Answers in Genesis: God Is Making People Gay Because of Abortion

I just read an Answers in Genesis article whose argument is so simple and elegant I can’t believe I hadn’t heard it before. Namely, the article explains why it suddenly seems like there are gay people all over, when this wasn’t the case in the past—and it does so by bringing together the perfect conservative bogeyman of gay marriage, abortion, and the removal of school prayer. I have to admit it—I was impressed by the ingenuity.

Will God just turn a blind eye to this ongoing genocide? Has God been turning a blind eye to the fact that the Bible, creation, and prayer have been all but eliminated from public schools?

Furthermore, has God been turning a blind eye to the fact that Christian reminders like crosses, nativity scenes, and Ten Commandment displays have been thrown out of public places?

I don’t believe so. Why?

Well, after listening to the 2nd inaugural address by the head of this nation, President Obama, it’s obvious this nation is already under judgment!

During his speech, President Obama stated:

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law [applause] for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. [Applause.]

The hot-button issues of homosexual behavior and “gay” marriage continue to make news across the nation. But now, America’s president has declared his total support for “gay” marriage. He’s made it a priority of his leadership to promote it, according to his inaugural speech.

With the president’s strong support, we will now see an escalation of legislation around America to legalize “gay” marriage. Furthermore, there are indications that people who speak out against what the Bible clearly calls sin and an abomination will be treated as criminals.

With such a flagrant defiance of God’s clear Word, I maintain that these anti-God movements show that America is under judgment. I think of the passage:

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. (Romans 1:24–26)

The fact that men and women are abandoning the roles God created for them is a sign that God is judging. As Romans 1 above declares, He “gave them up.”

In other words, this article argues that God is making people gay as a judgement on America for abortion and the removal of prayer from schools. This argument is so simple and yet appears so internally consistent—I’ve been familiar with that Romans passage since childhood and I can’t believe I didn’t see this explanation coming.

On a more serious note, if this is God’s judgement, I’d say bring it. While televangelists declare every environmental disaster or major storm as God’s judgement on America, this particular judgement doesn’t appear to have so many bad side effects. Or any, really. My gay and lesbian friends—and my trans and bi friends—are normal people just like me, and the lives they lead aren’t any more lawless or unhappy than mine is. Seriously, if this is God’s judgement on America, I’d say God sucks at judgments.

Also, it seems that Answers in Genesis is unaware that there have always been individuals with same-sex attractions, though of course people have understood and constructed sexuality differently over time. I remember thinking, as a child, that the gay rights movement marked the origin of the existence of gay people, but then I grew up and read a book. (Wow, I’m feeling really snarky today!) Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that the increased visibility of LGBTQ individuals over the past isn’t a result of more people suddenly being gay, it’s a result of a movement that has helped increase public acceptance of LGBTQ individuals, which has naturally resulted in more people being willing to be out rather than hiding who they are.

And besides all of that, there have been many societies over the years where abortion has been accepted and visible and where no one has prayed to the God of the Bible, whether in schools or outside of them. Should we suspect rates of homosexuality to correlate with these things? I mean, isn’t that what you would expect if the gay is God’s punishment for abortion and lack of school prayer? I suppose some might claim that the two do correlate—that Ancient Rome had high levels of both abortion and homosexuality—but I’m guessing that an actual systematic study would find that this isn’t the case. (And even if it was the case, correlation does not prove causation.)

But all of that is a bit complicated, and for many people the narrative Answers in Genesis constructs here will be extremely appealing. I know I would have bought it immediately had I read it while still a conservative Christian. So you might want to be prepared to see it come up in the future so that you can respond with more than a dropped jaw. You’ve been warned!

Note #1: As a reader pointed out, this article conflicts with the belief held by many conservative Christians that people aren’t born gay but rather consciously choose that “lifestyle.” In the past at least, Answers in Genesis itself has subscribed to this position: see this article for instance.

Note #2: Another commenter has pointed out that abortion has always existed, and in every time and society. I think Answers in Genesis would respond by saying that today is different because the United States enforced it with a Supreme Court decision.

About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • http://www.wideopenground.com/ Lana

    The problem is conservatives also believe people choose to be gay, lol

    • Fina

      Eh, that’s easy to rationalize. “Well y’see, if not for all our sin god would protect people from making that terrible choice!” Claiming that god (or jesus or the holy spirit, because you know, monotheism) does protect people from falling to sin is a rather widespread belief for whatever reason (yes, it doesnt really make sense…)

      • Petticoat Philosopher

        What do you mean, it makes perfect sense! God would protect us from being sinful if we weren’t so darn sinful! It’s perfect logic.

  • Baby_Raptor

    God is making people that he is then going to send straight to hell because how he created them is an abomination in his sight.

    …Holy Fuck, you guys. AiG just TOLD THE TRUTH! God created people without the ability to fulfill his demands. He created people, knowing that he would have to send them to hell. And now they’re admitting it!

    Also, how is this moral again?

  • Noor

    This level of ignorance is truly astounding. Let’s hope that their kids aren’t gay.

  • Little Magpie

    I think you mean “teh gayz” :) As another atheist blogger (Zinnia Jones) pointed out.. this has to be the most fabulous punishment ever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_wa9lnSSN4&list=PLC9D2567150212FD2

    • Mira

      I laughed SO hard at the comments. The Christians were so mad that someone else was reading their bible and pointing out how silly it is!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.duncan.7359 Rebecca Duncan

    Mother Teresa said that the fruit of abortion is war. I don’t know where they’re coming up with the gay correlation, I’ve never heard of it and I don’t know anyone who would take it seriously. We know that God’s judgment of Sodom was to rain down fire and brimstone, basically to destroy the city in a spectacular way. But God also judged the world at one time by flooding it and we know He isn’t going to do that again, which should be a clue to people that God doesn’t judge everything in exactly the same way just because it is the same sin. Jesus also had a lot to say about punishing sin when He said that the tower that fell on some people didn’t mean that they were bigger sinners than anyone else. I subscribe mostly to the theory that usually the punishment for the sin is the sin itself. That basically means that if you’re living a lifestyle that is causing you misery, like being an alcoholic or whatever, there’s the sin and the punishment at the same time. The health effects, the shorter life span, the bad effect you’re having on your family, being cut off spiritually from God. As to the effects on society, you can look at the effect that abortion is having on China right now if you want to see an effect of sin writ large. Men who have no hope of ever getting married because their female counterparts were killed for being girls, increased sex trafficking, an elderly population with no support from young people, and the feminine gender being continually degraded even further. We’ve seen the effects of abortion for decades now but the acceptance of the gay lifestyle has just started so the effects aren’t as clear yet on the society as a whole. I look at Canada for a clue since people can be sued and fined for speaking out against homosexual practice.

    • Guest

      ” their female counterparts were killed for being girl”

      That’s specifically a cultural problem with girls being valued over boys. If parents didn’t have a strong preference about which gender they wanted the gender ratio would return to normal. (I imagine abortion rates would also drop somewhat, as couples wouldn’t have to keep getting pregnant to try for a boy.)

