We Get It: You Don’t Hate Gay People… You Just Don’t Want Them to Be Happy

Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra recently released a video for CatholicNewsService in which he clarified the Church’s position on homosexuality.

Blogger Rebecca Hamilton says, “As usual, he nails it,” so you *know* this is gonna be good:

Essentially, what the Church teaches is that homosexuals are to be loved and accepted and supported as children of God and as human beings with dignity. But a homosexual act itself, like all sexual acts outside of marriage, is something the Church cannot condone or support. So it’s really encouraging chastity and encouraging a pure way of living.

Essentially, the Church is teaching [to] straight people, also, that sex outside of marriage is not to be condoned and sinful, but sex within marriage is life-giving and live-giving and is something to be encouraged.

So, the Church has nothing against gays. It just has a problem with anyone, gay or straight, having sex outside of marriage.

You know, there’s a simple solution to that…:

Sorry, sorry, I was being too logical there.

Of course the Church doesn’t want gay people to get married. They just want gay people to remain single and sexless for life. (Despite Kandra’s claim that the Church views all relationships the same way, the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”)

So, you see? Catholics don’t hate gay people. They love gay people.

They love them so much that they’ll do everything in their power to make sure gay people can never get married or have sex — the very things that straight Catholic couples are taught are the highlights of an eternal, ever-lasting bond — because those things would make the Baby Jesus cry.

That’s the best the Church can offer homosexuals: A life of frustrating celibacy.

No wonder young people are getting the hell out.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • cipher

    Right – a loving, merciful, benevolent deity who creates people with specific orientations then tortures them for eternity for living in accordance with them – for being who he created them to be.

    Thanks, Father, for clearing that up.

    • Frank

      God does not crate anyone gay. Our sinful fallen world does.

      • Spazticus

        Citation needed.

        • Frank

          Citation needed.

          • Spazticus

            You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

            • Frank

              Citation needed.

              • fentwin

                Now say “polly want a cracker?”.

                • 3lemenope

                  “It don’t say ‘Polly wanna cracker’.”

                  “No?”

                  “It only says ‘you’re under arrest’.”

                  “I once knew a guy whose bird said that…”

              • EvolutionKills

                Oh look at that, he did not disappoint! Very well done young internet padawn, you certainly have been a good little warrior for Jesus, now haven’t you?

                • Spazticus

                  That’s no surprise. He’s currently stuck in a recursive loop. I wonder just what value his position must hold for him, if he is so unwilling to actually defend it.

                • EvolutionKills

                  Maybe he’s just a really poorly programmed chat-bot?

                • Spazticus

                  At best. As a human, his debate skills would rate somewhere between sub-par to nonexistent.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                *squints…*

              • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

                Keep on trollin’.

              • Hat Stealer

                Oh boy…

          • EvolutionKills

            I’m now waiting for the next step of the debate, the vaunted ‘nu-uh’ part, where the one who has stated a positive claim proceeds to defend it by simply denying everything presented in the manner of a kinder-gardener on a set of monkey bars…

            • UWIR

              *kindergartner

          • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

            Oh, yeah…. (Citation needed) ^ Limit of 1/x as x goes from 1 to 0.

      • Art_Vandelay

        I thought Al Jeezis cleaned that shit up?

      • allein

        God does not crate anyone gay.

        Well, I hope not. Crate training works pretty well for dogs, not so much for people…

        • Stev84

          Churches are all about putting people into boxes.

        • allein

          (Then again, some people are into that sort of thing…)

      • Edmond

        You’re saying that a sinful, fallen world causes the activation of same-sex desires, and also causes the de-activation of opposite-sex desires? How does that work? What is the mechanism for that? Is there a moment where this happens? Can people feel it when the sins of the world turn them gay? Have you confirmed this through MRI, or EEG, or any empirical research of any kind? Should gay people be blamed when the “fallen world” causes this switch in them?

        • Frank

          I am saying that since we live in a sinful fallen world everything is corrupted including sexuality.

          • Spazticus

            The only verifiable point you can make with that statement is, “we live”. Everything else you’re asserting amounts to nothing other than an opinion.

            • Frank

              I wouldn’t expect an atheist to believe in Christian theology.

              So ion that regard its an informed opinion just like you have opinions.

              • allein

                So then what’s the point of coming here and posting things you know we don’t believe as if they are facts?

                • Frank

                  So is this blogs only purpose an atheist circle jerk?

                • Spazticus

                  It serves many purposes, though they may be beyond your level of understanding.

                • Frank

                  Nothing complex here. Its all very simplistic.

                • Spazticus

                  Yes, yes you are very simplistic.

                • Frank

                  Nice. I love it when elementary school tactics are brought out. Very telling!

                • Spazticus

                  It’s a bit too soon to start congratulating yourself for the elementary school tactics to which I responded. You’ve yet to convince anyone that your statements here have any merit.

                • Frank

                  That’s ok. You have yet to convince me that your opinion has any merit whatsoever.

                • dagor_annon

                  Frank, his ‘opinion’ matches what we observe in the world. your opinion is not based on what we observe, but on what you believe – however that relates to merit, I leave to you.

                • allein

                  No, I’m wondering what it is you get out of posting here. You make religious claims as if they are accepted fact; when asked for citations earlier, you simply parrotted the request back like a 5-year-old (and you have the nerve to accuse us of “elementary school tactics”?), and I think it’s safe to assume nothing we say here is going to change your mind or even get you to actually think about it, nor have I seen you make any real arguments for your side. So what’s the point?

                  (Alternatively, I think you’re just trolling and for some reason this is fun for you but I’m bored enough to answer as if I take you seriously.)

                • Frank

                  Well i do like a good argument but I rarely find one here.

                • Spazticus

                  I’ve yet to see you present one. Unfounded assertions do not make for a solid argument, much less any basis for a debate.

                • allein

                  Which leads to, once again, what’s the point? You’re not getting what you’re looking for, according to yourself, so why keep coming back?

                • Spazticus

                  Confirmation bias, or perhaps a persecution complex? Maybe a bit of both.

                • Frank

                  God has not given up on you or the people who read this blog and therefore neither do I.

                • Earnest

                  God is imaginary.

                • RobMcCune

                  Try writing posts of actual substance then. Of course would require you to engage in actual writing and thinking. Anything more little quips is something you’re either unable or unwilling to do.

                • Stev84

                  He is indeed a troll. This isn’t the only atheist blog he trolls. He is also active on WWJTD for example.

                • allein

                  I figured. This is the only blog I read on a regular basis, though.

              • Spazticus

                No, what you have is an assertion that dictates your attitudes and actions, but has no basis in reality. If that’s all it amounted to, then nobody would be harmed by that mentality. However, this assertion fuels a mentality, and by extension, a political agenda, that is used to actively discriminate and harm others.

                People who have that mentality use it as a means to bully or shame those that don’t buy into their mindset, and use both social and political clout to indoctrinate others into believing it too. So no, it’s not just an “opinion” you have, and it certainly isn’t an informed one, by the standards of reality.

                • Frank

                  If my biblically and naturally informed opinion is only an assertion so is yours. So where does that leave us?

                • Spazticus

                  Well, it leaves us with one of us basing opinions and reaching conclusions on reality, and you…not doing so, but asserting your opinions as factual. It leaves us with you looking like a bigot. It also shows just how intolerant and closed minded organized religion can allow people to become. Whether or not that was your goal, it is what you have accomplished.

                • Frank

                  My reality is just as real as yours. Whose the real bigot?

                • Spazticus

                  You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

                  “I am saying that since we live in a sinful (in my opinion) fallen world (in my opinion) everything is corrupted (in my opinion) including sexuality (in my opinion.)”

                  I had to add the parentheses, because otherwise, one might read what you wrote was a statement of fact, and not an unfounded assertion. You still need to provide citations for this assertion, as well as the original one which you dodged.

                • Frank

                  I did not dodge anything. I was hoping you would be wise enough to see the folly of requiring a citation for everything said.

                  And I can add the opinion qualifier to everything you say as well. You only have an opinion that there is no God.

                • Yod

                  Look up the evidence for evolution on Wikipedia. Then look up the evidence for the garden of eden.

                • phantomreader42

                  Your hallucinations are not reality.

              • cipher

                Opinion, yes. Informed – not so much.

          • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

            You’re saying that your god is not responsible for the cruel dilemma that your religion puts gay people into, and by implication, you are not responsible in any way for the cruelty, including everything from disdain all the way to brutality, that your religion justifies and its adherents eagerly practice. This is all victim blaming. Despite the hollow rhetoric about being sinners too, your religion lets its adherents feel superior to others, and treat others accordingly. That is one of its major attractions.

            • Frank

              I have never met someone who erroneously feels more superior than an atheist.

              I at least know I am a sinner.

              • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

                Neither of those statements get you out of the responsibility for treating people like dirt, for spreading a vacuous justification for treating people like dirt, or for failing to strongly object to your fellow adherents for their treating people like dirt.

                • Frank

                  First of all I treat no one like dirt and what God has to offer is anything but vacuous. The worldly pleasures in life is the vacuous path.

              • RobMcCune

                So you’ve met only 1 athiest? That’s not much to base an opinion on.

                If you want to meet someone erroneously feels superior, look in the mirror.

              • Guest

                What you don’t seem to be able to understand is that you’re an imbecile. You’re also operating at the developmental level of a child. Of course, there is no way in which this can be explained to you.

              • cipher

                I at least know I am a sinner.

                What you don’t seem to be able to understand is that you’re an imbecile. You’re also operating at the developmental level of a child. Of course, there is no way in which this can be explained to you

          • Edmond

            So you’re saying that two magical people from whom all other humans originated (despite this being contradicted by the fossil record and the findings of paleontology) got everyone else in trouble by acting in an evil way (disobedienty) before they had any knowledge of good and evil (which they couldn’t have had prior to being disobedient and eating the magic fruit of the magic tree of knowledge of good and evil), causing the world to fall, which results in some people losing their attraction to the opposite sex and instead develop an attraction to the same sex, which they often begin feeling during or even before puberty? And you’re further saying that educated people should accept this explanation which abounds in magic, and that we should hold blame against people who seek to find happiness with a same-sex partner who suits them? Or, would you prefer if I summed all that up in some terse poetry which ignores the complexities of the situation, as you did?

          • Rob

            How is that fair? How is it fair that an innocent baby is born into a sinful world just because two people it never met and has no control over made the wrong choice in the garden of eden? Why don’t we all get the chance to make that choice for ourselves? Since when is collective punishment okay? I believe the answer is: ‘because the story of the garden of eden is a fable made up to explain why women suffer in childbirth and men have to work for food, rather than a record of real events’. The alternative: God is a spiteful dickhead.

          • UWIR

            If everything in the world is corrupted, and the Bible is in the world, does it not follow that the Bible is corrupted? Your worldview requires not only that there be a perfect law giver, but that the writers of the Bible perfectly perceive the will of that being, the writers of the Bible perfectly convey that will in the Bible, and that you perfectly read that Bible. Why is it that the Bible, alone among all aspects of the world, is a perfect conduit between God and man? I have a strong moral sense that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. The writers of the Bible had a strong sense that it is good. If I can entertain the possibility of the writers’ moral sense being a perfect reflection of God’s will, why in the world would I not also entertain the possibility that my moral sense is a perfect reflection of God’s will, and conclude that the latter hypothesis is vastly more likely? The idea that we have to rely on the Bible, because human reason is flawed, is absurd, since if there is no reason to trust human reason in general, then there is even less reason to trust words passed down through hundreds of generations of flawed humans.

          • phantomreader42

            You’re saying idiotic nonsense, with nothing to back it up but the sworn testimony of the voices in your head.

      • DavidMHart

        And who created our sinful fallen world? According to your own theology, God did.

        [Yes, I know, you'll claim that God created a perfect world and that humans messed it up. But an omniscient god by definition couldn't have created a perfect world that was going to be messed up by humans without knowing it in advance - so your god cannot get off the hook here.]

