9 years ago: Big (anti)Gay Al

July 9, 2004, on this blog: Big (anti)Gay Al

Mohler is so obsessed with this notion of a grand scheme and a gay agenda that he fails to appreciate why a greater number of “mainstream” heterosexual folks seem to have become more accepting of their homosexual neighbors: They’ve gotten to know some of those neighbors (sons/daughters/aunts/uncles/coworkers/friends) as people.

That’s probably the strangest thing about guys like Mohler. Despite his fascination with homosexuals, he seems to think he doesn’t know any.

"Weird. I was a navy signalman, and used Morse code for 20 years, and never ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"Well he's a Britsh Royal. Being charismatic is pretty much his only job. No one ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"So there is an ongoing issue with my son's elementary school. It was built in ..."

‘That’s why we are here’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Alix


  • Lori

    If there’s a clear sexual ethic throughout the Old and New Testaments it’s that women exist for the pleasure and use of men. Beyond that the consistency you claim is just not there.

  • JustoneK

    it’s why, in light of “sheol” and a lot of Fred’s posts here, I don’t buy into the Hell aspect of things these days. it’s just too cruel for me to deal with, and life on earth is cruel enough and I can’t escape it. if I end up in Hell, I end up in Hell regardless. there is no hope in the fundie lack of choices.

  • Alix

    All right then, I’ll go to hell.

  • dpolicar

    Given our demonstrable collective fondness for telling stories in which people whom we condemn suffer various penalties, I see no reason to believe that the particular versions of that story attached to various religions are reliable. Hell is just a story we made up to scare each other with.

  • Science says otherwise. If you claim that scientific observation of the natural world is wrong, then you deny the truth of creation.

    Which is fine I guess if you’re a skeptic or something, but you should really leave trying to impose christian morality on other people to people who are actual christians.

  • I believe the relevant quote is

    “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean”

  • Can you elaborate? Food and sexual behavior are not the same thing.
    Sexuality morality is affirmed in the NT where as the dietary laws are
    rejected in the NT.

    Then you are saying that St. Peter was wrong? That the vision he interpreted to mean “I should not call anyone unclean” actually meant that he was allowed to eat any animals he liked? That the vision he received in response to him thinking he wasn’t allowed to treat people decently if the lived lifestyles which his Jewish tradition considered sinful had nothing to do with whether or not he should treat people decently even if they lived lifestyles which the OT considered sinful?

    What religion are you, anyway? You seem to have a lot of disdain for the bible, except for a few exceprts you’ve pulled out of context.

  • Daniel

    Can you explain why you think that? What constitutes a sin? Is it something that does harm, or is it purely something that goes against God’s edict- in which case do you believe in the other rules laid out by God in Leviticus for example? Do you think it is necessary for us to understand why something is a sin because personally I can’t understand why homosexuality would be- I would like to read your explanation. I’m interested in your reply, so please post one.

  • That doesn’t bode well for people who go around making up shit about God having a weird random bugaboo about whether or not you prefer to fuck people with the same shaped genitals as yourself.

  • Daniel

    Seriously, why would it be wrong to choose to be gay? Why is it a sin? If it is just a sin because “God Says” then what argument do you have for people, like me, who do not believe in God?

  • Daniel

    Jesus rescued us from sin by being nailed to some wood. The whole basis of the sacrifice element of your faith is that sin was alleviated by harm. The whole fear of hell is based on harm. The central image of your entire religion is of torture and death. That’s the apparent trade off- this person is brutalised so you won’t be. Harm is inextricably linked with the idea of sin.

  • J_Enigma32

    You wouldn’t know truth if it bit you on the ass, son.

  • J_Enigma32

    And you lost. Go away.

  • Daniel

    How do you know it’s God’s truth? And why does God not explain it to us? God knows we’re going to have this discussion, God knows this is where society will be at this point- asking for rational, verifiable objective proof before accepting a position that alienates, psychologically damages and oppresses millions of people and yet refuses to provide that proof. Why? What is God’s problem with gay people? I really want to understand this because I also have studied God’s word, and theology, and I have absolutely no idea what actually constitutes “sin” and why God- who is infinitely powerful and infinitely good- can’t just waive those things that are called “sin” and why he needs blood and guilt to make amends for them. None of this makes sense to me- please help me out. De profundis and all that.

  • Daniel

    So what is your source of God’s truth, given that the bible quite explicitly allows for slavery (which you disagree with), collective punishment (which I assume you disagree with) and genocide (which I hope you disagree with)?

  • J_Enigma32

    Fuck your god.

    What’s the worst he’s gonna do? Stick me in heaven with you?

  • J_Enigma32

    Except, you know, all the vengeful, hateful masturbation fantasies.

  • J_Enigma32

    Why? Nobody here believes you.