      “increased sex trafficking”

      • Jayn

        Oops…

        “increased sex trafficking”

        Um, and this is related to abortion how?

        “an elderly population with no support from young people”

        That’s again a problem specifically related to culture, or in this case national law. The one-child policy is creating a bottle-neck effect and children taking care of elderly parents are lacking the support from siblings that they would likely have in, say, the US. (My understanding is that since this usually falls to the wife of a couple, one person may be expected to care for four people). Banning abortion might alleviate this, but if the one-child policy is still in place it would create other issues.

    • Maria Lima

      I feel the logic for this is very strange. There are lots of people who “sin”, for instance, exploiting and hurting others, and live a life or richness and security as payment, no kind of punishment in this life. As for the collective punishment, how does it work? One person has an abortion, leaves a good life with no big problems and the other, who did not have an abortion, must lead a miserable life to serve justice because they happened to be born in the same community? Is this moral?

      • Frank

        Both the sun and the rain fall on the just and unjust alike.

      • Maria Lima

        Sure! But is this the way a all-powerful, all-knowing, loving being distributes justice? I totally get life is unfair, but I cannot reconcile this with the idea of a christian god.

      • Frank

        God gifts us with free will, the ability to choose. We get to make choices both good and bad. God allows this because He loves us. You cannot compel someone to love and if you could it wouldn’t be real love. God also says that justice is His alone. And we should be thankful for that as we are not qualified to pass judgment.

      • Maria Lima

        So why would god punish the just because of the sins of the guilty? It is a like a father punishing one son that did nothing in the place of the other who misbevahed, knowing all to well who did what, just because he is the father and he is strong. There is no way this is a fair and loving and moral.

      • Frank

        God does not punish, we punish ourselves.

      • Maria Lima

        This is funny! We punish ourselves by bringing earthquakes, tornados and plagues upon us?

      • Frank

        All of creation is fallen and so we have adversarial relationship with nature and with others

      • Matilda

        What does this “love gives us free will” thing have to do with a faithful and honest person being punished by god for the deeds of ohers?

      • Frank

        Because people have the power to choose to hurt one another. And every single one of us reject God in some form and hurt others.

      • Matilda

        So I rejecting god can make you gay?

      • Hilary

        Please, please reject god and make Frank gay. That would be so totally awesome!!!!

      • Matilda

        Hilary! I am trying! :)

      • smrnda

        By rejecting the Christian god, I hurt a lot less people than I would if I accepted the Christian god mostly since I don’t have to give people a guilt trip over their sex lives.

      • peter

        You see, my problem with this claim: which one of the about 5000 known gods do we reject? What if I do not reject the right one?

        Would it be better not to reject any all? Then none of them would feel singled out.

        But then the problem occurs if one god commands he is the only true one? What if he is lying, I reject all the others and then they punish me? And the bugger then sits in the corner laughing his ass off? And another earthquake happens. Man, that is heavy shit, you know..

      • Baby_Raptor

        God created people with free will, knowing he would end up sending most of them to eternal torture because of it. That’s not love or justice; its God wanting “willing” worshipers and not giving a damn about the consequences.

        Further, if we aren’t equipped to judge, then why do Christians spend the majority of their time talking about how X thing is evil and must be outlawed “for the good of society”?

      • smrnda

        Why should we be thankful for that? Isn’t it better for people to live under rules of their own choosing? How can god be qualified to pass judgment? God’s OMNIPOTENT and is therefore never tempted to do anything ‘wrong’ since god can just make whatever god wants.

    • Beutelratti

      Uhm, I think you’re missing a very important point that is constantly missed by a lot of pro-lifers: Abortion has always happened. Whether through potions or by inserting things into the vagina, it has always happened. A woman that did not want a pregnancy, aborted the pregnancy. Abortion happened before Jesus, it happened after Jesus. It’s a constant in the history of unwanted pregnancies.

      “We’ve seen the effects of abortion for decades now [...]”

      And those effects would be? I can’t think of any. Also you’re suggestion that the sin in itself would be the due punishment doesn’t really apply in the case of abortion.I’m guessing you assume that women that have had abortions will feel the remorse of an ended pregnancy as the punishment for that “sin”. How do you explain those many, many women that never feel any remorse but just incredible relief? They are actually in the majority.

      Also your choice of using the phrases “gay lifestyle” and “homosexual practice” suggest that you think that homosexuality is a choice. It is not. The acceptance of homosexuality means just that: Acceptance. It will not make society crumble, it will not infect heterosexuals with teh gey and it will only affect you and other likeminded people because you will be confronted with your obviously bigoted views.

      • sylvia_rachel

        Abortion has always happened.

        Also, infanticide. Lots of it.

      • Beutelratti

        A fetus is not an infant. Abortion is not the same as infanticide. Got it yet? Didn’t think so.

      • Petticoat Philosopher

        I believe the point that she’s making is that people have always found ways to avoid being parents when they are unable to be, even if those ways are horrible, like infanticide. And that when abortion is legal, safe and available there is less infanticide.

      • sylvia_rachel

        Right, exactly.

      • Beutelratti

        Alright, apologies for missing your point. ;)
        That does make sense.

      • sylvia_rachel

        Um … I think you misread my tone there, because I’m agreeing with you — the non-availability of safe, legal abortions only means that people turn to whatever unsafe and/or illegal alternatives are available at the time, including “accidental” smothering of small babies, exposure, and other forms of infanticide.

      • http://twitter.com/TrollfaceMcFart Trollface McGee

        Actually, I believe studies have shown the effects of legal abortion over the last few decades to be…. lower crime rates.
        Since we’re talking about lifestyles that cause misery – a lifestyle pretending to be straight when you aren’t..sounds pretty miserable to me.

    • belgianchic

      “Gay lifestyle”? Still unclear on what the gay lifestyle is. see, in my life, gay and lesbian people don’t act or live significantly different from anyone else: they buy milk, go to work, get married, take vacations, etc.

      • peter

        Yeah, but teh gay sex is icky, don’t you know, like anal etc. there should be a law against that…

      • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

        Can’t be that icky, or straight people wouldn’t enjoy a little anal with their kink. Ick is in the eye of the beholder! Of course, many of these beholders also claim missionary sex is the only godly-approved kind of sex that you won’t burn eternally in hell for. Oh, and it had better result in babies every time, too!

      • belgianchic

        gay sex is icky? that doesn’t seem a very good reason to discriminate now does it? and anal sex is not restricted to gay couples, so let’s try again….

      • peter

        some are irony challenged…happens to the best.

      • belgianchic

        the sad thing is many many people think that way.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Bah, all sex is icky. It’s full of nasty bodily fluids. Feels nice, though, so we do it anyways. Gay sex certainly isn’t any ickier than straight sex.

