, 2007
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
posted by dazed_one at 8:56 AM on March 29, 2007
Someone on the Internet who thinks Christians should be nicer to homos? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who can't ignore useless noise? Remarkable!!
actually, I kid, dazed_one. i'm just using you to continue your point.
posted by spicynuts at 9:32 AM on March 29, 2007
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who can't ignore useless noise? Remarkable!!
actually, I kid, dazed_one. i'm just using you to continue your point.
posted by spicynuts at 9:32 AM on March 29, 2007
From the followup: Let's remember that all of us are born with a huge moral defect -- we are sinners from the start.
When you start to believe your own bullshit, it's easy to be evil.
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who thinks responding to glib sn... oh crap, I concede.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:33 AM on March 29, 2007
When you start to believe your own bullshit, it's easy to be evil.
Someone on the internet who thinks glib snarkiness is hilarious? Remarkable!
Someone on the internet who thinks responding to glib sn... oh crap, I concede.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:33 AM on March 29, 2007
I think we're done here.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:50 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:50 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
There was an intresting discussion with a priest complaining about all the Anti-gay stuff in the evangelical community, and how it really has nothing to do with religion.
When you look at what's actually in the bible, it's pretty clear that the anti-gay is really, really, minor. Most of the major points are hammered in over and over again, where as the one anti-gay line in there is vague and only part of a list of rules that don't even apply to modern Christians (i.e. along with prohibitions on eating shellfish and such)
posted by delmoi at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2007
When you look at what's actually in the bible, it's pretty clear that the anti-gay is really, really, minor. Most of the major points are hammered in over and over again, where as the one anti-gay line in there is vague and only part of a list of rules that don't even apply to modern Christians (i.e. along with prohibitions on eating shellfish and such)
posted by delmoi at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2007
.. a Southern Baptist theologian's idea of 'curing' homosexuality in the womb.
Abortion, perhaps?
posted by three blind mice at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2007
Abortion, perhaps?
posted by three blind mice at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2007
When you look at what's actually in the bible
Delmoi, have you ? I mean, how many really did and didn't just give a cursory glance and not really believe that is the word of god _just because_ DOH a dolt said it is ?
It's a lot more convenient to just find an easy target, like for instance the despicable, idiotic , arrogant, homosexual delmoi and say he is all the trouble in Metafilter, which is true by the way.
I will more readily believe that then go read your post and try to make some verify that claim. Expecially if you are different, in the sense that you, unlike others, show out of ordinary (but not necessarily better) traits ...if you are an oddball, I will preach rounds about your homosexuality being the cause of all the troubles.
You also are a jew so...
posted by elpapacito at 10:09 AM on March 29, 2007
Delmoi, have you ? I mean, how many really did and didn't just give a cursory glance and not really believe that is the word of god _just because_ DOH a dolt said it is ?
It's a lot more convenient to just find an easy target, like for instance the despicable, idiotic , arrogant, homosexual delmoi and say he is all the trouble in Metafilter, which is true by the way.
I will more readily believe that then go read your post and try to make some verify that claim. Expecially if you are different, in the sense that you, unlike others, show out of ordinary (but not necessarily better) traits ...if you are an oddball, I will preach rounds about your homosexuality being the cause of all the troubles.
You also are a jew so...
posted by elpapacito at 10:09 AM on March 29, 2007
I think we're done here.
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:15 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:15 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have an idea: let's take the bible and enumerate the number of times that it specifically prohibits something. Then, let's use that as a guideline as to what the writers really felt was important.
And if, in doing this, we discover that divorce, or gluttony, or eating shellfish, is mentioned more than the gay thing, then let's make certain that we spend the same amount of energy going after those that have violated God's Will as they have spent going after homosexuals. Fair's fair after all.
posted by quin at 10:44 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
And if, in doing this, we discover that divorce, or gluttony, or eating shellfish, is mentioned more than the gay thing, then let's make certain that we spend the same amount of energy going after those that have violated God's Will as they have spent going after homosexuals. Fair's fair after all.
posted by quin at 10:44 AM on March 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
My sarcasm detector is at the shop.
Can someone tell me if elpapacito is being a troll, or if it was just a poorly written, poorly planned attempt at being funny?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:52 AM on March 29, 2007
Can someone tell me if elpapacito is being a troll, or if it was just a poorly written, poorly planned attempt at being funny?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:52 AM on March 29, 2007
“If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is developed, and if successful treatment to reverse sexual orientation to heterosexual is developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin”
Anyone else offended as a heterosexual? Never been ‘tempted’ m’self. I sure as hell wouldn’t want someone monkeying around with my plumbing because they think it’s a ‘sin.’ I don’t, f’rinstance, cheat on my wife. But I’m not going to cut my balls off “just in case” I can’t keep it in my pants. To me a loving relationship is a loving relationship and is a good model and foundation for kids. Period. But the issue here is - should you change someone’s biological - whatever - in the womb to engineer a social result.