        So. God created a world knowing full well that doing so would lead to a situation in which some people would, through no choice of their own, be gay, and still wants to condemn them for being the way they had no choice in being? Do you understand why people find your theology both implausible and immoral?

        [Edit - And you'd still need to explain why only some of us happen to be born with sexual desires that offend your god - why it is so much easier for some people to conform to your god's demands than others]

        • Frank

          God created the universe and also created free will as a part of the universe. So yes God can be omniscient and we can still have sin.

          Our sinful fallen world creates many terrible things like disease and illness and natural disasters.

          • Green_Sapphire

            But do you claim your god is not responsible for the sinful fallen nature of the world, even though it created the world, including the rules or conditions by which it would become sinful and fallen?

            And do you claim that, because two people ate some fruit, that caused volcanoes and earthquakes and floods, and that caused people to murder and rape, and that caused animals to become carnivores and for mortality to exist for all living creatures?

            • Frank

              God is not responsible for our choices.

              • Spazticus

                In other words, “god’s not a bigot, and neither are you, if you’re just repeating what you claim to be god’s will.” It’s a copout, and an irresponsible one at that.

                To quote “Pastor” Steven Anderson: “I’m not radical! The Bible is radical!” As he makes misogynist, bigoted statements most mainline Christians would balk at, and have.

              • Jeff Levy

                hay beings you like that fake Bible so much PLEASE
                do what genesis 1; 29 say…
                please go out and Eat Poison Ivy with a nice side of Hemlock

                what you Don’t want to fallow your god’s words ?

                {I give every green plant for food.}
                or are you really Not a TRUE BELIEVER of your Jesus
                Mark 16:17-18 A true believer in Christ can Drink Poison…
                and YOU know you would Die from eating hemlock

                come on go pray in the closet and ask your GOD to make all the bibles show that your (GOD) is not a buffoon when stating in

                Genesis 1; 1-16 that the EARTH came before the STAR (Sun)

                day 1 Earth & Light but yet the Star & the Moon not till

                day 4 ??

                then say GOD you even say that the MOON is a great Light source and these People who love to think for themselves KNOW that the Earth did not come before any Planet and they know that there can’t be LIGHT without a SUN & these People who love to think for themselves Know that

                the Moon is NOT a great light source or even a light source at all cause it only REFLECTS the light FROM the Sun….

                NOW say “Please god correct this so we Bigots don’t look so Stupid when we Hide behind your fake Book and HATE homosexuals for no god damn good reason other that they are being true to who they are and SHOW true love and us Bible thumpers can’t show any kind of True love…”

                • Frank

                  There’s that atheist intelligence and maturity we have all come to know and love.

                • Jeff Levy

                  So you’re going to go against your God and not eat of all Green plants… OH that right you Christians PC the Bible of the part you like…

                  yet your Jesus had not one word to say about Homosexuals .. your Hate of Homosexuals is your hate… stop hiding behind a fictional Book…

                  yep the Atheist intelligence and maturity of knowing a fictional book when we read one…

                  Hey do you also Believe the book ‘See spot run!’ or is that book still above your grade level of understanding Real life…

                  No really it is just you are weak minded to think for yourself …

              • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

                Mythological beings are usually not.

              • Green_Sapphire

                I wrote: “But do you claim your god is not responsible for the sinful fallen nature of the world, even though it created the world, including the rules or conditions by which it would become sinful and fallen?”

                You wrote: “God is not responsible for our choices.”

                That doesn’t answer the question. If (a) I make something, and that thing can, because of the way that I made it, make a simple choice that I don’t like, and (b) I decide ahead of time that if it makes that simple choice I don’t like, horrible tragedies will befall billions of other things that I make, then…

                …First, that is a completely horrible moral structure, and Second, I would be morally responsible for the consequences I set up.

                How do you absolve your deity from responsibility for the system it set up?

              • Guest

                God is resposible for our choices because he made us in a way which made
                it likely we would make certain choices. People don’t just randomly
                make choices out of the blue- they do it for reasons. People might
                choose to have gay sex because they are horny and attracted to their own
                sex. God made them horny and attracted to their own sex. You might say,
                ‘well, they could resist that choice, with their willpower’. But God
                made some people with not enough willpower to resist having gay sex, or
                he made some people with the kind of personality that cared more about
                having sex than obeying rules. God made everything, which means he gave
                greedy people their greed and lazy people their lack of responsibility.
                If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, this world must be exactly as he
                intended it to be, including the suffering and death. The alternative
                is that he gave us free will and our natures fully expecting us to obey
                him and then was surprised when we didn’t, which would make him an
                incompetant designers. Or actually, he doesn’t exist, except as a voice
                in your head, which is actually just you, talking to yourself.

          • Spazticus

            Citation needed, yet again. So SIN causes diseases, not microorganisms? Where would modern medicine be if people still believed that? “Don’t vaccinate your children! You’ll be giving them sin!” Oh wait, some people DO believe that…

            • Frank

              Our sinful, fallen world creates bacteria etc, creates a vulnerable body.

              • Green_Sapphire

                So bacteria didn’t exist before two people ate that fruit in the garden?

                • Frank

                  Not in a harmful form.

                • Spazticus

                  So your assertion is that only when the forbidden fruit was eaten did it spontaneously become created? and that there were no forms of disasters before this point? And you wonder why more people don’t want to believe in this dogma as a way of life…

                • Frank

                  If you are truly interested in the theology of the fall I am happy to teach you but I know you are not.

                • EvolutionKills

                  What is there to teach? All of us can, and indeed most already have, read Genesis for ourselves. There is nothing in there that correlates with reality, and some of it contradicts itself. Unless you have some ‘divinely inspired’ explanation for why the order of creation is different in the first book of Genesis as opposed to the second (not that it matters much, they’re both incorrect as far as all evidence indicates). You’ll just pull out another series of assertions, and think that it’s compelling evidence… *yawn*

                • Frank

                  There is no bigger yawn than an atheist trying to prove their belief system.

                • Spazticus

                  Your assertions do nothing to “prove” anything. Therein lies the problem. In order for us to take your claim seriously, you have to prove your case, not just spout opinions and assertions. You haven’t convinced anyone, and you expect your opinions to be sufficient evidence. Your argument remains, “It is true because I believe it to be true.” Well, that’s just not good enough, because aside from you being poor at debating your case, your argument rests on redefining reality to fit the way you want it to be seen.

                  That argument is no more valid for people who make claims of the existence of Bigfoot, or anal-probing aliens, for that matter. (I’m not doubting the possibility of extraterrestrial life here, just of aliens that happen to be so fixated on the nature of one specific activity. What are they, Republicans?)

                  As for those of us in the Nones, we’ll accept it as fact, when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

                • EvolutionKills

                  What, can’t troll any harder than that?

                • RobMcCune

                  In other words you’re pretending to have good answers.

          • DavidMHart

            An omnipotent god is by definition able to think of a way of giving us free will* that will not result in us messing up the universe. (Just because we are not able to figure out a way of doing so does not get your god off the hook)

            That your god could have done this but chose not to, makes him a being of colossal cruelty. A god that could have created a sin-free, or sin-proof universe that had free will, but decided instead to create a sin-corruptible universe, is responsible for creating that universe.

            (*And that’s before you even get into the fact that free will as defended by most religions is a concept that collapses into incoherence when you look closely at it, but that’s a discussion for another day)

            • Frank

              Than it wouldn’t be free will would it?

              • Guest

                Did Jesus have free will? If he did, then it is possible for God to make a human being who always makes the correct choices. Thus, he could have made Adam and Eve like Jesus and avoided all the fuckups that came after.

          • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

            All He had to do was to plant the tree outside the garden.

            • Frank

              That removes the free will choice that God gifted us with.

              • EvolutionKills

                So a parent that makes sure their poisonous cleaning chemicals are safely kept away from their precocious toddler, is interfering with that toddler’s free will to kill itself by drinking toilet bowl cleaner?

                Has god interfered with my free will because he did not give me the ability to fly? I want to fly, it’s my will to be able to fly. Does the simple nature of reality negate my ‘free will’, or merely my expression of it?

                Simply put, keeping the tree away from Adam and Eve would not have interfered with their ‘free will’, only with their expression of it. In the same way that I can’t simply will myself into flight because of physics, and we don’t let criminal out of jail just because they will it; but it’s not a violation of their ‘free will’.

                Boy, you have to be dumber than the dirt you walk on…

          • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

            If God created a world without diseases, why did God create humans with immune systems?

        • Stev84

          Just stop feeding him please. Replying to any of his BS serves no point.

          • cipher

            Agree completely. I’m sorry I did it.

      • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

        So God doesn’t crate anyone gay, he just either packages or cans them, right?

        • Jeff Levy

          that was good ….
          I’m canned Fabulous with a Fabulous Package…
          he did both for me…. lol

        • Frank

          Are there any mature people here?

          • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

            Yes and you’re not one of them.

          • RobMcCune

            Sure, look to the people not named Frank.

      • Glass Darkly

        Who made our sinful, fallen world? Who gave us our lust, our curiousity, our natures? Who made the rules? Who created the concept of sin? Who made Satan and gave him his pride and his desires? Surely in your concept of the world, it was Almight God, because nothing can be created without him, and nothing can happen without him knowing it was going to happen, and by his inaction allowing it to happen. If God is real (he’s not) then he’s ultimately responsible for this whole sorry mess, and he deserved to die on that cross, for all the murders, rapes and tortures he could have prevented, but didn’t. P.s. It says clearly in the bible that God did make at least some people gay: For
        this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women
        exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and
        in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the
        woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men
        committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due
        penalty of their error.

      • talkingsnake

        What is so delicious is the timing of your comment after reading Blacksheep trying to defend the kinder, gentler nature of his faith.

        Frank is a True Christian ™.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    We Get It: You Don’t Hate Gay People… You Just Don’t Want Them to Be Happy.

    Fixed it for you.

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    They’re not just asking gay people to be celibate. They’re asking them to go through life without ever making a deep and intimate connection with another person… i.e., asking them to go through life without love. In my opinion, it’s inhumane and cruel to tell people that they are facing hell on one hand, and a lifetime alone on the other. That’s, well, a hell of a choice to have to make.

    • Frank

      No one is stopping anyone from loving anyone they choose. Sex does not equal love.

      • 3lemenope

        If sex is so unimportant, I assume you’ll be the first to volunteer to stop sleeping with the person you love. Let me know when you do.

      • EvolutionKills

        Virgin, right?

      • cary_w

        Congratulations, this is actually a true statement.

        No one is actually stopping anyone from loving who they choose, but people ARE being stopped from MARRYING who they choose.

        Sex does not equal love. Also true, many couples have healthy, happy and very loving relationships without sex, for whatever reason, in some cases because sex is not physically possible, sometimes by choice, and it’s really none of our business why, as long as it’s between consenting adults. But this leads me to question, what is sex? what are the specific acts that Catholics find sinful? I was raised to believe “sex” implies sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, you know, the “life-giving” kind of sex, so anything homosexuals are doing is not really sex anyway. My point is, that if the Catholic Church wants to claim homosexual sex is a sin, and that a homosexual person can be loved and accepted as long as they don’t have sex, then they need to define exactly what they mean by “homosexual sex”, or how are these poor people supposed to know how to live without sinning? Clearly hugging and kissing are not sex, so that must be ok, sleeping in the same bed must be ok, as long as they Just sleep. Mastrabation is a sin, but is it still a sin if your partner does it to you? Is anal sex the only thing that’s sinful? I think this is a serious question that needs to be answered by the church. If they a going to be that involved in the sex lives of their church members, then they had better give them some guidance about what is “sin” and what is just a loving relationship.

        • EvolutionKills

          But if they give a specific definition, then they won’t be able to waffle whenever it’s advantageous for them…

          • 3lemenope

            Nah, they have Jesuits. The Belgians would have to take out a trademark on waffles just to protect a cultural delicacy from those slippery fuckers.

        • TurelieTelcontar

          Well, the Catholic Church actually does give a direct statement about what the sin is: ejaculating somewhere else than the vagina of your partner.