    • Sandy Young (Corkingiron)

      “I look at Canada for a clue”

      Look harder. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.duncan.7359 Rebecca Duncan
      • smrnda

        I read the article (I’ve read the same one before) but given that the article doesn’t really go into detail on any cases involving speech against homosexuality, I’m still kind of in the dark as to how Canada has become a totalitarian state. Saying one is opposed to homosexuality doesn’t seem to be prohibited, but perhaps an outrageous statement like “homosexuals will cause the downfall of Canada” might be, but to me, prohibiting the second seems more an extension of concepts of propagating false information.

      • Whirlwitch

        If you’d like a Canadian to enlighten you, hate speech involves actually promoting “genocide”, as per the Criminal Code, meaning violence against an identifiable group. So saying “homosexuals will cause the downfall of Canada” is legal, and stuff like that does get said, but saying “homosexuals should be stoned to death” may not be. Depends on context. I’m sitting here in Canada typing this, and if the Mounties burst through my door and read those words I’ve just typed out, I wouldn’t be arrested because I’m not using them to actually promote stoning.

      • Sandy Young (Corkingiron)

        Sigh. Keep looking…..

      • Whirlwitch

        You SHOULD look to Canada for a clue, because you obviously don’t have any.

        From the article YOU linked to, on what constitutes hate speech:

        “Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.
        “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.”

        And, with regards to a case of a publicly anti-Semitic politician:

        “On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.”

        Advocating genocide is illegal. Being merely “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” is not. Please read my other comment about how homophobic protesters protest legally on the grounds of the Parliament building itself, which is never short on police presence, and are not arrested because despite being revolting, disgusting and untrue, publicly expressed homophobia is, in fact legal. I’ve lived in Canada my whole life, I’ve lived in Ottawa and seen the protesters I’m talking about. Please do get a clue about Canada before talking about it.

    • plch

      you know, abortion is really not *the problem* in China (or in India or in other countres where daughters are seen as money pit) because female infanticide has a long tradition is such places.

      • Joykins

        China has the reverse problem than the US, actually–it varies in time and place, but every now and then the government enforces the 1-child policy with forced abortion.

    • Petticoat Philosopher

      “I look at Canada for a clue since people can be sued and fined for speaking out against homosexual practice.”

      Er, you mean like how Stephen Harper, the current prime minister of Canada, and many members of his party have? You should maybe learn something about the countries you turn into your bogeymen.

      The effects of “the acceptance of the gay lifestyle” will be as follows: Fewer people will hate themselves. Fewer parents will reject their children because they are gay. Fewer sham marriages, where someone tries to make hirself straight by marrying somebody of the opposite sex, making them both miserable will happen. Fewer children will be bullied because they are gay or are suspected of being so. Fewer will commit or attempt to commit suicide as a result. Abusive “ex-gay” therapy programs will be a thing of the past. LGBT young people will have better access to safer sex information that applies to them and to healthcare. Children of same-sex parents will be safer and more secure because more of their parents will be able to get married.

      In other words, total social dissolution, right? Christians had better fight with all their might to make sure these horrible things never come to pass!

      • Caramello

        This post has just brought me a huge smile of pleasure :-). Bring on that total social dissolution.

      • Ibis3

        You know I love you, right, Petticoat Philosopher?

      • Petticoat Philosopher

        Aw shucks. :-P

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001411188910 Lucreza Borgia

        Me too!

    • Baby_Raptor

      1) China is not an equivalence to the US, China has a strict reproduction policy, limiting how many children a couple can have and what gender the child must be. The US has nothing like that. The US allows first trimester abortions for whatever reason-And most women abort because they cannot, for whatever reason, handle raising a child (or another child) at that point in their lives. Huge freaking difference.

      2) Can you prove that any of this is because of abortion? Please cite facts, not what you think God says. If you expect us to accept “Because God says its sin,”you will first have to prove God exists and then prove God changed his mind about abortion. He orders them frequently in the Old Testament.

      3) The fact that *you* are uneducated on how LGBTs live does not mean society as a whole is. Please educate yourself before you open your mouth about other peoples’ lives again. Its not a “lifestyle” anymore than you being straight is a lifestyle. Further, plenty of studies have been done about the “affects”…There are none. Children have been proven to not do any worse in a same-gender household…In fact, several studies have shown them as doing the best in a lesbian home.

      4) People being punished for hate crimes has nothing to to do “speaking out against homosexuality.” Being reprimanded for discrimination is not persecution. Its a punishment for not following the law. You will still be free to think God hates homos all you want; you just won’t be free to treat them like crap. This is a huge issue for Christians, because they’re used to being able to say and do whatever they want and people are starting to stand up for their right to not be stepped on.

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

      Love between consenting adults is NEVER a sin.

    • Whirlwitch

      I’m Canadian. What you’re saying about Canada is a lie. We have homophobic protesters who stand around with their homophobic signs on Parliament Hill, among other places, and aren’t arrested because they’re exercising their freedom of speech. I used to live in Ottawa, I could go by and see them.

      What is banned is hate speech – inciting people to assault, murder or otherwise harm any group of people, GLBTQ people included. Freedom of speech gets limited when it’s infringing on other people’s freedom to live safely. But garden variety homophobes can and do stand around and spew their crap in public all day, quite legally.

  • Drog

    As someone who’s bi, I think that it’s great that God is making people gay. More sexiness to go around.

    • Nudist_Cindy

      I’m also bisexual though I’ve never actually acted on my feelings for other women — I want to someday, I just haven’t met the “right girl”. Anyway, I believe everyone has a different degree of bisexuality in them — some people limit themselves to keep it in their heads / fantasies, while others act it out through a very limited and secret rendezvous. the more some people vehemently deny their secretive attraction for the same sex, the more so it probably exists but the deeper in the closet they probably stay, hating themselves for their secret desires instead of embracing who they are.

      • Doug

        Indeed; human sexuaity is a lot more fluid then we make it out to be.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kellen.conner.5 Kellen Conner

        I know most of Freud’s work has been debunked by now, popular culture notwithstanding, but I think he was on to something when he suggested that the human libido was “basically bisexual.” (By which I think he meant that the potential for attraction to someone of either gender exists in everybody.)

      • Nudist_Cindy

        it’s too bad that more people aren’t honest with their real selves as I tend to only want to go out with bisexual men and they seem to be more difficult to find.

      • deixoembranco

        Not so difficult. I am here, Cindy.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        you’re bisexual?!!!
        :-)

      • deixoembranco

        This is funny. I had to think for a second. I am a man who loves beautiful women such as you. I am only interested in women. I now realize the mistake.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        that’s OK — I happen to like guys who also like other guys (I think that’s real hot).

      • deixoembranco

        Look, now you are taking advantage of my mistake. You say you like honesty, right? I just like females. Is there anything wrong with that? Gosto de mulheres, entende?

      • deixoembranco

        Did you click on the dog on my website?

      • Nudist_Cindy

        nothing wrong with just like women — I think bisexual men make better lovers plus I am bisexual.