  • Daniel

    Isn’t it your duty as a believer to help save those of us that don’t believe? So when a major issue like “the Bible says slavery is ok” comes up, and people ask you to explain your position that it doesn’t don’t you owe them an actual answer rather than just that superior “if you choose to remain ignorant” line? Where can we get the answer? What book will explain the fairly blatant and repeated references to how to keep your slaves that are made in the Bible? Please enlighten us rather than smugly “sigh”ing and telling us how dumb we are for asking questions. It doesn’t help your cause- and by extension it’s doing a disservice to God, who I think took a dim view on pride (though that may be another misunderstanding).

  • Daniel

    But you really don’t have the self awareness to question whether they’re doing the same thing today with homosexuality?

  • J_Enigma32

    It’s so adorable with idiot fundies try to justify their shit with “science and biology.”

    If you knew jack about biology, you’d know that homosexuality is common in 1,000s of species around the globe – but homophobia is common in only one.

    You tell me which is unnatural, Mr. Fundie Smartguy.

  • Daniel

    You realise atheism doesn’t mean ” I believe there is no God” it just means “I do not believe that there is one”. It’s not a belief that needs to be justified, it’s not actually having a belief.There is nothing else dependent on that absence of belief. Your world view however rests on an unprovable premise that needs to be proved for any of the rest to follow- “homosexuality is wrong” “why?” “because God said” “but I don’t believe in God” “If you don’t believe in God God’ll punish you” “But I don’t believe in God”. Not believing in God means you do not risk this. You can instead argue “it is wrong because it causes harm” or “it is wrong because it is unfair” and then people can ask you for definitions of those terms, which you can discuss until you reach an agreement and go from there. “Because God” only works if the other person believes in the first place.

  • J_Enigma32

    Prove sin exists. I’ll wait.

  • Daniel

    Really please please please please please explain what sin is and why being gay is sinful. It really makes no sense. What does “that’s not what love looks like” mean?

  • Daniel

    God is all powerful, whether we accept him or not. I assume that’s part of your faith. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Given that, and given that God knows everything – which must entail knowing exactly how everyone will behave at any given moment- how can we not be acting according to God’s will- even if we don’t believe in him? If we can that means God is not omnipotent. If we can’t then surely it’s a part of God’s plan that I don’t believe in him and that I would prefer gay people not to be ostracised and bullied into believing they’re evil?

  • Daniel

    David. Jonathan.

  • J_Enigma32

    *looks around*

    Nope. No God. Your turn – prove God exists.

  • Daniel

    A very basic question here- how do you know yours is? Can I hazard a guess? You were raised in a society that was strongly Christian, maybe not your family in particular, but the town you grew up in. At some point, as you mention in an earlier post, you studied religion. Christianity. You probably cast a cursory glance over some non-Abrahamic faiths as well but you did not research them in nearly as great a depth. At some point you had a religious experience. I’d guess that this happened when you were feeling very depressed and alone, and not say, in the middle of a kick-ass party. You felt the presence of Jesus- not Vishnu, not Ahura Mazda, not Quetzalcoatl, but the deity you’d spent a great deal of time studying. You then realised that Christ really did die for out sins, and strangely all the disgust you felt at seeing two men kissing was now validated as it coincided with the will of God. That bit of the bible means exactly what it says, although you are also very certain that other equally unambiguous passages about genocide, slavery and murder do not mean exactly what they say and these bits AND ONLY THESE BITS are twisted by people to make the case for injustice. But the bits about gayness, they’re definitely 100% unvarnished, unambiguous truth. A burden had been lifted, and, which is more, people are wrong to
    criticise you because you are only trying to help them. Admittedly you are trying to help them avoid a fate they don’t actually believe in,
    but that’s besides the point. Is any of that right?

  • J_Enigma32

    And by worshiping Jesus as the son of God, you reject the truth as revealed by the Prophet Muhammad.

    Don’t worry, though; the truth of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads still leaves for Jesus. There’s still plenty of opportunity to leave your false faith for the one true religion of Hinduism.

  • Daniel

    I don’t know what sin is! I don’t know why a sin is a sin and why something like “fancying someone who has the same genitals as me” should be a sin. Please explain.

  • J_Enigma32

    Like yours, for instance.

  • Daniel

    So love is not about emotion? What is it then?

  • Daniel

    That’s a very sad outlook, Frank. By that logic no one can love anyone- no one can be sure their love won’t at some point fade or die. That doesn’t make it any less real while it lasts. You have a very sad view of the world.

  • I think if your position on the “right” way to have slaves doesn’t come down to “Set them free immediately and spend the rest of your life doing nothing other than trying your hardest to make restitution for having owned slaves”, you’re operating from a flawed definition of “treat them well”

  • P J Evans

    Parthenogenic lesbian lizards would like to speak with you.

  • You’re right. We have it in black and white that God isn;’t bothered by homosexuality, and that anyone who goes around declaring it to be an abomination is going to burn in a lake of fire for it. Perfectly unambiguous.

  • My god, the projection is strong in you.