          Why that makes homosexual sex a different sin than anal sex (until completion) within an unmarried couple, they don’t actually explain.
          And fyi, I disagree with them, just wanting to point out that yes, they actually do get into other people’s sex lives so far as to determine what sex acts are okay, and what aren’t.

          • cary_w

            Ah yes, every spam is sacred, right? So does that mean that if there’s no ejaculating then it’s OK? What if it’s two women? Is it OK as long as nothing penetrates anything? or do we have to avoid orgasms too? I just really want to hear the Catholic Church answer these questions! And I really think they need to if they are going to expect people to follow all their silly rules!

            Edit: Sperm! Sperm! Obviously I meant sperm, but the fact that my auto-correct changed it to spam is just too funny!

            • JSC_ltd

              If every spam is sacred, my junk mail folder is going to be in big trouble in its afterlife.

            • Spazticus

              But it was like two great Monty Python references, rolled into one! Still amused me, either way.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              *snorfle*

              That was awesome.

          • Green_Sapphire

            “What that make [this] different than [that] they don’t actually explain.”

            Oh yeah, they explain it. They explain it and explain it and explain it. And after pages and pages and pages of tortured theological exposition including references to scripture and the ancient fathers and Aquinas and ‘natural law’ and so forth, it is therefore ‘obvious’ that this deity’s will is that human sex in this specific context is the only proper sex and all other sex is therefore sinful.

            TurelieTelcontar is correct that the only proper ejaculation ever, ever, ever is into the vagina of one’s spouse.

            And the only proper sexual thoughts (except one’s that just pass into one’s mind which one then immediately banishes instead of dwelling on them) are about deity-centered fully-committed yadda-yadda sex with one’s spouse. And so you cannot view pornography ever and you cannot think of other people sexually, or think of doing any activity your spouse doesn’t want to do, or think of anything else sexual — during sex or not during sex — except complete sexual giving of one’s total self to one’s spouse.

            And the only proper sexual activity is within and during in a context that leads to said ejaculation of semen into said spouse’s vagina.

            So man-woman married partners anal sex and oral sex, etc., are okay as long as male orgasm doesn’t happen then. And since, between gay partners, there is no ability for that proper context for said husband’s ejaculation of semen into said wife’s vagina, no sexual activity between them can ever be proper.

            And also if (and only if, by the way) a wife is unable to reach orgasm during P in V sex, her husband could participate in other ways before or after said ejaculation to lead to his wife’s orgasm but only ever in the process of a sexual act that involves that semen getting into that vagina, but she could never do it for herself even if he is there.

            So if he ever becomes impotent, they are both out of luck for life. They should never have any sexual ‘foreplay’ unless it leads to a ‘play.’ Similarly, if she ever loses her vagina (through disease or injury) or loses the ability to receive vaginal penetration, they are both never to have orgasm again for life ever, or participate in any other kind of sexual intimacy, since it cannot end with his semen in her vagina.

            Luckily, since 1917, sex has gotten better for Roman Catholics because, before then, if either party discovered they were infertile or reached menopause or had a hysterectomy, that was the end of orgasms or any other sexual activity for either one for life ever. But at that time, the RCC theologians had discovered that their deity had actually all along intended for there to be a ‘unitive’ role for sex as well as a ‘procreative’ role, so that as long as the sexual act was even ‘symbolically procreative’ (for example, if he had zero sperm or she had no uterus), then it could be allowable because of the additional ‘unitive’ role.

            But they are very, very, very clear that the ‘unitive’ role can only, only, only ever exist in the context of the ‘procreative’ role, and it can only be truly symbolically procreative in the context of where there would have been sperm going into what would have been a uterus with what would have been eggs.

            So, yeah, they explain it. And explain it and explain it and explain it. And one can logically and aesthetically appreciate the intricacy of the convolutions and consistency. But it never ends up making sense in the real world.

            • Anna

              Wow, that’s informative. Thanks! I didn’t know that they had changed the rules in 1917 in favor of infertile and elderly married couples.

              I wonder if it’s permitted for an infertile person to get married in the first place, though, if they have prior knowledge about being infertile. The logical thing to do would be to forbid marriage, since there’s no chance any children can result, and the Catholic church hates people having sex for pleasure and not procreation. If they know with 100% certainty that procreation will never take place, is there still a loophole for that?

              • Green_Sapphire

                Anna wrote: “If they know with 100% certainty that procreation will never take place, is there still a loophole for that?”

                Same ‘loophole’ as for infertility after marriage. The RCC also started in 1917 to let couples to get married in the church where one or both are known (or believed) to be infertile. Again, this is because of the ‘symbolically procreative’ aspect of P in V sex, described above, which of course they now say was always part of their deity’s intention but of which they only recently became aware. This is also why infertility is not grounds for an annulment in the RCC.

                Because of this same logic, btw, the RCC is opposed to most forms of assisted reproduction, including surrogacy (even with the husband’s sperm and the wife’s egg) and IVF, because just as sex must be open to procreation, procreation can only properly occur from a proper sex act.

                • Anna

                  Thanks for the info. That’s fascinating and horrible all at the same time. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. They demand that there’s a possibility of procreation, except when there isn’t, and then sterile, for-pleasure-only sex is totally okay!

                  I did know that they’re against donor insemination and IVF. They’ll mention discarded embryos and bringing in someone else’s genes as reasons, but it’s a total red herring since they’re also against a man inseminating his own wife with his own sperm, in the privacy of their own bedroom, for the express purpose of conceiving a child.

                  It’s all just so weird. Such a weird, weird obsession with male ejaculation. It has to take place in just the right place, under just the right circumstances. Or else it’s evil.

            • cary_w

              Whoa… That is just so sick and twisted!

            • Scott_In_OH

              Whoa. Green_Sapphire knows her/his stuff. This comment and your next one are really good. People should bookmark!

          • EvolutionKills

            Nothing like a bunch of celibate elderly virgins to dictate everyone else’s sex life…

            Because when I think ‘experts in sex education’, I also think ‘Roman Catholic Church’…

          • Stev84

            Can a straight couple have anal sex if the man switches to the vagina right before he finishes?

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Yes… but ew, and that’s a real good way to get a nasty vaginal infection.

        • Don Gwinn

          No, they’re not stopping people from feeling love for each other. A lot of people would jump to do it if they could figure out how, though. And they’d be proud of themselves.

      • Don Gwinn

        The sex is the reason the church condemns the marriages (and all other gay relationships) as sinful . . . which is why a man can’t marry a man in the church . . . and the fact that they can’t get married is the reason the sex is sinful . . . and then we just go round and round again.
        The problem is that a lot of people eventually catch on and simply step off the merry-go-round.

      • Tom

        Well now you’ve really painted yourself into a corner – unless marriage is all about the sex and nothing to do with love.

        Your move.

        • Frank

          Not at all. I keep wondering how a system of belief or nonbelief that seemingly prides itself on reason, logic and intelligence shows so little of those things.

          Sex does not equal love does not mean that sex has nothing to do with love.

          • Tom

            Thanks for the passive-aggressive insult to my intelligence; especially ironic in that you just conceded my point and don’t seem to have even realised it.

            • Frank

              Still waiting for that supposed reason, logic and intelligence. Apparently I may be waiting a very long time.

              • RobMcCune

                Still waiting for that supposed reason, logic and intelligence.

                You’ll never find it so long as you stay a christian.

      • Edmond

        Are they allowed to kiss? To hold hands? To look longingly into each other’s eyes? Those things don’t equal love either, but along with sex they are expressions OF love. Do you just want them to love from afar? Should they just DREAM about love, and simply regret the hand they were dealt in life?

        • Bob

          Interestly enough none of these things are condemned in the infamous ‘clobber verse’ in Leviticus…at least not directly. It says you may not lie with a man the way you would lie with a woman, which seems to suggest that frottage would be okay, since that involves rubbing your cocks together, and women don’t have cocks. Besides, the early Christians were known to greet each other with a kiss, and Jonathan and David certainly looked longingly into each other’s eyes…but I have a funny feeling these things still are Not Allowed, since lesbians are condemn despite not being mentioned in Leviticus or Paul.

      • Brad

        So you’d be fine with two asexual men marrying each other?

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Essentially, the Church is teaching [to] straight people, also, that sex outside of marriage is not to be condoned and sinful, but sex within marriage is life-giving and live-giving and is something to be encouraged.*

    * except for blowjobs, cunnilingus, or anal sex since those forms are not life giving. Or when birth-control is used. Or when, since birth control is unavailable and abortions aren’t an option, a child is not desired. Or when a woman is on her period. So basically, it should be encouraged, except for the 99% of the time when it is sinful.

  • Gus Snarp

    It’s really loving the sinner, but hating the sin

    Such sanctimonious bullshit. When the “sin” is simply living a complete life with the person you love like everyone else does, then hating the “sin” is hating the “sinner”. It’s also funny that while they should hate the “sin” of premarital sex that most people, Catholics included, commit, they don’t seem to be nearly as vocal and active about that, which makes one wonder if they hate that “sin” less, or maybe they actually do hate the “sinner”.

    Maybe if they’d just stay out of everyone else’s business they’d find themselves in a lot less trouble. Maybe they could just keep the rules themselves, and let everyone who’s not Catholic live their own lives without interference or political pressure.

    • Frank

      The only people in true trouble are those that reject God.

      • averydashwood

        That’s right! Anyone who rejects Vishnu is in big trouble. Props to Frank for pointing that out.

        • Glasofruix

          You heretic, kneel before Thor or be smiten by his mighty hammer of thunder!

          • Adeptus Astartes

            HERETIC. EXTERMINATUS HAS BEEN REQUESTED!
            FEEL THE EMPEROR’S WRATH!
            NO MERCY, NO RESPITE!

        • Spuddie

          Chthulu drives both worshipers and unbelievers insane and uses them for his food. He is an equal opportunity deity

        • Iblis

          Surely you meant to say ‘Allah’, infidel. Everyone knows there is but one God and Muhammed (pbuh) is his messenger. Jesus ate food just like the rest of us; to worship him is a foolish mistake, for which Christians will answer on the day of judgement!

      • EvolutionKills

        I do my best to fight any and all Frost Giants that I come across in order to keep our Lord and Savior Thor pleased with us. Glad to know you approve!

      • Matt D

        I reject many gods and goddesses, so which one are you talking about?

        • Spazticus

          Frank rejects many gods and goddesses, too. It just so happens that many of the people here reject one more than he does.

          • Frank

            I just reject the fake ones.

            • Spazticus

              “Fake”, meaning any god(s) you choose to not believe in. Unfortunately for you, you have no logical means to prove that your version of god exists, which would determine the literal difference between real or fake. As I often say, “If there is sufficient evidence, then faith or belief is a moot point. It would be perverse to not accept it as fact.” You accept it as fact, thus making your opinion worth more to you than facts. You want to believe it’s true, and therefore it is…at least for you.

              But you have no actual proof other than your assertions, which are based on opinion and interpretation, and which are further based on the writings of a text you consider holy. That’s fine for you, but you can’t make others believe it is literal fact, without the use of some mental wrangling and indoctrination.

              • Frank

                You have no proof either. Its almost comical how you don’t seem to realize everything you say to me applies to you too. I guess self-deception is a prized quality here.

                • Spazticus

                  False equivalency. You’re the one making the claim that a deity exists, and doing so without presenting evidence. By definition, for me to take your opinion as fact, you have to prove your case. All I and others must do to debate you is refute the evidence you present, or the lack thereof, as we are not claiming the existence of a deity of our own. For you to be considered correct, you have to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. The assertion is yours, and that’s why the burden of proof remains on you.

                  I don’t have to “prove” anything in order to refute your claims, I merely have to refute them; hence the false equivalency in your statement.

            • :)

              So you’re an atheist too!

            • wombat

              “I just reject the fake ones.”

              . . . so do we.

      • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

        If you say so, then it must be true, right troll?