The hypocrisy of the position is obvious - that’s not the thing. The thing is, you have people who consider the earth to be about 4,000 years old making use of fossil fuel powered technology. Given the science here - if one could, and I suspect we will be able to at some point - change the sexual orientation of someone at birth (much as we might genetically lessen their chances to get cancer say) as a matter of technical possibility - this begs the moral question does a parent have the right to do so?
Me, I gotta fall back on the clockwork orange thing - you can’t impose a moral imperative on biology without destroying what ‘human’ is. No question of course of equating homosexuality with cancer. If we could engineer people to be gay (instead of having, say, a Smed level of machismo) would they feel the same way about it? Or add melanin or subtract it or whatever to give someone whatever kind of ‘racial’ trait (we’re all from the same DNA pool, so, mix and match).
But at what level can you allow culture - or in this case micro-culture - to drive biology - where does that end? If we allow a vein parent to design say blue eyes in their kid - can we allow an old-timey religious person to deal out of homosexuality for their kid? Why should they have to put up with it if the technical possibility exists? Much like we allow creationists to drive fossil fueled vehicles.
Discrimination is discrimination. But once it gets out there in the heavy tech/philosophy I start losing my footing.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:26 AM on March 29, 2007
Anyone else offended as a heterosexual? Never been ‘tempted’ m’self. I sure as hell wouldn’t want someone monkeying around with my plumbing because they think it’s a ‘sin.’ I don’t, f’rinstance, cheat on my wife. But I’m not going to cut my balls off “just in case” I can’t keep it in my pants. To me a loving relationship is a loving relationship and is a good model and foundation for kids. Period. But the issue here is - should you change someone’s biological - whatever - in the womb to engineer a social result.
The hypocrisy of the position is obvious - that’s not the thing. The thing is, you have people who consider the earth to be about 4,000 years old making use of fossil fuel powered technology. Given the science here - if one could, and I suspect we will be able to at some point - change the sexual orientation of someone at birth (much as we might genetically lessen their chances to get cancer say) as a matter of technical possibility - this begs the moral question does a parent have the right to do so?
Me, I gotta fall back on the clockwork orange thing - you can’t impose a moral imperative on biology without destroying what ‘human’ is. No question of course of equating homosexuality with cancer. If we could engineer people to be gay (instead of having, say, a Smed level of machismo) would they feel the same way about it? Or add melanin or subtract it or whatever to give someone whatever kind of ‘racial’ trait (we’re all from the same DNA pool, so, mix and match).
But at what level can you allow culture - or in this case micro-culture - to drive biology - where does that end? If we allow a vein parent to design say blue eyes in their kid - can we allow an old-timey religious person to deal out of homosexuality for their kid? Why should they have to put up with it if the technical possibility exists? Much like we allow creationists to drive fossil fueled vehicles.
Discrimination is discrimination. But once it gets out there in the heavy tech/philosophy I start losing my footing.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:26 AM on March 29, 2007
"we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation"
Because the whole free will thing is over rated. Following that logic wouldn't it be better to abort and send the little fetus straight to heaven with no chance to fall from grace?
posted by 2sheets at 12:03 PM on March 29, 2007
Because the whole free will thing is over rated. Following that logic wouldn't it be better to abort and send the little fetus straight to heaven with no chance to fall from grace?
posted by 2sheets at 12:03 PM on March 29, 2007
CitrusFreak12, elpapacito's first language is not English, so sometimes his jokes don't quite come through as intended. I'm sure he's not being serious here.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:05 PM on March 29, 2007
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:05 PM on March 29, 2007
I think the writer makes some good, if obvious points, but I think it's better still to fight these people where they live. You seriously have to wonder about the mental defect of someone who thinks that, left unassailed, homosexuality will become so rampant, that it will eventually threaten the viability of the species.
How could someone like that be anything other than a severe self-loathing closet case?
posted by psmealey at 12:05 PM on March 29, 2007
How could someone like that be anything other than a severe self-loathing closet case?
posted by psmealey at 12:05 PM on March 29, 2007
« Older Creating Liver Tissue from Bone Marrow Stem Cells | The hardest working pres in show business Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:11 AM on March 29, 2007