      • deixoembranco

        By the way, I did not read the article. I am just reading you.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        oh, no problem — I like being someone’s good distraction :-)

      • Frank

        There is evidence that sexuality is fluid which men’s stat its all about choice.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        the choice is always to have sex or not have sex (straight, gay, or bisexual) — the attractions and levels of attraction are not by choice, at least conscious choice anyway. who knows why everybody’s brains key-in on certain things that cause attraction — and, frankly, who cares? (the happiest people are those who just enjoy their lives and act responsibly with others).

      • Frank

        There is nothing about acting responsible in sinful, behavior. At least you admit its a choice.

      • Conuly

        Well, Frank, if you feel so strongly about sin I’m sure you’ll stop playing God by judging other people.

      • Frank

        I am not judging anyone. Pointing out sin is not judgment.

      • Bill T.

        Playing God is your favorite game. You sit on your horse in the plantation with a Bible in one hand and a whip in the other, beating your slaves into submission.

      • Conuly

        Are you so sure? Do you really want to risk your soul on your interpretation? Jesus told people over and over not to judge, not to be hypocrites; but is never quoted as saying anything about homosexuality. That would seem to me to indicate something about his priorities. Do you really want to second guess how close to the line you can get before it counts as violating the commandment not to judge others? Should you concentrate on your own well being?

      • Frank

        Yes I am sure.

        I am not judging anyone that’s Gods job.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        now you’re on a topic of which I’ll pretty much shut down as I’m not religious and don’t believe in “sin” (at least not the way as fundamentalists), especially when it deals with sexuality.

        the only choice I “admitted” was whether or not to engage in sex. whether a person is straight, gay, or bisexual is not likely a choice — whether it is or it isn’t, I really don’t care as it’s not my place to judge other people. I personally think that everybody has a certain degree of bisexuality in them. I identify as being bisexual though I’ve never actually had sex with another female (not through anyone’s fault but my own — I guess I’m real “picky” when it comes to who will be my first) and I prefer to have sex with men who are out as bisexuals (I think they make better lovers).

        if a person is religious and their religion has rules against certain things, then that’s for them to deal with. I don’t have those rules to live by in my life.

      • Alix

        I personally think that everybody has a certain degree of bisexuality in them.

        …Er. No.

        I’m sorry, I don’t mean to pick on you – I agree with most of what you’re saying. And if this were “most people,” with the understanding that bisexuality’s a spectrum (that is, not everyone will be split 50-50 in their attraction to men and women), I’d even agree with this.

        But, well. Asexuals exist. I’m one myself. I am not sexually attracted to anybody, never have been, nothing’s “wrong” with me, and it isn’t going to change. And my asexuality is no more of a choice than your bisexuality is.

        I am … kind of touchy about this, now, and I seem to be getting moreso over time. I’m getting rather sick of people assuming that everyone is sexual/experiences sexual attraction. Humans, as usual, are more varied than that and, I dunno. I’m tired of being invisibled by both my enemies and my allies, if that makes any sense. The fact that the vast majority of people don’t do that deliberately only, in some way, makes it worse, because it leaves me feeling like an utter asshole for just pointing out that I exist.

        …Sorry. I didn’t mean to rant. :/ Like I said, this is a touchy issue for me.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        you have to admit that you’re very much a minority. I didn’t write my comment as if it were scientific research or a legal document but I admit that I failed to include the words “of those who have sex” or “99% of everybody”, etc. but truth is, no matter what we write, there will always be someone out there to argue the point.

      • Alix

        And see, this is why I almost never say anything, and this is why I … kind of hate that people do invisible me.

        Depending on the measurements used, gay people are very much a minority. So in discussing sexuality, should we sit there and just act as if everyone’s straight?

        Yes, I’m very much a minority, though there are a lot more asexuals than people think. But you know what? It is deeply problematic for people to automatically assume sexual orientation or sexual interest. (They’re not the same thing.) Just like it’s deeply problematic for anyone to assume all people are straight, or for people to phrase statements as if bisexual folk don’t exist.

        I fail to see how asking people to remember I exist is such a goddamn problem.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        I can understand being upset with someone who intentionally said something disparagingly against you but for me to accidentally leave asexual people out of my comment should certainly not warrant a harsh reaction. sorry if your plight is not as well-known as others. I guess we also commit the same disservice to inter-sex people when we talk about “men and women” and don’t include them. I’m not denying that I said “all people” (or more accurately “everybody”) but in my rebuttal I did say that I “failed to include”. frankly, I know little about asexual people — aside from not being sexually attracted to anyone, do you have loving partnerships with others which exclude sex or do you always remain single?

      • Alix

        See, I was trying my best to not come across as harsh, though I did fail a bit in my second reply. (I apologize for that; your response struck me as hostile, and I let my irritation get the better of me.) And honestly, it seems like a lot of times, just responding at all is seen as harsh, so. :/

        I guess we also commit the same disservice to inter-sex people when we talk about “men and women” and don’t include them.

        Or transfolk. Or other genderqueer folk, like me. This is the reason I personally try really, really hard not to use absolute language like “all people” or “everybody,” because humanity is so varied, and while it’s obviously impossible to explicitly include everyone, most of us will settle for not being explicitly excluded, if that makes any sense.

        do you have loving partnerships with others which exclude sex or do you always remain single?

        It depends on the person. I’m currently single, but I’ve had a few deep, romantic relationships with people that in my case haven’t included sex, because I’m a pretty stereotypical low-libido asexual.

        But things get more complicated than that: some asexuals have a high sex drive and/or really like sex. Heck, when the mood strikes me (which is rare, for me), I really like sex, and I’m not categorically opposed to or averse to engaging in sexual activity with other people. But I don’t experience sexual attraction and in my case sexual activity doesn’t come with attendant fantasies – it’s more like just a really fun way to, well, have fun or relieve stress. Almost mechanistic.

        Someone, and I wish I remembered where I found this, once broke down human sexual orientations into three parts: romantic orientation, sexual orientation, and libido, and I find that a pretty useful way of explaining the nuances to people, though in talking to and listening to various folks I suspect even that threefold breakdown’s too limited. But by that breakdown, I’m a panromantic asexual with a low-but-not-nonexistent libido; my best friend, for contrast, is heteroromantic, mildly bisexual, and has low-to-moderate libido.

        ….And now I’ve written a book and need to stop. :)

      • deixoembranco

        I am with you. I am not religious and I don’t believe in sin. Check out my website…thegreatquestiondotcom.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        interesting.

        I only believe in karma (including bad karma — doing something against someone else).

      • deixoembranco

        Click on the picture of the dog on my page if you want to exchange some karma thoughts with this crazy Brazilian.

      • Nudist_Cindy

        edit: … is not likely a choice.

      • Doug

        I have no idea to what extent my attraction to both males and females is a choice. I don’t choose to be attracted to both genders, but at the same time it’s something I’ve never been burdened with. It makes it difficult for me to understand how most people aren’t bisexual, as it seems so natural to me.

        Anyways, I’m no more troubled by my sinful behavior than you are about eating pork. You filthy, filthy pork eater.