      • Jeff Levy

        oh I’m so scared…

        So that means you too are in trouble you reject all the other god’s…
        I just go one more…
        you should try it NO SIN free to think for myself …

        GAY sex No I just have SEX with my boyfriend….
        kinda the same way you do with your blow-up Doll ,
        But love is involved with ours but hay the Awesome news is he’ll keep inseminating me, we’ll keep trying to get me Pregnant…

        HAY it’s only your “opinion” that my Boyfriend Can’t get his man (Me) Pregnant…. you don’t have any proof that a man can’t get Pregnant your Bible doesn’t cover that if a man can or can’t…

    • Anna

      Gay people are treated worse, no doubt about it. You’ll notice that Catholic schools generally have no problem enrolling children with divorced and remarried parents and allowing those parents to be an active part of the school and parish community, despite the fact that they are living in a “situation of public and permanent adultery.”

      Somehow, it’s not bad for kids in a Catholic school to hear their classmates talk proudly about stepmoms, stepdads, and assorted step and half siblings, but two mommies or two daddies? That would be horrible and confusing. Just another example of the huge double standard.

  • Bert Russell

    Yes, many of them actually do hate gay people. They’ve just realized that it’s become the taboo it should in the eyes of the majority, and to therefore be so open with the belief is to welcome deserved scorn and condemnation.

    • Spazticus

      Oh, indeed. And even if you do call them out for the “values” they hold so dear, you’re “persecuting” them, as if to say it’s our fault that we don’t tolerate their intolerance. Sometimes, that is exactly the retort I have been given. I’ve even been told to my face that I’m an intolerant person, because I don’t respect their intolerance.

      They have the right to be intolerant of others. They may not reserve the right to be respected for it.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    When the piano started playing I honestly thought it came from The Dance by Garth Brooks. Ironically the song kind of fits with this story.

    http://youtu.be/ewOZfEvh_1c

  • Lee Miller

    “the homosexual act” . . . ummm. I didn’t know there was just one.

    I also love the videos of old men in dresses and fancy hats hanging out together. It sure does give credibility to their position.

    • Stev84

      And of course “homosexual acts” isn’t just sex, but could also be holding hands, cuddling or kissing.

      And is it a “homosexual act” to live together, but not have sex? What about going on a date or taking a walk together? I seriously doubt those are allowed.

  • carmen

    That, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” phrase – makes my blood boil. So condescending, but when religious people say it, it’s supposed to be comforting? Don’t think so. I think they need to listen to people like Stephen Fry, who say, “It’s time to stop thinking it’s a DIFFERENT kind of sex and start thinking it’s ANOTHER kind of love.

  • indorri

    The comments pretty much give the lie away. I love how they pretty much shoot themselves in the foot in their clamor to drink the kool-aid.

  • Miss_Beara

    but sex within marriage is life-giving and live-giving and is something to be encouraged.

    Hear that straight married people? Every time you have sex you better be doing it solely for making the babies, whether you like it or not, because God is watching you.

    I also hate the disgusting “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit. Hello sinner, I love you but since you are a homosexual or a straight person and had premarital sex, you are going straight to hell.

    But remember, I love you.

    • EvolutionKills

      And remember, masturbation is also a no-no….

      • b s

        What is he standing on? Turtles? Is that where they come in?

        • EvolutionKills

          I’m not sure…

          Isn’t there supposed to be four elephants on top of the turtle?

          • Spuddie

            They are standing next to each other in the same position. You can’t see them in profile.

            • b s

              Or are they perhaps curled up in extra-dimensional space?

          • b s

            Depends on whether or not you are a heretic. Turtles or nothing!!!

          • cary_w

            You have to truly believe to see the other two elephants.

          • Stev84

            With Jesus on top of the elephants.

        • EvolutionKills

          There we go, found it…

    • katiehippie

      The pastor that officiated at my marriage really believed that marriage was solely for procreation. His wife had many miscarriages. I didn’t realize it back then but he is really a monster.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Ever notice that they never give a reason why? We already know what the church teaches but why does the church teach that? You never hear it. Is it the “be fruitful and multiply” nonsense? How much of Genesis have they already rejected again? Is it Leviticus 18:22? How much of Leviticus have they already rejected again?

    Just admit it already Christians…your cult was invented to control people and provide power and money to the demagogues running it. This should be obvious by now.

    • jreed3000

      Yes. The Roman realized what a great control mechanism the church was and when the empire collapsed, the fragmented kingdoms invented the notion of divine right. Puritans believed the rich and and powerful were rich and powerful because that is what god wanted. Of course, that’s divine right all over again. We don’t have to dig too deep to see this same notion rattling around in the fundamentalist movement.

  • Guest

    Celibate, delusional guy that likes to wear flowing robes and funny hats and converses telepathically with his imaginary friend comments on homosexuality. Ummmmm, never mind.

  • cary_w

    So when they say, “lover the sinner, hate the sin” aren’t they making the assumption that all homosexuals are sinners? And they then wonder why everyone thinks they hate homosexuals! Shouldn’t they be saying, “love the PERSON, hate the sin”? And thus be implying that a homosexual can, in fact, lead a life without sin, if he is willing follow all of their rules. If you really loved someone, you wouldn’t call them a sinner before you even knew if they had actually sinned.

    • EvolutionKills

      To be fair, it is consistent within their own ideology; insofar as they believe in Original Sin and thus everyone is a sinner by default. It’s obnoxiously stupid claptrap, but it makes a sick kind of sense to them.

      • cary_w

        Oh yeah, I forgot, we are all sinners, so I guess they hate everyone equally. It’s just so appalling to me to think of a newborn baby as a sinner that I think I keep blocking it out of my mind.

        • EvolutionKills

          Yeah, that’s where they came up with that whole ‘Limbo’ thing, a place for unbaptized babies that was separate from Heaven but not quite Hell. It’s also a reminded that not only can the Roman Catholics selectively ignore part of the Bible, they’re also pretty shameless at making shit up.

    • C Peterson

      Christianity is, in many respects, the complete opposite of humanism. Christianity has no respect for humans. In its philosophy, humans are born bad. There is nothing a human can do to repair his inherent badness. At best, a human can be “saved” by the grace of a third party, a powerful being that can arbitrarily choose whether or not to grant that grace.

      Every living thing that walks upon the planet, that has ever lived, except for humans, is innocent. But humans are sinners, mankind is corrupt. This is the position of Christianity. It is foul. It talks about “love”, but has no real concept of what that even means.

      • katiehippie

        I really really agree with you. “You can’t be a part of this religion unless you admit you are a horrible person”

    • Stev84

      No, they love the person, but not what they do. That have this weird, theoretical and completely ridiculous duality. Real hardcore Catholics can’t even acknowledge that some people are gay and think calling them that is demeaning. See Anthony Scalia’s son for example.

      Of course that line is mostly about making themselves feel better.

      • wombat

        I can kind of understand where they’re trying to come from – I can love my partner while hating it when he puts muddy football boots on the bed. The difference with homosexuality in particular is that they’re ‘hating’ an intrinsic part of their being. My partner can stop putting his boots on the bed. But a gay person is always gay.

  • phantomreader42

    I don’t hate christians, I just don’t see anything wrong with spreading vicious lies about them.
    I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they should be allowed to openly serve in the military.
    I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they can be trusted with classified information.
    I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think they should be allowed to marry the person they want to marry.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be prevented from applying for visas to allow their family members to immigrate.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they shouldn’t be trusted to adopt children.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be denied basic medical care.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think any children they have should be taken away from them, by criminal means if necessary.
    I don’t hate christians, I just oppose any law that might make it more difficult to assault, batter, abuse, intimidate, and bully any child even suspected of being a christian.
    I don’t hate christians, I just don’t think our government should be suggesting that it’s a bad thing for foreign governments to murder them.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be publicly blamed for crimes they did not commit.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they’re all diseased pedophiles who deserve to die in agony, and the suffering and death of others by the same cause is acceptable collateral damage as long as those sick christians are properly punished.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think it should be okay to rob, rape, and murder them with no legal consequences.
    I don’t hate christians, I just think they should be burned alive forever and ever and ever, and I’d find it very entertaining to watch that happen.
    But none of these things could POSSIBLY imply that I hate christians. Because I have been assured, repeatedly and very, VERY loudly, by many christians, that there is nothing hateful about any of these things when christians do them to others…

    (disclaimer, I don’t actually believe the above about christians, but I’ve seen christians (often with substantial political and social influence) assert each and every one of them about atheists, gay people, women, members of non-christian religious groups, and occasionally myself or some member of my family)

    • Jeff Levy

      hope you don’t mind I am posting this on my Facebook…

      • phantomreader42

        I originally started writing it for posting on Facebook, after seeing a few too many “but we don’t hate gays, we just want to discriminate against them, murder them, and watch them burn alive forever” posts. But it got LONG, and the way FB handles links wouldn’t allow me to post it with enough supporting links (Jessica Ahlquist, Damon Fowler, Brian Fischer’s support for kidnapping a lesbian’s children, the christianist right’s support for Uganda’s kill the gays bill and opposition to anti-bullying campaigns, DADT, DOMA, and how those apply to immigration, etc, etc,etc). So I forgot it for a while, then drug it out recently when some death cultist idiots babbled about atheists hating god. It could use some expansion and editing, and the aforementioned links, but feel free to share.

        • Jeff Levy

          Thanks

        • whataboutkids

          Well I am a very happy Christian, God gave us freedom to do whatever we please weather right or wrong its our pick, that being said if you want to die gay and see what its like on the other side then that is purely up to you my friend.

          • phantomreader42

            Ah, yes, the death cultist resorts to threats because he knows damn fucking well he has nothing to offer that any sane person would listen to!

            Pascal’s Wager is a worthless load of shit. By using
            it you’re admitting that there’s actually no good reason to believe your cult’s idiotic dogma, you just pretend to believe it because you’re afraid of the boogeyman. It also implies that your god is incredibly stupid, narcissistic, cruel, and in general wholly unworthy of worship even if it actually existed (which isn’t likely, since by resorting to threats you admit that you don’t have any actual evidence). Your argument is the argument of a stupid, lazy, self-centered, willfully ignorant terrorist. In short, your argument is garbage, and so are you.

    • Katherine Hompes

      Bravo!

  • C Peterson

    At its core, Christianity has a problem with people being happy. It has a problem with people experiencing any kind of sensual pleasure. It has created a cult of guilt around pleasure. Different sects take it to different degrees, but it is always there. It is one of the fundamental sicknesses of this family of religions.

    Certainly some people (such as homosexuals) have borne the weight of this social illness more than others. But ultimately, Christianity’s (including Catholicism’s) obsession with homosexuality, with sex outside of marriage, with non-procreational sex even inside marriage, even with living comfortably or eating well… these things are just symptoms of an underlying philosophical rot. Personally, I think it runs too deep, is too fundamental, to be fixed at all. The problem will go away when the religion goes away, not before. Any little adjustments in the meantime are simply bandaids placed over tumors.

    • Blacksheep

      C, I understand where you are coming from in your post, especially since Christians over time have certainly tried to stop people from being happy. (missionaries in the South Pacific come to mind). But at its core, there are many, many verses about happines, joy, peace of mind, abundant life, and sensual pleasure. The Song Of Solomon is all about sensual pleasure. The Bible wants sexual partners to be married, not to not enjoy sex. Christ’s first miracle was making wine (good wine, according to the Bible) at a wedding feast. The prodigal son was welcomed home with feasting, the killing of the fatted calf, celebration, etc.

      “For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.”

      “For in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.”

      “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.”

      At its core, Christianity strives to be a pathway to ultimate happiness.

      • EvolutionKills

        Unfortunately, that just happens to be your selective interpenetration of the Bible passages that you didn’t ignore…

        • Blacksheep

          Yes – the stuff I pulled is selective. But there are enough verses about such things that the statement “At its core, Christianity has a problem with people being happy.” is not really accurate. Even self denial, where it occurs, is a path to happiness, not a path to unhappiness. Certainly though, there are Christians who have a problem with people being happy. My buddies who went to catholic school experienced that first hand from many of the nuns there.

