The Pact

“If you become a homosexual, I’ll kill you. If I become a homosexual, you’ll kill me.”

I had forgotten about those terrible words until a friend reminded me of it. We made that pact together in high school, when we were young evangelicals with a “zeal for Christ.” We were bible-toting, Jesus-shirt wearing, tract-giving, church-obsessed dumbasses. Like all dumbasses, we believed what we were told without skepticism. And, as extremists, we would go great lengths to win the approval of God and men.

Our friendly Baptist mega-church taught that homosexuality was an abominable sin. People were not born gay — it was a lifestyle choice that was a result of their rebellion and hatred of God. It was “disgusting” and “unnatural.”

We were told that “the homos” were trying to turn Christian children gay by brainwashing them at public school functions. They were child molesters and should never be left alone with children —and to let them adopt would be the worst thing imaginable.

“God doesn’t hate the sinner,” we would say, “He only hates the sin.” But the distinction didn’t really matter, and God would send them to hell unless they repented of their evil homosexual ways.

We swallowed this whole. We never even thought to question it. The Bible said it, our leaders taught it, our parents believed it, and the congregation followed it.

My hatred of homosexuality finally subsided when I began questioning the Bible — the ultimate source of my hatred. Without the Bible, there was no reason to hate homosexuality. It was a natural desire, and though I didn’t have that desire myself, I wouldn’t want to be persecuted if I did. It didn’t hurt anyone and in fact made people happy. It was not rational to oppose it.

Now both my friend and I are both vocal supporters of gay rights — and that means other people just as crazy as us can turn around too.

Not so long ago, fundamentalists opposed equal rights for blacks and fought hard for segregation. Jerry Falwell once said, “The true Negro does not want integration. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.”

But in the end, they came around. The moral progress of secular values prevailed and they were forced to change. Unfortunately their bigotry remained and they targeted gays instead — but that will change too. Our moral progress continues and soon it will be as natural for some people to be gay as it is to be black or white.

And maybe this time the fundamentalists will turn their attention to persecuting real evils, instead of their fellow human beings.

  • Baconsbud

    The only problem I have with using the change of view about integration is many of them seem to only hold that view in public. I know a few people within the AofG and even though they publicly support integration, in private they have a completely different view. I am afraid that many of these people want to restart the segregation policies again if it wouldn’t hurt them publicly.

    I don’t hold out much hope that fundies will ever actually try to persecute real evil and stop persecuting people because they are different. It is to easy to blame others then to look closely at yourself as the cause of many of your problems.

  • Tilley

    I’m glad to see you got out of it. The whole ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ thing is complete bs when it comes to gays, its just a way of saying ‘I’m a bigot but I don’t want to be called one’. Your sexuality is a huge part of your person, its not a one time mistake like stealing or fighting. If you hate homosexuality then you hate homosexuals it is as simple as that.

    • DDM

      Funny how “Love the sinner” never comes up because the focus of the person is the sin. You can love people all the way to beating them close to death and beyond, by their logic. Where is the love for the sinner then? Apparently the sin took over for them.

    • Dr. Theodore W. Haye

      DDM, to both you and “Tilley” I say thanks. You may also be interested in this quote: “I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that ‘we love the sinner but hate the sin.’ That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.” ~ John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopal Bishop of the diocese of Newark)

      • Geoffrey Lui

        Thanks for that quote!

  • Len

    “And maybe this time the fundamentalists will turn their attention to persecuting real evils, instead of their fellow human beings.”

    You mean like people who molest and rape children?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    • Johnny U. S. Marine

      …and the people who rape the land, and who rape the economy, and the people who claim “Social Justice” is communism or socialism, the people who shoot wolves out of helicopters, and spoil the habitats of polar bears and beluga whales. These are clearly the enemies of society.

  • beyonddeities

    Actually, I was reading this the other day: http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
    Interesting stuff. Also this other article that discussed how homosexuality tends to be present in very populous animal groups… There is actually a lot of scientific theory out there that shatters the ‘unnatural’ argument. Honestly, if something is unnatural, it wouldn’t occur.

    Religion is most definitely not natural, however. Atheism is proof enough of that. Babies don’t have a conscious awareness of ‘God,’ they just shit and cry and drink milk >.>

    • Jabster

      “Religion is most definitely not natural, …”

      I can’t say I really agree with that as religion is a great way of explaining the world but more to the point the natural vs. unnatural argument to me is just a red herring. It’s relatively easy to claim it’s natural to kick two shades of shite out of anyone who it’s not part of your “tribe” and nick all their stuff but I don’t know of many people who would describe this is a good thing to do! On the other hand the use of numbers doesn’t actually seem natural but again it’s a good idea. The important issue is not natural vs. unnatural but whether what you are doing harms others … and I really don’t see how being gay falls into that category. Indeed the only harm that is done is by society itself.

      • beyonddeities

        I understand, but I don’t think its on the same level as hormonal responses, like desire and creating romantic bonds… And yas, you’re very right indeed >.>

    • Dan

      Jerry Coyne had an interesting article about this the other day:

      http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/evolution-animals-and-gay-behavior/

      His take is that observing homosexual behavior in animals doesn’t mean anything when it comes to whether it’s human homosexuality is caused by genetic or environmental factors. For example, fruit flies can become homosexual if there’s a modification to their sense of smell so they’re attracted to male pheromones, but this does nothing to explain human homosexuality one way or the other. He explains it a lot better than I could here.

      • Steve

        This gay man finds attitude’s like Dan’s to be deeply offensive. He is wallowing in a clueless heterosexual chauvinism that completely reduces gay human beings to lab rats.