  • Niemand

    The one known environmental correlate with an increased chance of a man being gay is having a large number of older brothers. In short, god is making men gay because of the quiverful movement and Catholic refusal to use birth control.

  • Saraquill

    I take it that whoever wrote that article never caught on to the romantic undertones going on between J*sus and the apostles. If it was good enough for them, I don;t see why it’s no good for the rest of us…

    • The_L1985

      Not to mention the love affair between David and Jonathan…

      • Frank

        Yes a strong brotherly relationship. Anyone who sees anything sexual there is a victim of eisegesis.

      • The_L1985

        So…David got naked and gave his clothes to Jonathan because…?

        Also, why would the Good News Bible retcon their kiss into a handshake if it was a brotherly kiss?

      • Frank

        Who knows. People interpret the bible is all sorts of crazy ways but it does not mean its supported.

        I would say men kissing in greeting is very common in the Middle East. There is nothing sexual about it!

      • Conuly

        Wait, no, because you don’t know why the nakedness happened you merely assume it was fraternal?

      • Frank

        There is no evidence to suggest otherwise Why would anyone assume it’s sexual?

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Because it’s more explicit than other things assumed to be sexual, and much more sexy-like than a lot of descriptions of man/woman sex (it’s right up there with the Songs of Solomon), and because we know homosexual relationships between warriors are a Middle Eastern tradition?

      • Alice

        And when David says that Jonathan’s love was better than the love of women.

  • Christine

    I declined to start a huge family incident over the posting of the link, but an uncle posted a link to something that claimed a) science had not shown any genetic cause for homosexuality (I suspect that they’re going to pretend that “genetic cause” requires a gene that can be pointed to that guarantees same-sex attraction) b) lack of genetic cause means that it must be a choice. The stupid… it hurts.

    • Joykins

      Because there is no immutable personality characteristic that isn’t genetic, right?

      • Christine

        In fairness, there was a popular assumption that once we understood the human genome we’d be able to understand everything about a person and predict what they’d be like. It’s based on a profound misunderstanding of “nature” in nature vs nurture.

      • Guest

        I wouldn’t use the past tense yet about that assumption…

      • Christine

        It’s on its way out. At least in the scientific community. It will be held on to forever by those who want to use it to justify some form of nastiness though.

      • Joykins

        But while genetics aren’t under our conscious control, neither are a great deal of other features of our personality that are not “choices” either. The false dichotomy is that either sexual orientation is genetic or it is a choice. Fallacy!

      • Christine

        Hey, I’m not trying to say that they aren’t idiots. I’m saying that it’s a really really nasty lie, because they can point at (outdated) science to try and pretend that things are choices.

      • Random_acct

        So the third alternative would be…..??

  • Frank

    Well God does not make anyone gay. Our sinful fallen creation does. So that line of reasoning falls flat no matter who is using it. Although I think the point as I read it was that God allows further immorality to occur because our culture has rejected Him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-W-Busch/578120211 Michael W Busch

      “Our sinful fallen creation [makes people gay]”

      Citation Needed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

        There really isn’t one. Our sinful, fallen creation is responsible for every wicked thing (strangely enough satan doesn’t figure into it. Whatever it is that he does, you’re just to ignore it and anything we do is far, far worse than anything he does). It matters not that the game was rigged from the start. Just suffer and keep thanking god for the suffering he allows you to endure.

        It won’t get any better in this life, but your situation “should” greatly improve in the next one. Which, of course, we have no proof even exists. Most people I know can just about only handle ONE lifetime, anyway, forget about worrying and obsessing over two of them. Don’t love this life! Don’t care too much for this world or anything in it! This is the only one I know anything about, and love so much of it very dearly.

        My loved ones are actual real people who get it wrong sometimes and get it right sometimes, but they’re present, and I don’t ever have to doubt that they will continue to be. Can’t say the same for a dude I’ve never met, even after trying to get to know him for half my life. The opportunities to meet me where I was were endless. And my story is hardly unique, unfortunately.

    • Question Everything

      But.. we got thunderstorms when Zeus was accepted and in control of such things, and now that he’s fallen from the mainstream and mostly rejected, we still get them. That’s so weird…

    • Matilda

      Apparently god has nothing to do with our fallen creation. I believe he was either not present or had no say on how we were created.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

        I think we created him.

    • Beutelratti

      Except we’ll be just fine in a culture where gays can be gays and no one prays to any god.

    • Baby_Raptor

      So your god creates people knowing he’ll have to send them to hell for how he created them; and then, after sitting around in heaven not showing himself to anyone for thousands of years and people stop believing in him, instead of showing us he’s there he calls us “even more immoral” and lets us break his rules more, thus assuring we’ll go to hell more?

      Where are you getting love and justice out of this? You’re treating god like an abused woman treats her spouse.

      Also, again, prove your god exists. Still waiting on that.

    • belgianchic

      While it’s true that nobody can ‘make’ somebody gay, let alone ‘God’, if she exists after all, but there’s nothing sinful, immoral, or fallen about homosexuality so there goes that theory

      • Random_acct

        Hmmm….God says otherwise. Of course, some wish to make God in their image…

      • Beutelratti

        Humans already created god in their image or else we wouldn’t be talking about him.

      • Random_acct

        Some have done this. Many, in fact. Some understand that the Bible is where God has revealed himself to all.

      • Beutelratti

        I know your religion, I know what Christians “understand” the bible to be. I just don’t share their understanding. The bible is very much human made just as much as all of Christianity. No divinity whatsoever involved, just humans looking for an explanation and “the meaning of life”.

      • Anat

        What evidence do you have for the Bible being anything other than a compilation of things some humans said and wrote over a long time?

      • Random_acct

        What a devastating retort. It’s like you think I haven’t heard that one before!

        I have a question for you. What scientific evidence can you produce that you were alive yesterday? I can play this game too.

      • Alix

        Then you’ll forgive those of us who have some understanding of things like history, mythology, and the foibles of translation for not unquestioningly swallowing the irrational (and unbiblical) “God Wrote It” view of the Bible.

        I believe in a lot of things that I can’t prove scientifically. The difference is I don’t try to force others to believe the same things, or pitch a hissy fit when they point out the unscientific nature of those beliefs.

      • Random_acct

        Thank you for acknowledging that you believe many things you can’t prove scientifically. Some “science as god” folks won’t even acknowledge this, even if it is completely absurd to live life like everything is prove-able scientifically.

        You and everyone else gets to believe what you want to believe. Then you have to live with the consequences of those beliefs. Seems fair enough to me.

        However, we all, as a society, get drawn into the social costs of sin (security costs to prevent crime, medical costs for HIV, medical costs for alcoholics, counseling costs for broken families due to divorce, etc.). So don’t make it seem like there are no costs that I bear for others for their sins. If I had no costs, then sure, let’s just let everyone do as they wish and let things play out. However, that is not the reality of the situation. And you know this very well.

      • Alix

        Weeeelllllll…..

        I’m not an atheist, so I sort of don’t get your whole “science as god” point?