          • EvolutionKills

            My point is, there’s enough in the Bible to support ANY point of view. Your’s just happens to be a bit nice and ecumenical, but that doesn’t make it any more factually accurate. Pulling those verses and many more does not negate the misogyny, racism, sexism, hatred, suffering, murder, rape, and genocide. Support for all of those things can be found in the Bible, given enough selective interpretation and ignoring the bits that don’t fit in with the ideology you happen to be pushing.

            A book that supports all points of view, ultimately supports none of them. That’s why I find the Bible to be utterly useless as a moral guide. Because for everyone that quotes passage about loving their neighbor, there are others who use it to justify killing their neighbors. Both can make a theologically sound defense of their actions, because both can quote scripture (and thus the logic goes, an according divine backing). Thus the Bible is useless in determining what is moral and ethical.

            I happen to find your interpretation less egregious than some others. But in an argument with the Westboro Baptist Church, you’d both be on equal footing; and the Bible will do nothing to determine between the two of you who is more moral or ethical.

            • Blacksheep

              I still have to disagree, EK. You cannot read the NT (which is our primary Christian text) and come away with the thought that it’s OK to kill anyone, since Christ taught that not only is killing wrong, even thinking hateful thoughts is wrong. The Bible goes overboard on condemning judgemental people, so you can’t read the NT and justify being judgemental.
              …and no way can WBC justify their actions, since they are judgemental and hateful. The Bible says “anyone can love his friends, Christians shouild love their enemies too.”

              • EvolutionKills

                Except, there’s that pesky bit in Mathew 5:17 where Jesus says…

                “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

                So all of the barbarity demanded by the Jewish Law? Still applicable. So people laboring on Saturdays is still punishable by death. Adultery is still punishable by death. Disobedient children? Death. Wife not a virgin? Death again. Homosexuals? More death. Owning people as property? Totally kosher.

                And even if you disagree with that, the problem is, that’s just your selective interpretation. I just made a theologically valid argument for the ‘truthfulness’ and ‘righteousness’ of the barbarity found in the Old Testament Law. You can quote scripture, and I can quote scripture. Now we’re back at square one, and the Bible can’t be used to support either of our positions. This is the point where I can now rely on secular morality, and the thousands of years of philosophy and ethics to attempt to support whatever position I might have. I have the advances of science and all of the wonders of the enlightenment to fall back on. Indeed I rely on them primarily, and only quote the Bible to show you the folly of doing so.

                Without the Bible, what excuse do you have?

                • Blacksheep

                  It’s really not selective interpretation. The NT is thoroughly clear on the “now there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ…”, etc., the scripture you quote can only mean that he is fulfilling it by taking the fall for it himself. Another way to view it is that He was “Bringing to its full meaning” or “bringing to completion.”

                  That’s an interesting point, but I beleive that truth is truth, so if you in your gut know that killing is bad, and the Bible says the same thing, one takes nothing away from the other. Part of the reason that CS Lewis came to be a Christian was that the Bible spoke about things that he alrready knew in his heart were true, not the other way around.

                • Fred

                  Yeah the bible is a great tool to confirm things you already knew in your heart. You and about every other evil scumbag who thought the bible supported what they felt was true.

                • Jeff Levy

                  oh their are many others verses that supports what EvolutionKills said not just Mathew 5:17

                  here are some others…
                  And to support the stop ignoring the OT

                  “Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”
                  New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

                  I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations. This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god. Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes. I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored. Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!

                  1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

                  2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)

                  3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

                  3b) “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

                  3c) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

                  4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

                  5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

                  6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

                  7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. (1 Peter 2:18)

                  8} “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you kept the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).

                  9) “…the scripture cannot be broken.” –Jesus Christ, John 10:35

                  You can claim you don’t have to fallow the OT But it is Clear you have to.. NOW I DON’T I am an Atheist…
                  You Better hope that your Christian God & Jesus is not real and your not a Homophobic/Gay basher This Homosexual Atheist Will see you in that fake hell & we’ll have some gay fun Well I will be having the fun you will have to learn to love it.. But hay it’s a good thing I am an Atheist your Christian God is not real but either is any of the other Religion Gods…

                  Hell you don’t fallow the Bible you may as well Become an Atheist.
                  the scripture cannot be broken.” –Jesus Christ, John 10:35

                  Have A Gay Day…

                • EvolutionKills

                  Once again, that is YOUR selective interpretation, which is in principal no more valid than MY selective interpretation. So in the end, it’s a push. We could argue ad nausea over whoever has the ‘correct’ interpretation, and all we would do would be proving my point; that two people muddling differently over the same holy book gets us nowhere.That’s my entire fucking point, which you seem to miss time and again.

                  Also I’ve read Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’. While it is not nearly as offensive as the tripe passing itself along as modern apologetics (Reasonable Faith, The Case for Christ, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, etc.), his moral argument at the core of his ideology is still an incredibly weak one.

                • ShoeUnited

                  If interpretations are diametrically opposed, both equal, and results in a null, then neither interpretation is valid. And from a null interpretation, a person is left only with what it specifically says or to chuck it entirely.

                  So, the question is do we literally believe that Jesus was here to break apart families, to pit mother against son et cetera or do we just flush the whole works?

                  From a literal standpoint, there’s not much of value in the book especially in regards to morality. Interpretation goes to null. So the only option I have left is to flush it.

              • Jim Jones

                > You cannot read the NT (which is our primary Christian text) and come away with the thought that it’s OK to kill anyone.

                You cannot read the NT and NOT come away with the thought that the gospels are nothing more than Superman comic books.

          • Carmelita Spats

            I have no problem with self denial as long as it is FREELY chosen for YOURSELF and not inflicted on others under the guise of a soft sadism re-labeled as “redemptive suffering” and seared upon the bodies of those who are too goddamn POWERLESS to oppose your faith-based violence. If you would DENY pain medication to a child because, “they are joining their suffering with that of Christ”, you are beyond being as confused as a termite in a yo-yo. You are about as low down as whale shit (See Mother Teresa). The “Song of Solomon” is a misogynistic screed and some of the verses are funnier than a wagon load of monkeys…Monogamy? Biblical marriage? How many concubines and wives did Solomon have?

            Family values 6:8: “There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.”

            Pedophilia? 8:8: We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?

      • C Peterson

        I understand that you often seek to present the positive side of Christianity to participants in this forum, and good for you in making that effort. But honestly, and without fallacy, you are no True Christian. Like many Christians who are fundamentally good people, you choose to ignore the most fundamental aspects of the religion you claim to follow. It is probably not deliberate, but you wear blinders that simply stop you from seeing the truth.

        A neutered form of Christianity would, of course, be better. But what would be its point? Take away the core principles, the idea that people are born in sin, the idea they require salvation, the idea that salvation comes from a capricious god, replace those with the idea that happiness is the ultimate goal… and you’re simply left with humanism.

        People may continue to call themselves Christians far into the future. But it will be a name only. They will no more be Christians in the way that those of use without blinders recognize that concept than modern Republicans bear any resemblance to Lincoln’s party.

        • Art_Vandelay

          Cue the apologetic atheists to come along and tell you that it’s unfair and bigoted to hold Christians to their own theology.

        • Blacksheep

          How specifically have I neutered it? I have never deviated from the tenets that you are expressing here: that we are born in sin, that we require salvation, that our salvation comes from Christ alone.

          You are confusing doctrine with a pholosophical conversation. I have quoted verses that speak to the result of walking with God. The result, according to scripture, is not only salvation but also peace and joy.

          • Art_Vandelay

            The result, according to scripture, is not only salvation but also peace and joy.

            Can’t grant you that premise as I’m a thousand times happier as an atheist than I was as a Christian. I suppose it could have a placebo affect on some believers but I don’t see a world where Christians are happier than non-Christians at all. Why does scripture get to dictate the result anyway when you can simply measure the result?

            • Blacksheep

              I don’t claim to know what’s in anyone’s heart or mind, I’m speaking more about Biblical claims.

              And I agree – scripture shouldn’t “get to” dictate that. I experience a world in which Christians are happier than non-Christians, but not always.

              My main original point is that I believe it’s not accurate to claim “At its core, Christianity has a problem with people being happy.” (And my point above was in response to a slightly different point altogether).

              • C Peterson

                You can only believe that Christianity isn’t opposed to human happiness, to sensual pleasure if you ignore most of the history of Christianity, right to the present. It’s a recurrent theme, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes disguised somewhat, but seldom hard to detect.

                • Blacksheep

                  When you say “Christianity” do you mean people or scripture? I pointed out that Christians have not always promoted happiness, but that it’s unfair to say: “At its core, Christianity has a problem with people being happy.”

                  Do you believe that at its core, Christianity has a problem with people being happy?

                • C Peterson

                  “Scripture” is meaningless. It consists of ancient stories, most of which represent grossly immoral actions by modern standards. Scripture is reinterpreted by every generation, by every sect, by every Christian. “Scripture” is people. They cannot be separated. And the majority of Christians throughout history have interpreted scripture in a way that demonstrated a clear objection to human happiness. Christianity has always been a death cult, a philosophy that advocated forgoing many of the pleasures of existence (particularly sensual pleasures) in trade for a hypothetical existence after death. That’s just sick.

                • Stev84

                  The people who made up Christianity – like Paul and Augustine of Hippo – were deeply screwed up people who clearly projected their own failings and hangups (especially about their sexuality in the case of Augustine) on everyone else and the doctrines they created. The misanthropy is even more pressing in newer interpretations like Calvinism (which is the basis for much of modern American Christianity), which isn’t just opposed to happiness, but life itself. Although the contempt for even being alive is another cornerstone of Christianity, going all the way back. Everything that makes people human is bad and the only good can be found in death.

          • C Peterson

            If you believe those tenets, then you believe in that which is fundamentally evil, fundamentally opposed to happiness, fundamentally inhuman. Your need to believe has stolen your ability to reason.

            There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

            • Blacksheep

              You believe that those tenets are evil?

              If so, what do you beleive? You are not a consistent and direct communicator.

              • C Peterson

                How can the belief that we are born in sin be anything but evil? It places a burden of wrongness on a creature that has not yet developed a moral code, or the ability to even understand the concept of a moral code. How can the belief that we require “salvation” (ignoring, for the moment, that this is a poorly defined concept) from a hypothetical being who can absolve us of our hypothetical sins, as well as our real transgressions against others, be anything but evil?

                What I believe is that there is no such thing as sin. I believe that every human does good things and bad things, with these defined by the positive or negative impact they have on others. Nobody requires salvation. When we die, we are gone, and we are remembered as good or bad based on our actions. It’s as simple as that.

                • Blacksheep

                  It’s not evil because forgiveness is so readily given.

                  I didn’t mean to ask you to recite what you believe – as i wrote above, your post showed up as coming from “Frank” which is why I made the “consistent and direct” comment. After time on this forum I have a sense of what you believe.

                • C Peterson

                  It’s not evil because forgiveness is so readily given.

                  If you commit some wrong against me, and I don’t forgive you, you are not forgiven. If you believe otherwise, based on your religion, that religion is not only obviously wrong, but has corrupted your morals. Forgiveness can only come from the injured party. Anything suggesting otherwise is obscene, and very, very dangerous.

                • Pete Walk

                  HAHA dude we get it you quote without attributing it to the author in the hope people will think it’s you.

                • Stev84

                  Forgiveness is not “readily given” when it requires a human sacrifice! And then accepting that human sacrifice. If it were “readily given”, the whole Jesus thing would have been unnecessary.

                  But even then simply forgiving people after they beg a little (like Protestants do) is deeply immoral. The way it works in many churches is that people can be forgiven for anything by merely requesting it. There is no consideration whatsoever for their victims. In fact the pressure is then put on the victims to forgive those who wronged them. Judaism has that obligation too unfortunately, but where it is infinitely superior is that it actually requires people to ask forgiveness of those they harmed. Not god or their priest.