        We are not bugs under some glass in your laboratory, Dan. We are not a little sudoku puzzle for you to solve. We don’t exist to be poked and prodded for your morbid intellectual curiosity.

        I’d suggest that people like Dan direct their energies toward uncovering what causes their straight male sexuality. What affects their sense of smell so as to make them want to lick a vagina? Better yet, what makes them beat their partners, abandon their offspring, and have the highest incidence of rape, murder, and violence, as compared with straight women, gay men, and lesbians?

        Go study yourself, chauvinist pig.

        • Jabster

          @Steve

          I think you’re find that heterosexual sex is under the spotlight as well … it’s an incredibly interesting subject of why the majority of species choose a way to reproduce that seems not obviously apparent to have advantages.

          Of course you could just carry on randomly insulting people who are probably trying to support you … your choice really.

          • Steve

            Oh, yes, please tell us more about the long history castrating and lobotomizing heterosexuals in order to uncover the “cause” and “cure” the disease of heterosexuality. Spare me your breathtakingly ignorant false equivalency.

            Tell me, is attacking the “uppity f*gg*t” for daring to complain about heterosexual chauvinism something that’s programmed into straight genes, something caused by a dysfunction in their sense of smell, or do they just choose it?

            • Jabster

              Looks like you’ve made you choice … oh well.

            • Roger

              Steve, you’re looking for “heterosexual chauvinism” everywhere…and finding it. Perhaps if you stepped back, breathed for about five minutes, and got over your “internet tough gay” pretensions, you’d realize that Daniel and everyone else who’s commented so far is dealing with how religion (in this case, Christianity) imposes kinds of bigotry and once you move beyond theism, you tend to (not always, sadly!) get over ill-founded and unwisely held prejudices. Your problem is that you can’t see that for your own paranoid fears and prejudices.

            • MikeH

              Steve, I’m afraid that in large part you’re jumping the gun by quite a bit. The scientific/medical community isn’t anywhere NEAR finding this magical “de-gaying” pill for pregnant women, no matter how fast science seems to be moving. There’s still a lot of disagreement about the biological cause(s) of homosexuality. Even if a cause is discovered, attempting to alter orientation in utero would likely create a host of side-effects that I doubt most mothers would be interested in pursuing, and it’s hardly likely to attract a lot of medical researchers to develop one.

              By the time our society is capable of such a thing — if it ever is — it will be another few generations, and homosexuality will be so non-controversial then that it will be inconceivable to make such a decision.

              While we should not forget the tragedies of the past, we cannot forget to recognize the incredible progress the larger society has made towards accepting us as equals.

              Rather than antagonize and alienate potential straight allies with a doomsday scenario that is more science fiction than imminent reality, I think it’s more productive to work positively to create a world in which developing the “de-gaying pill” wouldn’t happen because it would be seen as neither necessary nor worthwhile.

            • Steve

              Roger, to address the non-patronizing part of your comment, I tend to think non-theists are kidding themselves if they imagine that religion is the source and not the PRODUCT of human bigotry. It is a very comforting and ultimately self-serving thought for non-theists, but I don’t buy it. Except perhaps for bigotries directed at certain faiths (e.g. anti-Semitism), bigotry, in my view, proceeds from human difference. Religion is merely one of its many manifestations. It is far too easy for a non-theist to suppose that, having jettisoned religion, he has also necessarily cleansed himself of prejudice.

            • Roger

              Jumpin Jehosophat, Steve. Way to miss the point of Daniel’s post. Nowhere does he say that once he shed religion he shed prejudice–what he’s saying is that in this particular case, religion was that which created, fostered and aided homophobia. Once he began to question religion–and the theism upon which it’s predicated–he began to see that his homophobic arguments didn’t make a lick of sense.

              And from one “uppity queer” to another: if you’re going to attack someone who is writing about his move away from homophobia to a far better position, then at least make certain that you know what you’re talking about and not predicating your arguments on a bunch of conspiracy theories and outright dickery.

            • Jabster

              @Roger

              You’re only saying that because you’re not a True Uppity Queer ™ … :-)

    • http://brgulker.wordpress.com brgulker

      There is actually a lot of scientific theory out there that shatters the ‘unnatural’ argument. Honestly, if something is unnatural, it wouldn’t occur.

      Religion is most definitely not natural, however.

      Huh? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what an atheist would want to argue. I.e., religion is totally and completely a natural phenomenon, invented purely by human beings to explain the world?

      • Elemenope

        Huh? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what an atheist would want to argue. I.e., religion is totally and completely a natural phenomenon, invented purely by human beings to explain the world?

        Yeah, well there’s a bit of conversational equivalence going on here with the meaning of “natural”. You’re using it in the technically correct way of “not supernatural”, and beyonddeities is using it in the colloquial “not made by humans” way.

        An atheist would obviously concur with the point that religion is technically natural, because all things are natural in that sense. But atheists are divided on the question as to whether religion is a human practice mostly compelled by instinct or is more volitional and intentional a construction.

        • Michael

          Or (as I believe) that it is a combination of the two. After all, everybody invents monsters in their thoughts and dreams and random fantastic explanations for things, especially as children, and this seems to be a byproduct of our drive to explain things (a trait which probably helped us develop lasting knowledge and causal understandings and such). But relatively few fantasies get the kind of intellectual treatment that religion does, and that does seem to be one aspect that separates religion from, say, crytpozoology.

    • Nick Frankenhauser

      The whole “natural vs. unnatural” argument never made sense to me either. Why should something being “natural” make a difference? Cars and surgery aren’t natural either, but I’d be hard-pressed to find people who think they’re inherently evil because of that.