        I’m a weird fusion of Mediterranean pagan and early Christian heretic, which really aren’t that far apart (and both have a long history of syncretism anyway). I’ve had a lot of very religious – and deeply weird – experiences, most of which I consider private. I also believe a lot of things that I know are not in the realm of average American beliefs.

        That’s what I was referring to, not anything scientific.

        As for your social-costs-of-sin thing: depends on how you view it. My family is much happier now that Dad’s out of the picture. We’re more socially productive, more stable mentally, and so on. That seems like it would rather offset whatever costs society had to bear for Mom’s divorce.

        The HIV thing …. that you even bring that up so offends me I’m not even touching it. Someone else can tackle that one.

        I find the whole “sin” framing deeply problematic because it leads to exactly the kind of resentment that your posts reveal. Instead of seeing people as individuals making their own choices, you see them as fundamentally flawed, and you act as if there’s some objective standard of rightness they’re failing to meet – and so you place the burden on their heads, and frame it all as a burden and a cost to “good” folks to begin with. I’d rather work towards a society where we accept that people make mistakes, and accept that we all have a responsibility towards each other, and accept that we are all doing our best and work more positively towards a better society.

        Someone said something once about stones, and who should be casting them. Seemed like a pretty smart guy, maybe you ought to listen to him.

      • Random_acct

        Terrific.

        Like I said, you get to believe what you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that we all get to live with the consequences of our beliefs. Verstehen?

        Don’t miss my point though.

        You, and others of the “do it if it feels good” mentality can certainly do it till if feels good. That is your choice. But the point is that there are social costs to many sins that you and me and everyone else pays whether we want to or not. Obviously, it would extend to my sins as well…to the extent that society would have to pay for those actions. And to be very clear, we can’t as a society place a fee against all sins. That would be absurd and unworkable (however, we do have “sin taxes” placed on alcohol and cigarettes because there is certainly social costs related to cancer and alcoholism…or that is the theory at any rate).

        You may not like the HIV example because it doesn’t fit into your politically correct world view. It is reality though.

        I am all for accepting the sinner. That is Christianity. I am also for showing love as part of that acceptance. Which means speaking the truth and not encouraging or making excuses for further sin.

        I have no resentment of those who sin, because I am also in that group (which includes everyone). But again, there are costs which all bear, so we don’t live in a vacuum…which is again my point.

        PS You really don’t get the “science as god” point?

      • Alix

        And at this point, you’re willfully missing my points.

        Your view of reality is one I find fundamentally flawed. And you sure in hell are not “accepting” or “loving” the “sinner,” anymore than you’re trying to honestly understand other peoples’ points of view.

        Believe what you like. Just stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat, and for crying out loud, stop with the strawmen already.

      • Random_acct

        I disagree. I accept everyone. You are doing exactly to me what you accuse me of doing to others.

        If you don’t like what I write, then just ignore it.

      • Alix

        You’re doing a piss-poor job of accepting anyone on any of the threads you’ve commented on here. If that’s what you count as acceptance, I want no part of it, anymore than I want what passes as your god’s love.

        And, again, you’re sitting here trying to shove your beliefs down other people’s throats, and you proudly state that’s what you’re doing. Why are you even hanging around on a blog where you so clearly disagree with everyone?

      • Random_acct

        I’ll state it explicitly. I accept you! Did you hear me? I don’t care what you do or what you have done. I would never reject someone in their brokenness. Do you understand?

      • Alix

        But you would refuse to see me as something not broken. And you have no problem judging people, despite that being explicitly anti-Christian according to Christ himself.

        Can you understand why that doesn’t really seem like real acceptance to us?

        That said, I apologize for getting heated in some of my responses to you. As you may have figured out, I don’t react well to a lot of the standard Christian philosophy.

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

        Great, but there’s one. tiny. nit. that I just gotta pick.

        We’re not “broken”.

        Imperfect. Quirky. Strange. Odd. Delightfully absurd. Occasionally damaged. But these little (and not-so-little) things — all that “breakage” — are an integral part of who we are, and there is nothing there to “fix”*.

        In other words, they’re not “bugs” — they’re features!
         
         
         
         
         
        *With the obvious exceptions for fixing stuff that causes actual harm, or causes the person such distress that it interferes with daily functioning, and even then… you can’t forcibly treat a person. This, too has it’s own set of narrow exemptions allowing for the forcible treatment (and, rarely, institutionalization) of those who are a danger to themselves or others and/or are completely incapable of living in society without highly structured care.

      • Random_acct

        Again, the social data shows otherwise.

      • Alix

        Thank. You.

        This whole argument reminds me of flaws and impurities in gemstones – you can look at them two ways. As flaws, so that if you look at a colored diamond you see something that has veered away from pure essential diamondness, or as aspects of what makes those stones maybe not perfect diamonds, but absolutely beautiful in themselves – and of a kind of beauty so essential to their character that if you could eliminate the impurities and make them “real,” “flawless” diamonds, you’d destroy utterly what makes them valuable and special.

        I find it strange that we are, in many ways, far more compassionate to gemstones than to people.

      • Alix

        Your god, not any of mine.

        FYI, some of us don’t believe that creation is fallen, that people are innately evil, or that the many forms of human sexuality are icky and wrong.

        I’m getting a little sick of folks like you and Frank assuming that absolutely everyone shares your views on life, man, sex, and god. Some of us not only don’t share your views on how filthy and utterly vile humanity is, we find it actively offensive.

        I’m not inherently evil. No one is. I reject that idea utterly, just like I utterly reject any idea of a primordial fall, or that there is eternal torment for anyone. And I am religious, deeply so. But if the god of the bible exists, either he is good and just and I have nothing to fear from him no matter what I believe or how I live my life, or he is a monster. Frankly, y’all make him out to be a monster worse than any human could ever be.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        God also hates shrimp. And pork. And lobster and crab and mussels and clams and many other delicious foods. God’s not fond of mixing wool and cotton, either. And really, you absolutely positively should not cut your beard or hair; God doesn’t like grooming.

        What? Those are all abominations too, in the same section of Leviticus that talks about homosexuality. I presume that bacon-wrapped shrimp in a cream sauce arouse just as much disgust and horror in you as the idea of two men or two women getting it on.

      • Alix

        See, I could actually get behind the hating on wool, if it were hating on wool and not mixed fibers, because wool is itchy as hell. But the shrimp thing is where God and I part ways, because dammit, I freakin’ love shrimp.

        More seriously, if your argument against homosexuality is, essentially, one of ritual purity, yeah, you kinda need to stick to all the rest of the laws and to the idea of ritual purity to begin with, something most Christian denominations have long since thrown out. I … really don’t have an objection to someone following their own religious laws (I mean, I have some weird ones of my own), but hot damn does it cheese me off when they try to force me to follow ‘em too.

      • Random_acct

        You are making a fundamental error in interpreting the Bible. But you knew that already.

      • Beutelratti

        Care to elaborate?