                • cipher

                  It IS evil, you’re seriously disordered and if it were up to me, you’d have been banned months ago.

                • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

                  Sorry, Blacksheep, but “forgiveness” is simply not sufficient to undo the damage caused by an ass-backwards worldview that sees normal humans as abnormal and fatally flawed.

                  If anything, the act of asking for forgiveness forces the individual into a bad psychological place, causing them to see perfectly ordinary human desires as evil and offering nothing but a distant promise of something better.

                • Jim Jones

                  > It’s not evil because forgiveness is so readily given.

                  It is evil because it is a lie. No god said it because no gods exist.

                • Pete Walk

                  There is no possible way you can know or prove there are no Gods smart ass. Disproving every single man made religion that not disprove God’s. You say a black hole just appeared some say it begun with something greater.

                  You are both fucking retarded in that case.

              • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                For starters it’s rather obvious to most modern humans that slavery is immoral. Or being required to marry your rapist. Should I continue? those are all things from your bible that are appallingly immoral.

            • Blacksheep

              Sorry C., your post showed up originally as coming from Frank – so you can imagine my confusion… (hence my comment below)

              (it’s happened a few times recently)

          • cipher

            Every time you begin to to speak reasonably and I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, you disgust me. I wish you’d go away and take your obscene theology with you.

            And once more, for the record – I DID provide you with that citation months ago that you claim I didn’t. If you ignored it or didn’t see it, it isn’t my problem.

          • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

            How was I “born in sin”? That’s absurd.

      • Fred

        “At its core, Christianity strives to be a pathway to ultimate happiness.”

        I can only ask, Why do they fail so miserably at it?

        • Blacksheep

          See below image – this is what keeps happening.

          Well, it’s a pathway, not a destination. Christians are concerned with eternity, but also the here and now. From what I have seen, we have gotten better at the here and now part.

          • Glasofruix

            Except for the victims of pedophile priests…

      • Jim Jones

        > At its core, Christianity strives to be a pathway to ultimate happiness.

        At its core, Christianity strives to be a pathway to ultimate power for a few.

        FTFY

      • jferris

        “Christians over time…” Christians CURRENTLY working to stop happiness. Uganda, current date. I can go on with examples.

        I understand YOUR attempts to prove your religion is not hateful, spiteful, etc. But your argument sounds like those who would claim slavery provided opportunities for blacks that they would not have had if they were left in Africa. You come to an atheist blog to defend admittedly beautiful stories from your faith. You would do better to go to a CHRISTIAN blog and call out your fellows and the acts of violence, hatred, discrimination, etc that have, and continue to occur. A True Christian would not tolerate the many acts that go on even this day. When you have stood up and taken your own belief to task, and when you have made a change, come talk to me about faith.

      • DyslexicDNA

        At its core, Christianity asserts that it is the only pathway to real happiness, and demonizes and opposes other paths people have found that contradict theirs.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Well, I’m gay so I guess I’m not included in your happiness plan.

      • Lewayne L. White

        “At its core, Christianity strives to be a pathway to ultimate happiness.”
        I’m not convinced of that, neither by your argument, nor the scripture itself… If people are truly happy, they don’t really need religion. They don’t need it to comfort them, because they are already happy. They don’t need it to answer any questions for them, because they already know why it rains or the sun shines, or they simply don’t care. They are presumably living a moral life, because being locked in prison for committing crimes is rarely something one is happy about. If your life is truly satisfying, you don’t need ancient myths to make you feel satisfied. You’re already there.

  • Jasper

    “No no.. our views aren’t abhorrent specifically towards homosexuality. Our views are abhorrent across the board.”

  • Lijdare

    Abrahamic religions have essentially institutionalized homophobia into their structure and dogmas, thus allowing a follower of that religion to sublimate their own homophobic hatred or disgust and call it love. It’s still hate.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

      “thus allowing a follower of that religion to sublimate their own homophobic hatred or disgust and call it love.”
      or this could be written “thus allowing a follower of that religion to deny their own homosexual desires and proclivities…”

      • Lijdare

        Nah… I don’t hold to that old cunard that those with the greatest homophobia are themselves homosexual. It works sometimes. But not too often. Growing up in a small town I’ve known my share of overtly-homophobic men and none of them were hiding their own same-sex desires.

        • 3lemenope

          I suppose the obvious question is, if they were hiding it how would you know?

          • Lijdare

            As a gay man or then teenager I knew.

            • 3lemenope

              I’ll readily admit I’m a bit skeptical of a claim based essentially on gaydar. I agree with you that by-and-large, most people are homophobic for reasons other than self-loathing, if for no other reason than the obvious one that homophobes outnumber (most reasonable estimates of) homosexuals in the population. But one thing that is pretty much guaranteed to turn a person into a homophobe is self-loathing over personal sexual orientation, and so simple math suggests that at least a few of the many homophobes in an average small town are going to be self-loathing closet cases.

  • Rob U

    Blogger Representative Rebecca Hamilton

    Hemant, its important to point out that Rebecca Hamilton isn’t just your run of the mill Catholic Blogger on Patheos, she’s also an active member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Having read her site from time to time one can only come to the conclusion that she is a sitting representative who harbours a deep seated religious hatred for some of her very constituents.

    Seeing her writings about about not only gay people but women as well, her bio page proudly displays her tireless work to limit a woman’s bodily autonomy through force of law, it would be difficult to believe that’s she’s not using her position of power to legislate her religious morality.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

      strike is what you are looking for there

      • Rob U

        Thanks for pointing that out, fixed it.

  • the moother

    Yeah…, just like the Catholic Church always loved Jews but… wait, what?

    • Anat

      Yeah, I remember back in the 90s some Catholic authority or other referred to the Jews as their elder brothers. Well, Genesis is full of examples of elder brothers and how they were treated.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    Dear gay people,

    We don’t hate you. We just know what’s best for you. And if you see things our way we will welcome you with open arms. And if you don’t, we will exert all of our political will to keep you second class citizens. And if that fails, we’ll continue fighting for the right to discriminate against you. Because we love you. And we know what’s best for you.

    Sincererly,
    Your loving friends at the Church

    XOXOXOXOXOX

    • EvolutionKills

      “Your loving friends at the Church”

      But not in a GAY way, we love you just as platonic friends… without benefits…

      • Jeff Levy

        or Shhh come into my closet my wife isn’t home…

        • EvolutionKills

          Is that a FUTON in there? I’m sold!

          • Jeff Levy

            ha, ha … No it’s not a Futon it’s a ‘Memory Foam’ cause he’s going to remember how awesome gay sex is…

            • EvolutionKills

              I showed this little discourse to my best friend, who happens to be gay, and we both thinks it’s hilarious. :D

              • Jeff Levy

                cool I too thought it was hilarious when I was typing it…

                Tell your friend who happens to be gay … That I am sorry that he is only Gay ….and not Gay Fabulous like myself ,, He just hasn’t met the right Fabulous Gay man yet… be he’s out there …

                I hope he is a he in this cause I know some use GAY for both men & Women… I am guilty of it to some times… just not when talking about one person…

                • EvolutionKills

                  You happen to be right, he’s not Gay Fabulous. He completely passes for a typical heterosexual male, and nothing about his speech or mannerisms gives away his sexual preference; he simply doesn’t have an obvious ‘tell’.

                  Nor has he met the right fabulous man yet, but he keeps trying. Hanging out at ‘gay’ bars isn’t half bad either. It’s weird to get hit on by other guys at first, but I learned to take it all in stride. I figure, that guy thinks I’m attractive enough to make a pass at, and I take as a complement.

                  Still, he’s my best friend and one of the few people I can have an intelligent conversation with in person. He’s an outspoken atheist and a bio-chemistry major, so we can sit and talk about the universe, or religion, or evolution for hours. We actually like to go to local all-you-can-eat Chinese buffets and hang out for 2-3 hours just talking and munching on seafood. I’m so glad I know him.

                • Jeff Levy

                  Oh when I say Gay Fabulous I don’t mean {{speech or mannerisms,;}}
                  I just say it cause well I’m Fabulous ..
                  If I didn’t wear a rainbow no one would know I am Gay… hell I can’t even talk or act gay well with the {speech or mannerisms} hell my Str8 friend can do that better that I can and I love penis’s ….

      • wink wink nudge nudge

        P.s. meet me in the alley behind the bins in five minutes…and don’t tell the bishop!

  • Jeff Levy

    Then Marry Homosexuals ,, then they wouldn’t be having sex outside of Marriage … Well no more so than Heterosexuals DO now…

    Hay didn’t the Catholic / Christian Religion say the same thing about Black’s marring Black’s & Black’s & Whites Marring each other too at one time… you stopped your hate of them So now Stop your Hate OF US…
    WE love the Person we are with just as you love the person you are with…
    try in-bracing love not hate… you actions to US yells HATE not love…

  • EvolutionKills

    I tried commenting on Rebecca Hamilton’s blog about it, but her comments are moderated. So if anyone else had the same idea, you probably shouldn’t waste your time. I can’t imagine she’ll actually okay my comment, those familiar with my recent posts will know why…

  • Sarah

    “Homosexual sex, like all sex outside of marriage…” that explains why they are so opposed to gay marriage – apparently that would make gay sex A-ok with the Catholic church.

    • 3lemenope

      Unfortunate choice of nickname. See below. :-/

      EDIT: Huh, it first appeared with the name “frank”. Damn disqus. Sorry about in the interruption, now here is your regularly scheduled program…

      • Sarah

        Er… alright then… disregarded…

        • 3lemenope

          Trust me, you don’t want to be ‘frank’ on this thread. Disqus has a very bad habit of falling behind, and when it does it just starts randomly assigning names to posts for display, and only sorts it out later.

          • Spazticus

            It was the Disqus name bug at work again. She originally appeared as “Frank” to me, too. But it was fixed when I refreshed the page.

            • EvolutionKills

              Same here…

          • allein

            I had to reload because I saw Frank above as C Peterson; at first I thought it was just a joke but then I read more of the exchange and realized, “this isn’t right…”

    • 3lemenope
      • EvolutionKills

        Want to take odds on how many of those ‘saints know for their friendship’ were in a homosexual relationship with their church ritual BFF?

        • 3lemenope

          Hah! No bet.

    • Glasofruix

      How about sex with altar boys, seems to me like a big OK amongst the catholic clergy?

      • EvolutionKills

        To be fair, they’re just one confession and a X amount of ‘Hail Mary’s’ away from a clean slate…

  • 3lemenope

    It is telling that many of the rank-and-file can’t even handle a different emphasis on the issue than they’re accustomed to. If Francis saying the old policy in a nicer way makes them freak and trip over themselves to “clarify”, what do you think might happen if the actual policy changed?

    • EvolutionKills

      Mass-spontaneous-combustion.

      • 3lemenope

        That’s about what I’m thinking. Then again, people tend to react more strenuously to change under consideration than the actual change itself once it occurs.

  • Brian

    “We love the gays, so long as they dont fuck”

    • Spazticus

      …Or want to be married, or want to not be bullied or worse by religious people without consequences, or want to be treated equally under the law…

    • Stev84

      I’m sure other forms of affection are banned as well.

      • Anna

        They don’t even believe gay people can feel romantic love for each other. They think they just have feelings of friendship that have somehow gotten twisted.

        I don’t know how they would feel about a gay couple who only kissed and cuddled, but somehow I suspect they would find a way to condemn them anyway.

        • tsara

          …well, shit. There go roughly 50% of my potential future relationships.

  • EvolutionKills

    Now I’m not saying Jesus was gay, but he was a 30 year old ‘virgin’, that spent all his time walking around the countryside with 12 men, one of whom was known as ‘the one Jesus loved’…

  • Carpinions

    “Blogger Rebecca Hamilton says, ‘As usual, he nails it,’”

    Meaning, as usual, Catholic issues pat answer. How has Kandra “nailed” anything if he restated the company line?

    • Jason Hinchliffe

      Because he nailed every single word in that line.

      • HQ

        “Because he nailed every single word in that line.”

        What a slut.