    • Steve

      This gay man is sick of the heterosexual obsession with gay animals.

      One million gay men–actual sentient human beings–can report to you what it was like for their gay sexuality to emerge during adolescence or before. The stories are remarkably consistent–regardless of family experiences. Yet the subjective reports of one million gay men are summarily dismissed by chauvinistic heterosexuals until they discover a gay aardvark! You dismiss out of hand the one million human beings but the testimony of the aardvark–well, that just validates it, doesn’t it?

      TRY LISTENING TO THE ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS THAT YOU’VE HELD SQUIRMING UNDER A DEHUMANIZING MICROSCOPE SINCE THE TIME OF DR. MENGELE!

      • Elemenope

        Why can’t we do both? We learn lots from people testifying as to their own experiences, thoughts, instincts, and feelings. We also find out a great deal by studying other species. Do you really believe that one devalues the other?

        • Steve

          I know that for decades gay men HAVE BEEN testifying about their own experiences. And for just as long, it has been dismissed as IRRELEVANT in obsessive heterosexual hand-wringing about what “causes” the “condition.” (The next sentence, whether uttered or self-censored today, is how can heterosexuals eradicate the condition.) WE have been dismissed as either mentally ill or, at the other extreme, so wily as to have coordinated a million-man conspiracy of lying about our experiences. That’s not my belief; that’s how straights have treated gay men FOR GENERATIONS. But a supposed gay aardvark comes along and suddenly chauvinistic heterosexuals have an epiphany. Give me a break! Would they listen to the gay men whose balls they were cutting off or whose brains they were chopping in half? NO WAY. But if an aardvark is gay, well that’s a completely different story. The aardvark can be trusted; the f*gg*t can’t. That’s the still prevailing heterosexual attitude. It is apparent even in comments here: speaking as though gay people exist for nothing other than the intellectual amusement of straights.

          • Steve

            The widely debated question, do “they” choose to “be that way,” is a debate had exclusively among heterosexuals, who act as thought only THEY can answer the question and the answer must come from some kind of research. Asking the lab rats never occurs to them, but these lab rats actually are sentient and can even speak!

            • Elemenope

              Is this some kind of bizarro-Poe?

              Look, if you’re saying that heteronormativity and the resulting bigotry is a result of homosexuals being dehumanized, you’ll get no argument from me, or really anyone else. But this notion that all heterosexuals are invariably committed to automatically discount all homosexual testimony unless it is confirmed independently by science is simply asinine, and does your argument no favors at all.

            • Steve

              I’m not making any “argument.” If you want to live in a fantasy land in which gay men’s testimony about their subjective experiences has been respected by straight researchers, say “hello” to the unicorn standing next to you.

              It’s all a big hetero-only conversation about whether “they” chose to be gay. We say “no” and get shoved aside, while the hetero study of aardvarks proceeds because, gosh, the straights just can’t imagine any other way to answer the question than by studying aardvarks.

              And when heteros finally persuade themselves–OBJECTIVELY–that “the homosexuals” don’t choose to be gay, the industrial-pharmaceutical process of creating the “de-gaying” treatment for pregnant women commences.

              We aren’t part of the conversation, and them ultimate goal will be to eradicate our existence entirely. Straights will never tolerate non-straights a second longer than they don’t have to.

            • Elemenope

              You are asserting a series of statements that contain contested facts and opinions. If you don’t want to call it an argument, OK. But that’s what the word means.

              And you are really on about the animal science thing. What did the aardvarks ever do to you?

              Look, whether some people like it or not, gay people are people. That’s a bell that ain’t gettin’ un-rung, and science, one way or another, isn’t going to change that. To my generation and younger, homosexuality is simply a fact, a way that some people are. You’re gonna have to provide some serious evidence that all this is simply skin-deep if you want me or anyone else to take these frankly strident sounding writings here serious.

            • Steve

              You’re very naive–and apparently unaware of the myriad ways parents are already creating “designer children.” It is one thing to accept the gay person down the street. It quite another to say “no thanks” when offered the “de-gay” pill as a parent or expectant parent. Most will suck it right down and assure themselves that they’re doing it for their child’s own good. That’s how real people abuse science in the real world.

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

              Uh, I can kinda see where Steve’s coming from on this. When you’re part of a group that has, historically, been persecuted, you tend to be a little paranoid about other people’s motives.

              *holds up a Team Steve flag*

            • Jabster

              @WMDKitty

              I’m sorry I didn’t realise that “When you’re part of a group that has, historically, been persecuted, …” gives you a free pass to act like a bit of an arse ;-)

            • Steve

              Jabster doesn’t realize a lot of things while wallowing in his heterosexual privilege. If holding a mirror to his clueless hetero privilege makes him thing I’m an “arse,” so be it. That, too, is just more of his wallowing in hetero privilege.

            • Roger

              Dude, get over yourself.

            • Jabster

              @Steve

              Nope you’re just a somewhat of a twat aren’t you …good thing is you can blame it on being someone else’s fault.

            • It’s a troll, folks

              Gay troll is gay. But he’s still just a troll.

            • Custador

              Roflcopterz @ the last comment :D True sexuality equality – love it.

          • Custador

            So…. What Steve is saying is that it’s absolutely unacceptable to discount and disregard gay men’s experiences or to fail to treat them as individual human beings (totally with him on that part) but yet it’s okay for him to rant about how heteros are all the same gay-hating bastard? Um, no, sorry Steve, but being gay doesn’t mean you get a free pass from me calling you a bit of a twat for behaving that way. Very few people here would generalise gay people that way (a fair few people here are gay) so you don’t get to do it about hetero people and not get called on you bullshit.