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        No, I’m really not. The Hebrew word for “abomination” is used to describe eating non-kosher foods (pretty much all of Lev 11), cutting of hair (Lev 19:27), homosexuality (Lev 18:22), and mixing different fabrics (Lev 19:19). It’s all in the same section of the Bible too, in a long and pretty boring list of rules. If you’re all about gays being “against God’s will”, then you pretty much have to be against all that other stuff in the same way and with the same emotional response to be consistent.

        Unless, of course, that’s not really the reason you don’t like gay people having equal rights. I wouldn’t even begin to imagine what the real reason is, not being a mind-reader, but most other people who make your arguments eventually come out with “gay sex is icky”. Which you can totally think, but it’s not a reason to make policy on.

      • Niemand

        Minor point, but it’s only male homosexuality that is mentioned in Leviticus, IIRC. Arguably, the verse forbids female heterosexuality (do not lie with men as you would with women…how is a woman supposed to interpret that anyway except as a command to lesbianism?)

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        This is true. I wonder how pointing that out goes over with most people? I may have to try this sometime

        *Strokes chin thoughtfully, pretending to have a beard*

      • belgianchic

        some people also don’t believe in any god at all. also, have you spoken to god personally? what has she said?

      • Random_acct

        Some people think that there is no such thing as sin either. Not sure what drugs they are taking to reach that absurd conclusion. As for your questions….funny.

      • Anat

        Sin is a religious concept. Outside of religion it does not exist.

      • belgianchic

        if you’re not religious sin doesn’t really apply. sin can be anything against the religious laws, so if you don’t follow that religion its not on you. sin is not some tangible thing. what is so funny about asking what god has said, if you say you know what she says?

    • Whirlwitch

      “God does not make anyone gay” Citation needed. Not the Bible, or any other book that documents what the people writing it believed about God, but an actual honest citation that proves what a proven God does not do.

      Until then. you’re free to believe as you wish, but none of your beliefs are a statement of fact.

      • Frank

        Someone claimed that God makes people, gay so the burden of proof is on that statement and I will happily respond to that proof offered if it ever comes.

      • Beutelratti

        “Our sinful fallen creation does.”

        The burden of proof is also on your statement. You claimed this, you prove it.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Nono, see the argument is if God makes everyone, then God makes gay people too. And thus, because God apparently hates teh gayz, he has made people who he will then send to hell, once again cementing his status as Chief Douchebag of the Universe.

    • KaeylynHunt

      You would have us to believe that we’re being ‘punished” for rejecting a’god’ who had to come to earth in human form to sacrifice himself TO himself to save “creations”HE created flawed in the first place FROM himself?Bejeeeesus man,do you folks EVER actually stop and THINK about what you are saying,or do you do it simply to hear the sound of your own voice&somehow make yourselves feel more important than everyone else?That is truly THE dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!

      • Frank

        God did not create anyone flawed. He created them with free will which was an act of love. They choose to reject God. Your premise of what Christianity is flawed.

  • dj_pomegranate

    I actually heard this argument (“God’s punishment for our sins is to allow people to be gay and/or allow the US to sanction it”) in my 10th grade Bible class at a “mainstream” evangelical Christian private high school…and, like you, I’m also surprised this argument hasn’t gotten more traction in the public evangelical discourse. It’s so elegant and internally consistent! At the time, it made perfect sense to me. I remember sharing it with my mom, who also bought it (and brings it up to this day, to my chagrin.) I held on to this explanation until I met actual gay people in college.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Aha! This explains why there are no gay people in countries where abortion is illegal! (Funny though, my gay Irish friends seemed so real at the time…)

    • Christine

      Oh, but America is clearly the most important country ever, so if you guys screw up, you’ve damned the rest of us too.

      Either that or they’re admitting the lack of connection between the legality of abortion and the numbers which take place.

  • Bill T.

    Actually, God makes people gay because there are so many women wearing white after Labor Day.

  • Sally

    Libby Anne (or anyone else), I can’t bring myself to read the Answers article. Are they saying God is making gay people because of abortion because gay people don’t get/make people pregnant? And the more gay people, the fewer the chances of unwanted pregnancy for which people might get abortions?

    • Sally

      This is really confusing. I just posted the above comment less than 10 minutes ago and it’s now saying it was 2 hours ago. Also, it appears near what is currently the end of the thread but above someone else’s comment which says it was posted 12 hours ago (Little Magpie’s “teh gays” comment). Boy, I find this to make following a thread very confusing!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kellen.conner.5 Kellen Conner

      That would actually have some logic to it. Crazy Troll Logic, but logic. But the gist I get from it is that we as a society are being punished with the gayz for allowing abortion to happen.

  • Joykins

    Once everyone is gay, there will be no more abortions.

    Incidentally, there are actually words and phrases in Romans 1 before the “Therefore” in verse 24. “Abortion,” however, is not there (either in word or concept). Perhaps the literalists should start reading this Bible they claim to value so highly instead of, say, twisting the clear meaning of the text to suit their political goals.

    • Random_acct

      I don’t recall any words in the Bible regarding condemnation of, say, child molestors or drunk drivers either. Go figure.

      • Beutelratti

        Yes, proving that we do not need the bible to detect wrong. ;)

      • Random_acct

        Not really.

      • Beutelratti

        Yes, really.

      • Random_acct

        I should concede that we are born with a God-given conscience. That will at least provide everyone with the ability to understand right from wrong on a fundamental level.

      • Beutelratti

        It is your right to concede that.

        I and many others here don’t believe anything is god-given, because we don’t believe in any gods.
        We use our innate sense of compassion and empathy to form opinions. Which is exactly what many Christians have done over the course of history or else we’d still be stoning people for ridiculous reasons.

      • Alix

        we are born with a God-given conscience.

        Um. No?

        Compassion and empathy do not seem to be what people mean by a “conscience” – from what I understand, a conscience is something that’s supposed to prick me with guilt or shame when I do something wrong. If that’s true, God forgot to pass out at least one.

      • Random_acct

        There is such a thing as “universal morality” which is inherent and God-given in all of us from the day we are born.

        So you could kill someone in cold blood and not have your conscience weighing in that that was wrong?

      • Alix

        There isn’t, actually, a universal morality. Like I’ve mentioned to others, any anthropology textbook shoots this right down. As does any overview of philosophy.

        So you could kill someone in cold blood and not have your conscience weighing in that that was wrong?

        Yup.

        I mean, it’s not like I’d do it for the lulz or something. I do have my own ethical code. But if I did decide that someone was enough of a threat to me that removing him from this earth was the only way to defend myself? I’d do it and not shed a tear. And honestly? I don’t see why I should feel guilt, because if I did decide to kill someone you can bet your ass it’s because I honestly believed there was no other reasonable option.

        Edit: I recognize that this makes me monstrous to a lot of people. I … am honestly not bothered by that, either.

      • Random_acct

        I asked if you’d kill in cold blood….not for self-defense purposes. Big difference.

      • Alix

        Fair enough. My response was a bit garbled.

        Could? Yes. Would? No, because ethics.