  • Don Gwinn

    1. Gay sex is sinful and icky only because it’s outside marriage. (What ever could have given you any other impression?)

    2. Gay marriage is sinful and icky because gay spouses–presumably–have gay sex.

    3. Gay sex is sinful and icky only because it’s outside marriage.

    4. Gay marriage is sinful and icky because gay spouses have gay sex.

    5. Gay sex is . . . you know what, just check 1 again.

    • Anna

      I think it has more to do with their obsession with procreation. After all, the official rules for straight married couples are absolutely insane. Gay sex is bad not because it’s icky (although they think it’s that, too) but because of the babies! They are obsessed with making babies. You aren’t even supposed to have an orgasm unless you’re trying to make a baby.

      • I believe in miracles!

        So why can’t two gay people just have sex while praying really hard that they’ll make a baby? Surely with God all things are possible? The virgin Mary didn’t need a man to have Jesus, so why can’t two lesbians have a child together again?

        • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

          GREAT SCOTT

        • Anna

          Why not, indeed. I’ve always found it interesting that a religion built around such an unnatural pregnancy should be so upset about different forms of conception.

          Sadly, I don’t think the Catholics will change their minds, but at least we know the Hindu gods are on board!

          In some versions of the Krittivasa Ramayana, the most popular Bengali text on the pastimes of Lord Ramachandra (an incarnation of Vishnu), there is an interesting narrative of two queens that conceived a child together. When the famous king of the Sun Dynasty, Maharaja Dilipa, died, the demigods become concerned that he did not have a son to continue his line. Lord Shiva therefore appeared before the king’s two widowed queens and commanded them, “You two make love together and by my blessings you will bear a beautiful son.” The two wives, with great affection for each other, executed Shiva’s order until one of them conceived a child. Unfortunately, however, the child was born boneless, but by the blessings of a sage, Astavakra, the child was restored to full health and continued the dynasty. Astavakra accordingly named the child “Bhagiratha” – he who was born from two vulvas . Bhagiratha later became a king and is credited with bringing the Ganges River down to earth through his austerities.

      • Don Gwinn

        They’ll say so, certainly. But as you pointed out, they have all those rules for straight married couples, and they simply aren’t enforced. Gay marriage gets singled out, and gay sex gets singled out. If it were actually about procreation, they’d be acting just as crazy over their rules on birth control and the like, and the truth is that much of the catholic church in the US simply looks the other way on those things (as many of my Catholic friends keep telling me, because they think that excuses the church’s position on birth control.)

        • Anna

          True, and they allow infertile people to get married, so they’ve given themselves a nice little loophole. Sex for pleasure is totally evil… except when it isn’t.

        • Green_Sapphire

          The real issue is that same-sex marriage publicly celebrates non-traditional sexuality.

          With other sexual activity, at church, it is hidden and everybody can play pretend. The very conservative folks and the ministers can pretend that the people sitting next to them aren’t masturbating and aren’t having premarital sex and aren’t having kinky sex and (if Catholic) aren’t using birth control and (if lesbian or gay) are “just platonic friends and housemates” or (if divorced) had a really good, Biblically justifiable reason for divorce.

          But same-sex marriage blows the cover off that hypocrisy. It’s as if people went to church wearing t-shirts saying, “I fap and I’m proud” or “I’m shacking up and I’m still a good Christian.”

  • Jason Hinchliffe

    I’ve already explained to the Christians how this works, but they’re just not listening.

    Homosexual acts are a sin. Through and though. No question.

    Now, God, in his infinite wisdom, knew he would have to test man. He would have to test him in a way he couldn’t avoid. So he made some people gay.

    The entire point of homosexuality, is a divine challenge to reject our nature, to put his glory and his kingdom first.

    In this light, gays who are abstinent, are the truest followers of Christ, and the true moral center of the church, the alpha and the omega of faith. They are the true spiritual leaders of the church.

    Now if the church could accept this, think how fabulous they would become.

    • Spazticus

      It would be much preferred if they would accept people for who they are, without feeling the need to exert power and influence over others, or desire to donate large sums of money to causes designed to limit the rights of others.

      If they would instead spread a message of tolerance and truly unconditional love, and spend more money directly aiding those who need it, rather than waste it spreading a message based in fear and hatred…that would be a step in the right direction. And hey, maybe they wouldn’t have to spend so much on advertising, because their acts of community building would draw more people in naturally.

      Perhaps that is asking too much, but such is the current state of most organized religions. I know people tend to respond more to fear than positivity. However, if love and positivity comprise the hidden message of religion, it is well masked and even buried by the messages of control, fear, and intolerance.

      • Jason Hinchliffe

        Wow. Just no one got the joke. What a humourless bunch.

        • EvolutionKills

          I find that /sarcasm helps a lot. But take heart, you would be an excellent Poe if you tried.

  • Anna

    I found this article on the StrangeNotions site, written by a celibate gay Catholic:

    Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes want things that are not good for me. The Church doesn’t let me have those things, not because she’s mean, but because she’s a good mother. If my son or daughter wanted to eat sand I’d tell them: that’s not what eating is for; it won’t nourish you; it will hurt you. Maybe my daughter has some kind of condition that makes her like sand better than food, but I still wouldn’t let her eat it. Actually, if she was young or stubborn enough, I might not be able to reason with her—I might just have to make a rule against eating sand. Even if she thought I was mean.

    http://www.strangenotions.com/catholic-gay/

    It’s all just so terribly sad. How can one reason with a fundamentalist like this? He’s been thoroughly convinced that he’s sick, and that wanting to be intimate with another man is a symptom of his disorder. In his eyes, the church is being a “good mother” by telling him not to do something that is bad for him.

    • EvolutionKills

      Sounds like Stockholm syndrome, poor bastard…

    • Frank

      No he sees himself for who he truly is. Maybe one day you will too.

      • Anna

        No, in order to instill that type of self-hatred, you’ve got to get a child young. An emotionally healthy and stable adult is not going to be taken in by it.

        • Frank

          As I said maybe one day you will grow up and see the truth about yourself. Delusion is a terrible thing.

          • RobMcCune

            Yeah, just look at what it’s done to Frank.

            • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

              And he’s been exactly like this for years and years. Heartbreaking, really, in its way. I almost wonder if he’s online to keep himself drinking that Kool-Aid.

          • Anna

            There’s just too much that’s ironic about that statement.

          • Guest

            Right back at you, Frank.

        • Spazticus

          Hence the proliferation of the “Good News Clubs” in public schools. Their intended targets are kids who haven’t even been alive long enough to have developed significant critical thinking skills yet. Blind obedience to authority is preached as a virtue, and kids are often encouraged to pressure other kids into joining and converting.

          They know they’re losing adults in droves, and the fear based preaching only goes so far with adults. But if they start young enough, the kids won’t think to question it. It’s sickening that they’ll go this far.

          • Anna

            Yup, I’ve always thought if these people were so confident about their position, they’d leave children alone. If Christianity is true, then it should be strong enough to convince an adult who has never heard of it before.

        • Blacksheep

          I absolutely agree with you on the self hatred thing.

          For what it’s worth, the way the Bible tells it, Jesus won the original disciples over (who were grown men) with nothing more than the power of who he was. And he won lots of converts by healing the sick, etc.
          This is what he said to the “woman at the well”: “Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

          No self loathing, more of a promise.

          • Anna

            How can you agree with me on the self-hatred thing when that’s exactly what your religion promotes? Children are not born bad. Gay people are not sick, disordered “sinners,” and they should not feel guilt or shame about their sexuality.

            There is no reason for anyone to feel bad about being human. No one needs forgiveness from some supernatural entity, and self-hatred and self-loathing are only caused by people telling them otherwise.

            • Blacksheep

              I say that because Christians who I know, myself included, have never felt self hatred. We feel human, loved, and forgiven. believing that the world is in a broken state is different than saying “children are born bad.”

              • Anna

                Well, then we disagree about what self-hatred is. I would define it as the belief that there is something wrong with being human, that people are inherently broken “sinners” who require forgiveness, and that they must submit to and obey the rules of a higher authority in order to avoid punishment. The man who wrote that article is obviously filled with self-hatred.

              • Will

                and yet many ex-Christians say they felt miserable, tortured by guilt and low self-esteem all the time and terrified of hell. Maybe the people you know are putting on a brave face? You say you’ve never felt self-hatred. Remember now, lying is a sin.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Sure they’ve felt self-hatred — they call it “the Love of Christ”

          • Glasofruix

            And look how it turned out, they’re all dead…

    • Svelaz

      This is actually very psychologically damaging to one’s mind. To be thinking that one is not worthy while at the same time force himself to be happy. It’s like trying to drive at full throttle while at the same time stomping on the brake trying to reach a destination.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    The best thing about being an atheist is not having to engage in the kind of logical twisting that requires one to believe than either god made people gay but didn’t want them to have sex or relationships or that being gay is a choice. Once you realize you can reject absurdities it makes life so much simpler and more fulfilling. I don’t have to reconcile nonsense with reality any more. It leaves so much free time to pursue so much more rewarding interests!

  • Purge My Dear

    I really don’t know who these gay people are that want to get married. In the 10 years I was with my soul-mate we never had a sexually “open relationship” the way the alarmingly majority of partnered gay men have and we were looked down upon as being “the weird ones” because of our monogamous nature. We never befriended any gay men within our decade together which provided us with a profound and blissful union because every one we met wanted to “sex one of us” even though they knew we were partnered. I’ve never had a gay male friend aside from my soul-mate and never will!!!!

  • camo

    the interesting thing with this is nobody got this right. You see god died for our sins and they commit one on an even larer scale than staright couples having sex out of wedlock…..all though its not condoned people being straiht without marriage are right through the bible and also the straight animals on noahs ark , although they should have been more holly and been married there not as bad as one who goes diretly against god….but god didnt make people that way its just the devil trying to fool you….it makes me sad for you. jesus died for our sins and they want us to respect them for a life based on sin, there is no way they would go to heaven for being the oppisuite if jesus ….you guys are not even close.

    • Spazticus

      You have exactly zero credible evidence to substantiate your claims here. You’re also neither very convincing nor very coherent. From this, I can conclude that you have even less of an idea of what you’re talking about than most of the people here.

  • A-person

    im a catholic christian and i dont hate gay people but in the eyes of the lord its not right doesnt mean god doesnt lkike them but he doesnt like what they’re doing because we are on earth for a mission and we are avoiding that mission if we are becoming ‘gay’

    • Spazticus

      Unfortunately for you, that’s just one viewpoint, and not one that many of us share. It doesn’t have any substantiating evidence, either.

      -You- don’t hate them, but their existence is an affront to your god, and your god -does- hate them. And the people who think this way have the gall to feel like they’re being persecuted for that bigotry?

    • phantomreader42

      Why should anyone give a flying fuck what your imaginary god or your child-raping cult thinks?

  • finishstrongdoc

    There is nothing friendly about avoiding reality. If the gay life is safe for humans and all humans practiced it, then the human species would soon cease to exist. Before that happened, people would be dying of AIDS, and they would die without the comforts they are afforded now because not everyone is gay.

    Right now, the gay lifestyle is being adopted by more and more young people. It would seem that the “gay gene” has unaccountably increased over the last few years. Saying people are “born gay” doesn’t account for this increase. Many other factors seem to be influencing this increase, including the aggressive propaganda that sells gay men as being disease-free and everybody’s bestest friend you could ever have. The aggressive hate aimed at those who see reality differently than gay people is also adding to the increase in the gay population.

    Maybe God doesn’t exist. We all have to die to find out for sure, either way. But even if God doesn’t exist, the best way to live our lives is as if He does. Being gay, and converting others to be gay, as seems to be the case today because the increase in gay humans can’t be accounted for except through propaganda and recruiting, coupled with gay anti-straight hate, would be the exact opposite from that which revealed religion would have us be.

    I think anyone with a keen grasp of reality can see why this is (refer to paragraph one.) Simply put, the God of revealed religion wants us all to be happy, to not hate one another, have healthy lives, and He would like to see His creation increase in all these things, and not die out.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      1. Whining about the blog title makes you lose credibility.