            • Steve

              I couldn’t care less what kind of “pass” I’m not getting from you. I don’t exist to serve and please you. If you don’t like it when one of your lab rats bites you, that’s too d@mn bad. You’ll be eradicating the lot of us anyway as soon as technology allows–all the while denying that anyone would ever do such a thing.

            • Custador

              Lol – Haliperidol man. That’s the only pill YOU need.

            • Steve

              How lovely! The man in the medical profession taunts the uppity qu**r with medicalization. Maybe a forced commitment to a mental institution and some electro-shock and a nice lobotomy too, huh? Yes, I see just how having all those alleged gay friends has made you so very gay-sensitive.

            • Kodie

              Maybe it’s because you are acting a lot like a lunatic. It’s not because you’re gay. You’re not uppity, but you are dramatic. If there is something you would like to tell us, maybe find some articles about what is happening or could happen instead of being a chicken little about this gay gene eugenics conspiracy. If we need to know something, find some articles about it. Otherwise, you do sound paranoid, lunatic, going off the deep end, suspicious of heterosexuals’ motives to an hysterical degree. I’m sorry if that has been your experience or something that concerns you to the degree it obviously has, but if you want to hype up some agenda that hurts you in some way, now would be a good time to post some of the more informative articles that support your assertion.

            • Jabster

              @Custador

              You think that Steve may suffer from nausea or vertigo?

            • Custador

              Dig out your BNF Jabster. Haloperidol is an antipsychotic drug. It’s used for nausea and vomiting too, but that’s a secondary use.

            • Steve

              Ahh, the inevitable climax. They call themselves victims, form into a mob, and goad each other into delivering escalating blows until one delivers the coup de grace. The gay-bashing is complete. Oh, they’ll deliver a few more satisfying blows to the corpse, but the deed is effectively done. The early facade of fair-mindedness, never more than a shiny lure, lays shattered on the floor and their true natures laid bare. Reason gives way to force, and the intolerable challenge to their dominance is put down, as it must be.

              The absence of religion, moreover, made no difference at all.

            • Jabster

              Yer I know but that would have been to obvious, thinking about it maybe he’s got hicups … :-)

            • yahweh

              Steve,

              You are such a drama queen.
              Thanks for the drive-by.

            • Kodie

              Here is where you snapped:

              This gay man is sick of the heterosexual obsession with gay animals.

              The following paragraphs in your first post launched into a persecution complex topped with shouting incoherently. Apparently you have an issue you would like to discuss but don’t have the skill to discuss it.

              You are one gay guy with a chip on his shoulder. Rather than address anyone coherently, you went about it upset. We’re not bashing gay people here, just … just the one. We’d like to help you with your problem but you’ve exhibited the behavior of someone who is alarmed about something acting alarmed. Where is the evidence, where is the proof? You are just screaming and accusing. Why should anyone take this one gay guy seriously when he’s acting like an idiot instead of having a discussion? The fact that you’re gay doesn’t even figure into why your behavior is so ridiculous that you’re being called on it.

            • Jabster

              “The absence of religion, moreover, made no difference at all.”

              You’re probably right there … believers and non-believers would both think you’re a bit of a prat. Can you see the common factor here?

            • Kodie

              The early facade of fair-mindedness, never more than a shiny lure, lays shattered on the floor and their true natures laid bare.

              You seem to have the idea that in rejecting your hysteria, we’re not being fair to an entire class of people. Take responsibility for your behavior and don’t imagine you are representing all gay persons. If you are encountering social problems, don’t blame it on the gay in you.

            • Elemenope

              Ahh, the inevitable climax. They call themselves victims, form into a mob, and goad each other into delivering escalating blows until one delivers the coup de grace. The gay-bashing is complete. Oh, they’ll deliver a few more satisfying blows to the corpse, but the deed is effectively done. The early facade of fair-mindedness, never more than a shiny lure, lays shattered on the floor and their true natures laid bare. Reason gives way to force, and the intolerable challenge to their dominance is put down, as it must be.

              What a sterling example of purple prose.

            • trj

              Emo Shakespeare arises.

      • Zingerific

        Please. There is nothing inherently heterosexual about being interested in research, whatever the subject.

        There are plenty of gay men who find homosexuality in the animal kingdom at least an interesting topic — myself included.

        So please don’t presume to speak for me in your jeremiads.

        • Steve

          Don’t ask for help when they for you with the mandatory cure. That’s where this story ends: a straight-imposed final solution.

          The few heterosexuals who will tell you they won’t have their fetus or child “de-gayed” are lying. For a while, some will be ashamed, but they will all do it. When there’s a “cure,” they won’t tolerate having a gay child, and they’ll convince themselves that their role in what will effectively be gay genocide will be for the child’s own good: to save him from homosexuality or discrimination. You are hopelessly naive if you think this research leads to equality. It ultimately leads to eradication. That’s been the “practical application” for decades and will continue to be.

          I would never presume to speak for a homosexual with no self-respect.

          • Elemenope

            Riiiiight. Just after they cure left-handedness and nappy hair, they’re coming for the gay gene!

            Are you for real?

            • Steve

              Yeah, and you’re utterly ignorant of history and completely naive about human nature.

            • Steve

              Hey, Elemenope, 1940 called. It wants its modernist blind faith in scientific progress back.

            • Kodie

              You’re certainly an alarmist. I don’t think they will “cure” gay before they start on important stuff like paranoia.

              I mean, it makes sense too. If they cure paranoia, no one will think anyone will be after them, and that is the best time to show up.

            • Elemenope

              Hey, Elemenope, 1940 called. It wants its modernist blind faith in scientific progress back.

              LOLOLOLOL.