    You are ignorant. You are choosing to be ignorant. God is SCREAMING for you to see that there is a more excellent way, but you are so OBSTINATE in hanging on to your HATE.

  • Whoah there. Women in the bible are most assuredly not for pleasure. They’re there for duty. It’s a man’s duty to impregnate women in order to produce descendants. If he happens to enjoy himself, that’s okay, but really it is purely optional. We never hear of a man saying “Not tonight, dear, I’m still sore from a long day killing Ephramites.” A good two-thirds of the time, the men seem fairly ambivalent on the subject, but yeild to the argument “We’re not getting any younger and you don’t have enough kids yet.”

  • Lori

    You have a point that male pleasure doesn’t get a lot of discussion. Some, which is more than can be said for women, but not a lot. The only times I recall there being any actual pressure on them to get with the baby-making though is when a barren wife pushed them to give her babies via a slave. (Don’t even get me started.) The only other time I can really remember the duty angle being a major issue is with Onan.

    In general OT men treated male children as form of wealth or proof of virility and female children as either bargaining chips, pets of which they were somewhat fond or nothing at all.

  • FearlessSon

    I get the impression that the authoritarians feel the need to for their social norms to be endorsed by authority, and a way to make that obvious is through laws. Note how many of them seek to enact or maintain laws for reasons of “sending a message” rather than being practical or even necessarily enforceable.

  • FearlessSon

    If my alternatives are between an eternity in Hell and an eternity in the company of sanctimonious true believers, I would choose Hell.

    It would be the lesser of two unpleasant afterlives.

  • Two concepts you need to understand: “Burden of proof rests with the claimant” and “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

    Let’s say I claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists*. You ask me to prove that claim. I can’t just reply, “Well, you can’t prove that Nessie doesn’t exist!” If I’m the one making this extraordinary claim, it’s on me to provide evidence.

    It also wouldn’t count for me to say, “The Great Book of Cryptids says that the Loch Ness Monster exists, and I know that the Great Book of Cryptids is never ever wrong — it says so itself!” That is what’s called a circular argument.

    By the way, here’s a handy reference to help you avoid making other logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

    *Just so you know, I’m not saying that religious belief is equivalent to cryptozoology… at least, not unless you ascribe deific powers to cryptids.

  • Gods truth never changes.

    Actually, it does. Remember that business in Numbers 27 about the daughters of Zelophehad? According to holy writ, only sons could inherit property. These women approached Moses and asked him to intercede with God on their behalf — in essence, to act as their representative in an appeal against God’s law. And they won:

    Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance among their father’s brothers and pass the inheritance of their father on to them. You shall also say to the Israelites, “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance on to his daughter.”

    It’s even clearer in Judaism — not only can you argue against YHVH and win, but He’ll be proud of you for doing so: http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm

    Of course, the entire business of, “These animals are unclean… wait, no they’re not” is another example of YHVH changing His mind.

  • Fanraeth

    What do you get out of it? That delightful, borderline masturbatory pleasure of being “persecuted” without the pesky problem of your life being in danger.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The questions and points you can’t talk your way out of. Every time you get hit with one, you change the topic.

    I stated as much in the comment you replied to. You’re not a stupid person; you would do well to quit acting it.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Disagreeing with your interpretation of a book does not make someone “ignorant.”

    Further, you told Shifter that she’s wrong, and you insulted her, but you offered no proof that she’s wrong. You offered no explanation. Just your stubborn insistence that you’re right, because you think God says so.

    So, it would seem that you yourself are not adhering to the standards of proof you demanded I meet earlier. Hypocrite much?

  • Baby_Raptor

    The New Testament is anything but clear.

    Paul knew nothing of homosexuality as we know it now. What he was condemning back then was the Roman habit of men forcing themselves on other males, usually children. There wasn’t even a concept of what we now know as homosexuality.

    And that’s if those verses even were addressing male-on-male sex. There is a huge amount of debate on the words used in the writings.

    But, hey. Don’t let what the words you’re leaning on actually mean get in the way of your opinions, yeah?

  • Baby_Raptor

    As I said in the comment you replied to, I never asked you to prove your beliefs are true. That was Anonymous Sam.

    Reading comprehension, do you have it?

    Further, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there’s one massive difference between you and a lot of the people you’re debating with: You lack the maturity and respect for others/the law to keep your beliefs in your own life.

    You can’t just live and let live. And you condone others refusing to do so by saying that they’d be hypocrites if they didn’t. (Newsflash: They’re hypocrites by doing what they’re doing. Several times in the New Testament Christians are commanded to obey the government God put over them, which these people are not doing. Further, judging and treating people as subhuman because they don’t meet your accepted doctrine is not love.)

  • Daniel

    I keep thinking about this definition of love, and I’ll be honest I feel bad about my earlier sarcasm. The more I think about the way you catagorise love- as basically something no human being is capable of giving- the worse I feel for you. I have a genuine sympathy for you. I feel like giving you a hug. Not in a sinful way, I should stress.