      2. All humans are not gay. Your whine is irrelevant.

      3. “Avoiding reality”: you had to make up a reality to claim he is avoiding. Fail.

      4. “practiced”, “being adopted”, etc.: You are ignorant as to what homosexuality is, and trying to defend your hate of it by claiming it’s a choice. It is well known that it is not. These word choices are bigoted and insulting towards people for how they are born. You might consider working on that.

      5. Gay people reproduce also. Gay people want families as much as straight people do. This is well known.

      6. AIDS is not a “gay man’s disease”. It’s spreading fastest among heterosexuals. If you happen to want to slow that spread, being by stopping spreading falsehoods about it. Also, and this is important, IF NOT FOR HORRIBLE PEOPLE DISMISSING IT AS RETRIBUTION ON GAY PEOPLE INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING IT, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CURED BY NOW.

      7. Being gay is not a “lifestyle”. Correct your ignorance, please. Likewise, it is not some fad that the kids are picking up on. Younger people simply aren’t as bigoted, and realize that they don’t have to scared and ashamed because of bigots. There’s your supposed increase. The occurrence is the same as it always has been. You’re just seeing more of it now, because they won’t sit at the back of the bus anymore. Get the analogy?

      8. Your use of the word “aggressive” is projection. It’s also how bigots used to portray uppity negroes who dared to demand equal treatment. Is the analogy becoming clearer yet?

      9. “the best way to live our lives is as if He does.” Google “Pascal’s Wager” to learn why this can charitably described as a remarkably dense and oblivious argument.

      10. Nobody is being “converted” to homosexuality. Again, please correct your ignorance. It’s very easy to do. Ignorance is not a sin, but refusing to FIX it is. You have a Search bar up top to use.

      11. ” coupled with gay anti-straight hate” If bigots would stop harming gays, they wouldn’t get told that they’re mean. Stop whining when your harmful actions have repercussions.

      12. “the increase in gay humans can’t be accounted for” See #7.

      13. “except through propaganda and recruiting” This is a display of paranoia.

      14. “I think anyone with a keen grasp of reality [agrees with me]” Does God love it when people like yourself say arrogant things out of ignorance like this?

      Frankly, it’s a little creepy how you’re fixated on gay people supposedly being disease-ridden, when that has nothing to do with the article.

      • finishstrongdoc

        The reason disease associated with gay men (GRID “Gay Related Immune Deficiency…..changed to AIDS by bullying from gay haters of reality), isn’t mentioned in the article because the article is gay propaganda, not because being gay isn’t killing people. How selfish do you have to be to be in denial about that, and then attack me using hate speech? I’m presenting a picture of reality to consider, without hate speech, so that lives may be saved Saving lives is a very high purpose. Ignoring the reality of disease,and it’s origins, is not a virtuous thing. Your motives are suspect.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          GRID. Really?

          That particular acronym demonstrates the point. Your information source is 31 years old and was ignorant and dismissive even at the time. It was also incorrect, which was the real reason for the change, not your propaganda.

          You are likewise ignorant as to what “hate speech” is. Please educate yourself on persecution complexes.

          “Your motives are suspect.” Yours are sadly obvious: ignorance-fueled bigotry, covered with a transparent sheen of fake rationalism and pseudo-intellectualism.

          Whining about saving lives forces you to ignore what I wrote, not to mention the well-documented history of the subject matter. And no, you aren’t trying to save lives. That’s pure ego on your part. Your post was about attacking people for how they were born. Pity you didn’t pick up on the analogies when I explicitly pointed them out.

          I’m very sorry that you would rather act bigoted and ego-ridden than ever question your knowledge.

          EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-related_immune_deficiency

          Wow, one entire Google search to disprove your irrational, hate-fueled conspiracy theory. That was difficult.

          • finishstrongdoc

            My ego is big enough to entertain the idea that a single voice of courage spoken against a mountain of denial can save lives. I’m surprised constantly with the denial among the gay community about the origins of AIDS, and it is very hateful of you to deny these origins. The original source of what is now called AIDS was pinpointed, and something could have been done early on to stop the spread of the dread disease, but it was those with a mind for using people for a political purpose who brought that life-saving process to a halt. Shameful.

            • 3lemenope

              You’re no savior.

              • finishstrongdoc

                Just imitating Him. Which, of course, today is as politically incorrect as it was for Jesus in His day. So, correct, I’m not The Savior, but I’m LIKE Him, and I certainly don’t hate Him, because He is Truth.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Claiming you are like Jesus is the epitome of narcissism.

                  Whining about political correctness demonstrates your inability to understand words or not trail off into your persecution complex.

                  Whining about hating Jesus is, again, just your complex showing out.

                  You’re just a big old stack of difficult-to-treat issues.

                • finishstrongdoc

                  I thought gays were the ones who were supposed to be the object of bullying. Guess that’s been proven to be a lie right here, and you have proven it by characterizing what you are doing in this conversation as persecution. So, your own words reveal you to be a deceiver…or the puppet of deceivers. Which is better: to be the puppet of deceivers, or the follower of Truth?

                • phantomreader42

                  What a narcissistic fuckwit you are! You wouldn’t know the truth if you were repeatedly beaten about the head with it.

                  You aren’t being persecuted, you’re being called out for babbling moronic nonsense debunked decades ago. And your pitiful “faith” is too fragile to survive even the slightest criticism, so you hallucinate up “persecution” in a desperate attempt to pretend you’re something other than a pathetic liar.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Annnnd you don’t know what the word “ego” means.

              I didn’t say anything about the origins of the disease. It was spread by one gay man initially, then leapt through the heterosexual community really fast. You are imagining things and ignorant of history. So much for reason.

              Did you know that AIDS entered the U.S. several times with heterosexual people decades before it took hold? We lucked up each time. Consider reading things that aren’t 31 years out of date.

              To continue on that theme, YOU are the one ignorant, and now lying about, the history of the topic that you are obsessed with. AIDS was dismissed by straight, bigoted people like yourself because your stupidly assumed it was a blight only on gay people, and as a consequence spread far and fast. Congratulations for all the deaths you’ve abetted, conspiracy theorist. Jesus must be proud of your spreading lies in His name.

              • finishstrongdoc

                Intravenous drug users who engage in anal sex are dying. Anal sex is associated with gay men. Don’t you care about that? Oprah is not a good source for information about AIDS and how it’s spread. She said heterosexuals would be dying like flies within a few years of the outbreak of AIDS. And that epidemic is still to happen. People have a sense of repulsion for the acts which you are trying to make seem “gay.” And that repulsion is interpreted by gay propagandists to be “hate.” People resent your mischaracterizations of them, but generally are too gentle and non-confrontational, and are too often viciously attacked, to want to address your deliberate misconceptions.

        • C.L. Honeycutt
          • finishstrongdoc

            Actually, this meme is ironic because it’s been about that long that we’ve had AIDS, and the people who are offering life-affirming alternatives are the ones who are being hated on, a lot like Dr King was by haters in his time.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              My bad, you don’t have to wait 40 years. You look pretty stupid now.

              Funny how you intentionally ignored the analogies to your dressed-up hate until it was time to misappropriate them. You’re a sick one to compare King’s work to yours, yours being using lies to discriminate against people. That’s the opposite of what he stood for.

              You should get right with Jesus and not risk being forever denied a place with Him like you’re doing right now.

              • finishstrongdoc

                Actually, your shaming has no effect on my conscience because I’ve saved black babies from another pack of liars.

    • Anna

      Your entire comment is ridiculous, but this part stood out to me:

      If the gay life is safe for humans and all humans practiced it, then the human species would soon cease to exist.

      What nonsense. You don’t have to have sex to make a baby. If the entire world magically became gay, it would have no effect on human reproduction. Gay men have sperm and lesbians have eggs, and there are plenty of ways to get the sperm and the egg together without people having intercourse with each other.

      • finishstrongdoc

        Widespread use of that reproductive technology is dangerous to the human race. With the traditional family, you have a family medical history to refer to. You also don’t run the risk of mixing the genetics of close family. Don’t these “glitches” concern you? Or have you never considered it? If you haven’t considered it, that’s being very inconsiderate, don’t you think? You are allowed to think about others, if you’re so inclined. Or, you can just be selfish, enjoy your life, and say “Hooray for me, too bad for you!”

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          With the traditional family, you have a family medical history to refer
          to. You also don’t run the risk of mixing the genetics of close family.

          Medical history is preserved when using those techniques. We have these magic things now called “documents”. They’re an ancient wisdom created by the Sumerians and then lost to mankind until five minutes ago.

          Citing incest as a risk of… oh my God, are you seriously oblivious to how stupid and desperate your arguments are?

          That’s a rhetorical question, really. So much for your alleged “reason”.

          Why do you lie for Jesus, Mister Kimble? And why do you lie about being a doctor?

          • finishstrongdoc

            I got my nickname in Viet Nam. Dr Richard Kimble, “The Fugitive.”

            I’m sure you’re aware of how easily records can be used for political advantage. I see you have already engaged in a little subterfuge yourself, concerning my name. How shameful of you. And deceitful. Proving my point. I don’t wish to be hacked, and I would appreciate it if you’d remove that post.

        • Anna

          What on earth are you talking about? How is not having intercourse to make a baby dangerous for the human race? It doesn’t sound like you even know anything about such “technology” (hint: you don’t need a doctor or fancy equipment to make it happen). I’m puzzled by the fact that you think widespread use of donor insemination would make it impossible for human beings to keep records. Everyone keeps records. Individuals keep records, and modern sperm banks are better at keeping records than individuals. It’s easy to ask for a medical history and keep track of which donor fathered which child. People conceived via donor insemination are no more likely to engage in accidental incest than anyone else. It would be much more likely to happen with people whose biological parents weren’t who they thought they were.

          Don’t these “glitches” concern you? Or have you never considered it? If you haven’t considered it, that’s being very inconsiderate, don’t you think? You are allowed to think about others, if you’re so inclined. Or, you can just be selfish, enjoy your life, and say “Hooray for me, too bad for you!”

          This is rather hilariously ironic since I was conceived via donor insemination myself and raised by two lesbian mothers. I’ve thought quite a bit about this subject, thank you, and I see no “glitches” in the system. Heck, if anything, if the whole world magically turned gay (which is a preposterous notion in itself), there wouldn’t be any accidental pregnancies or unwanted children. That would surely only be a good thing for the human race.

  • whatAboutkids

    Phamton guy… well you are not very smart are you? A straight man wouldn’t want to marry another straight guy you know? That’s how idiotic this is… not only Christians immigrate people or bully or does any of that. I’ve always said one thing An alcoholic will die an alcoholic if that is what s/he wants. You wilo die gay if thats what you want too, but dont tell me you were born gay bc obviously nature was very much against you too in that case and only when I see for my self that you and your partner can pro create children then I will accept that your behavior has a purpose. After all everything in life has a purpose except you. If you were meant to be happy the way you are, then why do you around adopting children to fill an emptiness that you TWO ALONE will never be able to do. Lesbians or gays can not bring children to this world without a 3rd person. Not a single gay or lesbian couple can do that. NOT ONE.

    • phantomreader42

      I’m not gay. I’m just not a sociopathic bigot with a fetish for torture like YOU are. Members of your sick death cult have repeatedly threatened to murder my gay friends and family members and myself, because you are such worthless shriveled pieces of shit that you can’t stand the fact that anyone who isn’t a miserable bastard like you is allowed to exist.

      My wife is not able to bear children due to medical issues. Does your sick death cult demand that our marriage be dissolved? Be honest for the first time in your life, the only reason you pretend to give a flying fuck about procreation is so you have a flimsy excuse to fuck up other people’s lives.

      Your delusional and creepy obsession with the sex lives of total strangers suggests dissatisfaction with your own. To remedy this, I recommend you go fuck yourself.

  • John…

    Sinners need not be judging other sinners just because they sin differently than they do.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X