              Do yourself a favor and stop typing stuff like you know me. Modernist blind faith. HA!

            • Steve

              Kodie, to your assertion that I’m paranoid, f*ck you.

              As to your belief that industry functions based on priority of need or importance, as opposed to what will make a buck the fastest, go pet Elemenope’s unicorn with her.

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

              Steve, I’d say it’s a well-justified paranoia, because LGBT people have been attacked and killed just for, well, being.

            • Elemenope

              As to your belief that industry functions based on priority of need or importance, as opposed to what will make a buck the fastest, go pet Elemenope’s unicorn with her.

              It seems that gay men can still assert male privilege with the best of them. Congratulations.

              Steve, I’d say it’s a well-justified paranoia, because LGBT people have been attacked and killed just for, well, being.

              So have atheists, and to act like Steve is acting as an atheist would be rightly considered batshit in modern Western society. Opposing real evil is laudable. Jumping at shadows and crying wolf is actively harmful.

          • Custador

            Excuse me Steve, but as a man who has a large amount of gay friends – because I am a male nurse and the profession seems to attract both gay men and gay women – as well as not a few gay men in my family (no gay women that I know of, though), I take extreme offense at the idea that I might “de-gay” my unborn child. I can tell you now for a stone-cold fact that I would never do such a thing, my fiance would never do such a thing and (here in Britain certainly) such a thing would never be legal in the first place. Now, if you want to call me a liar over that then I suggest you go fuck yourself, because you have no evidence about me that would make you think I am dishonest – on the other hand, you’re piling up the evidence for yourself being a complete dick.

            • Steve

              Hurray! There’s one straight man who wouldn’t de-gay his child: a male nurse. Your gay kid will be lonely as an adult. But, of course, dealing with the reality that many, many, many, many heteros would de-gay in snap would make you actually address the point rather than retreat to your fantansy land where you can mock and dismiss the threat. As for your opinion of me, I really couldn’t give a f*ck.

            • yahweh

              “Your gay kid will be lonely as an adult”

              Yes he/she would be if they act the way you sound.
              My sister is a lesbian. A well adjusted adult with many many friends, not all lesbian.

            • Custador

              Are you seriously so blind to yourself that you can’t see that you’re guilty of the exact same prejudice which you’re accusing straight people of? You are painting all heterosexuals as prejudiced, xenophobic fascists by accusing all heterosexuals of thinking that way about all homosexuals?

              I’m sorry that your personal experiences with straight people have lead you to the conclusion that we’re all in some sort of Eugenicist closet, but the newsflash is: You’re wrong. I’m guessing you live in the US? Come and join the rest of the world. Most of us couldn’t care less what other consenting adults do with their genitals.

            • Steve

              LOL! Thank you for proving my point. I think by “rest of the world” you mean isolated parts of Western Europe. Let’s see, we could talk about the street murders in Latin America, or the brutal repression in Africa, or the barbaric punishments in the Middle East, or the continued denials of freedom in Eastern Europe or Russia. Where would you like to begin?

              I’m guessing you live in a pro-gay enclave and have no real concept of the world outside it. Newsflash: The rest of the world isn’t like Manhattan and London.

              It’s a neat rhetorical turn, as well, for you to reduce being gay to nothing but “consenting adults” doing something with “their genitals.” Really? No cultural implications whatsoever, huh? You’re making that claim in a comment to a blog entry talking about how the attitudes of people are so thoroughly polluted with prejudice because of religion. Ironic.

            • Daniel Florien

              Newsflash: The rest of the world isn’t like Manhattan and London.

              Thanks for enlightening us, Steve. And here we all thought the rest of the world was exactly like Manhattan and London!

            • Custador

              Indeed! Especially since I was raised in a farming community in West Wales, now live in Cardiff (still Wales) and have traveled over quite a big chunk of Europe. Actually, in my experience, people in London are as likely or more to be prejudiced arseholes than anybody else.

            • Jasowah

              In Canada we are pretty nice to Gays. We let them have Parades and vote and all that fun stuff. They are such friendly people, usually.

            • Siberia

              Hi. I’m Brazilian. I live in Brazil. I’m also a computer scientist (since you seem so hung up on the ‘male nurse’ bit). I would never, ever, de-gay my child. Ever.

              At least Custador’s kid would have someone to play with =D

            • Custador

              Thanks Siberia. Maybe my future gay kid and your future gay kid can from some kind of transatlantic club for kids who weren’t de-gayed in utero. Or something.

  • Frak Attack

    You know, I had also forgotten, until I read this post, that I had made the same pact. And it was whilst I was a bible bashing religious nutbag also. It’s strange to think of that pact now… so much has changed. I am a proud Atheist, in fact a proud Anti-Theist, and I also found upon leaving the church that I had no reason to hate homosexuals.

  • Custador

    I’m not convinced that they have all come around to the cause of racial harmony, and I’m absolutely certain that they don’t believe in equality. Had Biden been the new POTUS and Obama the VP, do you think a bunch of religious-right hicks and rednecks would have formed the teabaggers? I don’t.

    • nazani14

      Maybe, but Biden is Catholic. There was a lot of redneck panic when JFK was elected- just substitute Catholic Church for New World Order in the current rants, and you can relive history.

    • Zach_the_?izard

      Actually, I don’t think it matters very much. Not everyone in those protests are religious extremists, and I would be willing to bet that most of them are not racist. I am an atheist and I do not support Obama (or really any major presidential candidate for quite some time), and this is hardly because some mystical 2000 year old book told me that blacks are cursed. I have met very few people who didn’t like him because of his skin color, and I live in the South.