        But the question of self-defense vs. premeditation is murky, for me, because as I understand it, for something to be considered self-defense it must not be premeditated, and I can see only too clearly plenty of situations that I would call self-defense (or defense of others) that others would call premeditated murder.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        I don’t see you as a monster. I realize you don’t really care one way or the other, but there it is. Most of the people I know are like that, actually.

        I would be horribly bothered by killing anyone, even in clear self-defense. I don’t know if it’s empathy, socialization, or what, but I know I would be pretty emotionally traumatized, even if it was clearly the right thing to do.

    • Niemand

      Once everyone is gay, there will be no more abortions.

      Sadly untrue, even if we could figure out some way to make everyone gay. There will still be pregnancies that go wrong and have to be terminated to save the mother’s life or to prevent the baby from being born to nothing but horrific suffering. (Any antis who want to tell me that being born is always better, please look up Tay Sachs before you do so.)

      When everyone’s gay and we all gestate fetuses in artificial uteri after preimplantation screening, then there’ll be no more abortion.

      Well, except for when there’s a power failure or problem with the development or someone slips off the gay bandwagon or GAH! It’s hopeless!

  • wombat

    In ancient Greece, (and Rome I think as well, but I study the Greeks more) there was no concept of homosexuality. Men married women, and loved them, but they also had formalised sexual and mentoring relationships with younger men. These men gave us the foundation of our society today. They lived through times of prosperity and times of lack – and it had nothing to do with who had sex with who.

  • Red

    I love that it’s always about prayer in schools and public demonstrations of faith. I would be a lot more worried that our nation is, say, taking advantage of poorer countries, than I would be that we don’t have nativity scenes on every courthouse lawn. These people ignore the big problems (problems that Jesus was actually pretty vocal about) and choose to focus on the minutia of modern American subcultures.

    • Whirlwitch

      Public demonstrations of faith are condemned in the Bible. Maybe gays and abortions are both a sign of God’s anger at the religious hypocrites! (Matthew 6:5)

  • Composer 99

    Almost surprised no one else mentioned it in the comments (although I skimmed them & may have missed it) but the God that fundamentalists/evangelicals worship has terrible aim.
    Superstorm Sandy notwithstanding, the worst-afflicted areas of the United States, in terms of weather-related catastrophes are the areas most predominantly populated by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians.
    If memory serves those are also some of the worst-afflicted areas in terms of most of the other things that fundamentalist/evangelical Christians might categorize as God’s judgement – poverty, social disorder, broken homes, etc.
    All that sinning in New York & San Francisco, yet it’s the Deep South that takes the fall…

    • Whirlwitch

      That’s Zeus throwing God’s aim off. He’s disgruntled because almost nobody worships him anymore, but he still has to provide all the thunderstorms as he always has.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

      I think that somehow teh gayz have appropriated Rove & Bush’s weather machine and are using it for their own nefarious purposes. I keep on asking my gay friends to send a little more rain my way, but I guess they’re too busy with hurricanes and nor’easters. ;-)

    • Niemand

      No, no. You’ve got it all wrong. When something bad happens to a believer, it’s god testing their faith a la Job. It’s only when something happens to a “sinner” that it’s judgement.

  • slh12280

    I get it! God is making them gay so there will be fewer abortions….or something. As for the belief that they choose to be gay, I think they are trying to say that God has “hardened their hearts” so God can’t reach them? That way they can still claim that it was a choice that they turned away from God and he then turned away from them? Like how calvinists still try to play the free will card even when they claim predestination? Who knows, trying to make sense of it is an exercise in futility sometimes.

  • Random_acct

    No. God didn’t make anyone gay anymore than he made alcoholics and drug abusers. The world is broken. And the premise that there are more gays (percentage-wise) is highly debatable. The main stream left wing media has been pushing the gay agenda full force as of late due to the SC case on DOMA, etc. No doubt the effort is orchestrated.

    • Alix

      The world is broken.

      Prove it.

      • Random_acct

        If you need “proof” of that, then you are in worse shape than I thought possible.

      • Alix

        And happily so.

        I don’t think the world is broken. I don’t think people are innately evil, or sinful, or fallen. I think the world is beautiful. I think people are, too. And I categorically reject the notion that any of it needs saving or redeeming.

      • Random_acct

        I agree that the world is beautiful and people are generally beautiful too. However, do you actually read the news? Evidence strongly suggests that the world needs saving. Of course, some of you apparently live in a small bubble and don’t get out and see the world much.

      • Alix

        *sigh*

        Stop moving the goalposts.

        I do not believe the world is fundamentally, inherently broken. Same for humanity. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things – lots of things – that need fixing, or things we can and should do better.

        It means that I don’t believe in the Fall of Man, or that humans are born inherently filthy, unworthy, and evil. It means I don’t believe that the world itself (i.e. nature) is nasty and brutish. And it means I don’t believe we need some special divine savior to come and fix things for us, or give a few humans an opt-out button.

        FWIW, I don’t believe in evil, either.

        I honestly do not understand what is so damn hard about this. The vast majority of Christians I meet believe the world is fundamentally broken and humans are bundles of sin, and that this is why bad things happen, and that good things are in spite of the nature of the world/humanity, not because of it. I believe rather the inverse: these things are all good in their own ways, according to their own natures, and bad things happen largely because what’s good for one might not be good for someone else.

      • Random_acct

        Fair enough. Then we’ll agree to disagree.

        PS I think you might benefit for some reading of early history of humankind or perhaps understand what is going on in other parts of the world besides the friendly and affluent USA.

      • Alix

        Dude, what makes you think I haven’t?

        I’ve mentioned before that I’m a historian. Specifically, a military historian. My focus is prehistory through the end of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean and the Near East. To that end, I’ve also studied – still study, really, because you never stop learning – anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and a whole host of other things. I also keep up with current events, including things outside the US.

        Don’t fucking patronize me. Don’t play the wiser-than-thou, holier-than-thou game. My opinions are informed ones, and the fact that they don’t match up with yours doesn’t mean I’m stupid or haven’t studied the right things – it means I’ve looked at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, which is perfectly valid.

        If deep philosophical truths were so obvious, they’d’ve been figured out ages ago and no one would argue them. They’re not.

      • Random_acct

        I never said you were stupid and wasn’t trying to suggest that. I was pointing out that we live in a particularly good time in human history in the US. Contrast this in the historical context or even in the current time period in other much less fortunate parts of the world. That was my point.

      • Alix

        And my point was that you started with an unwarranted assumption that anyone who disagreed with your views of the world must be entirely wrapped in a sheltered bubble, with no knowledge of history or the world outside the US.

        That assumption is not just unwarranted, it is grossly insulting.

      • Random_acct

        That is the only conclusion that makes any sense though.

      • Alix

        No, it’s not. Because, again: other people can be just as informed as you, can look at exactly the same evidence, and still come to different conclusions. It happens all the time. It’s why we’re constantly arguing the same tired old philosophic questions, over and over again, for thousands of years.

      • Random_acct

        Okay. Let’s agree to disagree then.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X