      • Custador

        But Zack, most (sane) people on the face of planet Earth didn’t support George W Bush – and (correct me if I’m wrong) you didn’t see movements sprouting up with the express purpose of removing him through violent revolution, did you? There is a massive difference between withholding support for a person and vocally advocating their death (think back to some of the Metacafe t-shirts these douches were wearing).

        “I have met very few people who didn’t like him because of his skin color, and I live in the South.” You know your own area best of course, but can I suggest that it’s possible that you know people who don’t like having a black president but know very well that they can’t say it in those terms out loud?

  • Mr. Creazil

    Funny how fundies seem to think gay people of zombies. “If they bite you, you’ll turn into one of them! We’ll have no choice but to shoot you!”

    • Edman

      Yes, most fundies I’ve met are terrified that they’ll “catch the gay.” Perhaps that’s the rationale for all of their politicians coming out unexpectedly?

  • http://brgulker.wordpress.com brgulker

    That’s really sad, DF. I have to say, I’ve known people who really detest homosexuals (Christians and non), but I’m glad that I’ve never belonged to a church that would ever condone anything like that.

  • http://brgulker.wordpress.com brgulker

    My hatred of homosexuality finally subsided when I began questioning the Bible — the ultimate source of my hatred. Without the Bible, there was no reason to hate homosexuality.

    DF, do you mean this specifically to you and your situation, or do you mean it more generally, (e.g., without the Bible, there would be no hate of homosexuals in the world)?

    I’m guessing the former. Just wondering, though.

    • Daniel Florien

      I’m speaking personally, of course, but I also do think that holy books that say homosexuality is evil contribute to the problem. They are not the originally root of the problem, but they propagate it now.

  • Brian

    redo:

    They where child molesters and should never be left alone with children.

    Uh yeah, you hear about the gays molesting children all the time. Hasn’t that been on the news lately? Oh, wait….

    • Yoav

      You’re right, children should only be left in the care of trustworthy people like priests.

  • Revyloution

    Everyonce in a while, I take a moment to put our time in perspective.

    I’m not that old, yet in my life we have had racial segregation. When I was born, the end of the US civil war was only 100 years in the past. There were living people who remembered slaves, and I think there were even a few centenarians still alive who were born into slavery.

    When my grandfather was born, there was only horse drawn carriages and dirt roads in his town, and the first airplane hadn’t flown yet. When my Mother was born, commercial flight was just beginning, and they had yet to build the interstate. When I was born, there were men flying to the moon.

    Integration of progressive values in regards to all the minorities that were persecuted under the church seems to be moving at a snails pace while your’e living in it. History will judge this time very differently. Historians will refer to our time as the fastest change in society ever.

    • Redman4203

      Good point though I would guess that those in the fore front of any movement would think that it is never fast enough. I do agree that historians will look back at the last 50 years as one of great change in the World. But of course we don’t know what changes are ahead do we?

  • Tabbie

    Hatred for homosexuality is still pervasive throughout our society. Every time I hear a story like this I shudder, but then I feel a little bit better. I’m still not going to look at the world through rose colored glasses, however, just because a few people have come to their senses. Everything is not OK. Hatred, violence and discrimination against the LGBT community is a fact of life day in and day out, and a hell of a lot has its source in religion.

  • Gabriel Silverstein

    “they came around”

    No they didn’t, they just got forced to stop overtly expressing their fear and hatred. It’s still there and always will be, they will just find new groups to get to push it all on in an open, public (read: legal) manner…

  • http://memland.blogspot.com/ Tim

    Glad you changed, it’s even weirder when you are gay espousing the same hatred, it makes me mad cause i wasted so many years trying make myself different, than trying to cover it up and than finally just letting go of everything that i was raised with and realizing that i had all the tools to decide what was and wasn’t moral.

  • Yuki

    Thanks for this! Although… maybe you should include a bit more about your questioning the Bible? Like, why you did and such… that may help a bit more to convince people.

    I read in the other comments that they’ve found it’s somewhat prevalent in large animal populations… unfortunately, if you tell a fundamentalist that, they’ll tend to say “But we’re not animals!”. It’s gonna be futile, sometimes… =/

  • bellim

    This talk about “unnatural” has reminded me of a really great video (by an atheist, I believe) who talks about why the entire concept of “unnatural” is pretty useless and even proves that God is evil. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jrh8VVwMI4&playnext_from=TL&videos=Rc_ZF1gv1l8

  • Pingback: Truth Wins Out - People Can and DO Change!

  • Connecticut

    This article is just as bigoted as hating gays. There are millions of Christians who read the Bible, even take it literally and do not hate gays or anyone else. Mostly because the Bible says not to hate anyone. Maybe you belonged to a particularly hateful, bigoted group of Christians, but throwing all Christians together under that umbrella is ridiculous, hateful, and no better than anyone who is judging homosexuals.

    Your article is idiotic. Just like you fell into what you were told by your radical, prejudiced church, you fall right into an anti Christian rant. Christianity is based on love, equality and faith. That’s it, anything else is added in by the evils that plague all people in the world.

    • Yoav

      I’ll give you that, The buybull doesn’t say you should hate gays it just say they should be killed.

      • Connecticut

        quote a verse that says that. Then quote a verse from the new testament that says that. They are called new and old for a reason. I would be shocked if there were one person on here that has actually read the Bible. I’d be even more shocked if there was one open minded person here.

        • Yoav

          If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

          And apparently you are required to obey the OT.

          Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Matt 5:17)
          All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 timothy 3:16)

          • Connecticut

            Oh Leviticus, good one. Only thing is, almost EVERY Christian and Jew in the world has rejected Leviticus(there are a couple of sects, Christian Reconstructionists for example, that hold to these added Hebrew laws written more than 3000 years ago).

            Good luck finding another verse on google. There aren’t any others. Google verses about loving your enemy and treating others with compassion and kindness. I bet you’ll find a lot on your google search to validate your ignorance.

            • Brian

              Wow! You must have some kind of super power to know that “almost EVERY Christian and Jew in the world has rejected Leviticus.” Have you talked to all of them?

            • Kodie

              What is the authority of your special book if you can just decide to reject parts of it if you don’t like them? Why do you decide to like parts of it especially and think they don’t need to be rejected?

              Why, when you asked to name one bible verse, you disqualified which was given? You can just discuss things calmly, but you have decided automatically to be defensive. Heinous bigotry exists which is defended by Christians who read the same bible as you, they just choose different parts to serve their purposes… do you deny this? It is sort of like you are on the wrong side. If you like gay rights so much, why don’t you get angry at the right people instead of skidding right into instant persecution by those mean atheists? On an atheist blog. I have no doubt you think you are a good person, but you sound pretty hysterical over something that you should not have to explain – why not take your beef up with the kinds of people who hate gays, want them to die, and don’t want them to be able to get married, mostly because it’s what it says in the bible? I have a feeling with a cool head, you might get someone to listen, but right now, not so much.

            • Connecticut

              1. I do take issue with the Christians who want gays to die. I take very serious issue with them.
              2. I have a very cool head, in fact, I am sitting watching television, chatting on AIM and browsing facebook as I respond to these posts.
              3. Leviticus is basically a list of the 600 laws written by the Israeli High Priests. They aren’t considered ‘the word of God’ as the ten commandments are. Those ten commandments, in fact, refute the passages in Leviticus which would be regarded by Christians as sinful. Many passages of the Bible exist as a historical account of the chosen people.
              4. The only reason I am even responding on this atheist blog is because I found this particular post disturbing in its blatant attack on Christians, not Christianity. The post lumps all Christians under an umbrella of hate and fear mongering. That is blatantly untrue, and represents a minority of the Christian world. Your own blindness doesn’t let you realize how few Christians actually believe those things and how many non Christians also hate gays, blacks ect…

              But, keep thinking I’m some really angry guy sitting at home freaking out about half educated atheists who learned evolution in 10th grade and are stuck on God not being real so much that they write a whole blog about it. It’s nice to know that you all care so much what I say.

            • Elemenope

              3. Leviticus is basically a list of the 600 laws written by the Israeli High Priests. They aren’t considered ‘the word of God’ as the ten commandments are. Those ten commandments, in fact, refute the passages in Leviticus which would be regarded by Christians as sinful. Many passages of the Bible exist as a historical account of the chosen people.

              Categorically false.

              The post lumps all Christians under an umbrella of hate and fear mongering.

              I believe Daniel said “fundamentalists”, not “Christians”. If you took away from the article an attack on all Christians, you were reading something that is simply not there.

            • Kodie

              But, keep thinking I’m some really angry guy sitting at home freaking out about half educated atheists who learned evolution in 10th grade and are stuck on God not being real so much that they write a whole blog about it.

              That doesn’t sound like a very nice thing to say about atheists. At first, I thought you were like, one of those “turn-the-other-cheek,” golden rule-preaching Christians. You mention something like this several times so as not to be lumped in with “rather die than be gay” Christians the article was about. I mean, being lumped in and generalized and thought to be some actively hateful kind of person really turned you on. It bothered you enough to write several long paragraphs of how we’re so bad to lump you! But I’m not getting the message.

              You have threatened people they will be sorry for what they’ve written and sorry when they are close to death. You have said untrue baseless things about atheists discarding Christianity because it was, like, cool to do in high school or something. Talking the talk yet? Christianity makes something of a fairy story, and you demand respect for your position, but you’ve been nothing but disrespectful, and I can tell by what you’ve written that you have been fed myths about atheists. It is for this reason many people do not have the freedom to speak out and say they do not believe in god. You are free to say you are a Christian and defend yourself to anyone who dares to lump you into some heinous behaviors. Not you! You’re not judging anyone unfairly! There are so many misconceptions about atheism, and you are propagating the myths. You seized this topic with an anger (whether or not you think you did, or felt like you did – go back and read what you wrote) at the nerve of an atheist to not believe in my god, to not respect my beliefs!, and to have so many unpleasant observations of religious folks to host a blog to discuss ourselves and our experiences. We don’t believe in god – that doesn’t mean we don’t have issues that pertain to us and like to discuss them. Who the F are you to act all comfortable like you do?

              I would not count you among the nice and reasonable and accepting Christians I have heard there are. If that’s the impression you were hoping to give, I hope there are more out there who are actually kind, but I wouldn’t say you were one of them.

              It’s nice to know that you all care so much what I say.

              It’s nice to have fun with hypocrites sometimes, but we’re also aware that although Christians never like to be lumped in together with “the non-real Christians,” that we can add you to the pile. At least, speaking for myself, I would not classify you as the kind of Christian all the true Christians attempt to demonstrate for us horrible people. At least you can walk around with that badge of hurty-hurt from leaping into a forum of utter morons who prejudged you unfairly, but you have made your statement, and we can judge you on your personal character instead.

            • Steve

              Gee, Kodie, you act like he insinuated that you had a mental illness or something.

            • Yoav

              “Leviticus is basically a list of the 600 laws written by the Israeli High Priests. They aren’t considered ‘the word of God’ as the ten commandments are. Those ten commandments, in fact, refute the passages in Leviticus which would be regarded by Christians as sinful. Many passages of the Bible exist as a historical account of the chosen people.”

              The 10 commandment are in the OT as well so you should make up your mind is the OT the word of god or isn’t it. Even these so called universal rules are subjected to creative reading and at least 3 are completely ignored by Xtians.
              1. Christianity is for all intents and purposes polytheistic (jeebus, mary, saints, popes) so the first commandment is gone.
              2. I assume you don’t have any objections to art so that’s another one.
              3. did you ever turn on the lights on a saturday, that’s another capital crime according to the buybull, and that’s in the 10 commandments you like so much. The fact that the majority of xtians and jews have realized how despicable their so called holy book is and decided to ignore the more disturbing parts doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

        • Aton

          @ Connecticut:
          Trouble is that people still cherry-pick rules which give them the advantage or will enable them to have control over others. That is at least my experience.

          The other thing is the dogma, dare I say it, if a religious belief contradicts secular rules, religious people still think it is okay to disobey secular rules, because it is their belief to have the right to do so.

          • JohnMWhite

            Agreed. And it’s quite natural that one would think rules from god that determine the trajectory of your immortal soul are more important than rules from the state that only really can affect your physical body. Unfortunately, people tend to forget that not everyone else believes in those spiritual rules, or the same ones.

            • Custador

              Yep. There’s talk of allowing British Muslims to settle legal matters between themselves using Sharia law instead of national law – something I am utterly, utterly opposed to. The limp-wristed ultra-leftie bollockery of the idea just gobsmacks me – I mean, is anybody really so naive as to think that any Muslim woman would a) not be pressurised by her whole family and community into using Sharia law instead of civil law, and b) get a verdict that wasn’t hugely skewed in favour of a male opponent from 99.99% of Muslim clerics? Puh-LEASE!

            • Jabster

              Well then … sharia law or more strictly speaking sharia arbitration is already recognised in the UK. This doesn’t mean the sharia law can override UK law but decisions can be binding if both parties agree. Does this mean I agree with you; firstly I don’t know enough about individual cases but I do know enough male Muslims who view women as very much second class citizens and that worries me.

    • Tabbie

      Connecticut said: This article is just as bigoted as hating gays. and Christianity is based on love, equality and faith. and …almost EVERY Christian and Jew in the world has rejected Leviticus

      So you don’t like Leviticus… 1st Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1st Timothy 1:9-10 are two passages from the New Testament which are commonly quoted by a LOT of anti-gay Christians.

      Connecticut said: I would be shocked if there were one person on here that has actually read the Bible.

      Hmmm…being the child of an ordained Assembly of God minister, I have read the Bible in its entirety more than once. I attended Bible College as well. Be shocked.

      Oh yeah, and I’m an atheist. I have no doubts about it whatsoever. There is no god. The Bible is not divinely inspired nor is it a reliable source of information.

      • Custador

        *waves* I’ve never even been Christian, and I’ve read the KJV through from cover to cover.

        • Observing in CT

          Actually, I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover as well. Those who ascribe to the ‘infallible Word of God’ doctrine DO take those passages in Leviticus seriously, Connecticut. Of course, they are proof-texting and picking-and-choosing their texts, ignoring the ones that apply to them (no lobster or cheeseburgers…).

          Lots of broad generalisations here this morning. A bit of civility from all sides would go a long way.

  • Brian

    Christianity is based on love, equality and faith.

    You have to be joking about the love and equality bit. You do realize that all of the anti-gay marriage campaigns are funded/ran by “Christians”, don’t you? If Christians believed in equality, we wouldn’t have to be fighting to have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

    I’m sure the Christians in Oklahoma, who are working on passing a law to make their state exempt from the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Law are just bursting at the seams with feelings of love and equality, too.

    • Brian

      By the way, if you don’t believe in what the majority of Christians do, then why do you consider yourself a Christian?

      • Connecticut

        Are you serious? What about congregationalists? Are they Christians? They have homosexual pastors… are they anti gay? Or are they not Christians? Which is it?

        Are there Christians who hate gays? Yes!

        Do all Christians hate gays? No!!!

        Do you hate Christians? Seems like it… so does that make you better or worse than the Christians that do hate gays, or about the same? Anyone who reads this website regularly should reconsider their life just as seriously as anyone who hates others because of their radical religious beliefs. For the record, I never stated I was a Christian. But no matter where I stand with my personal religious beliefs, I consider both sides of any serious issue before I start wildly throwing out slander…. actually, I just don’t throw out slander and try to understand the motives that affect people’s beliefs. Like yours, misguided as they may be.

        • Brian

          Yes I am serious.

          I am sure congregationalists consider themselves Christians. (I have not accused anyone of not being a Christian.)

          If they have homosexual pastors, then I would assume they are not “anti-gay.”

          I have not suggested that all Christians are anti-gay, nor have I implied that if a person is not anti-gay they are not a Christian.

          I don’t hate anyone. It sounds to me like you are the one filled with hate.

          Do you not consider the statements “You’re article is idiotic.” or “This article is just as bigoted as hating gays.” as slander? I think they qualify as such, and you certainly “threw them out there” right away.

          Do you realize how rude you are to post comments on someone’s blog about how idiotic and bigoted their article is? I certainly hope you don’t behave that way when you are a guest at someone’s home.

          • Connecticut

            This is not someone’s home. This is someone’s attempt to impart their ideas on the world on the internet. There are no locks on the ‘doors’. It is a gathering place for people who share the same view and use their large numbers to bash those who are different from them. And saying that something someone is saying is idiotic is not slanderous, nor is it hateful. I am sure he is a well meaning individual. However, he contradicts himself. His entire argument is convoluted with his passion to fight against those who he believes wronged him previously.

            Listen, I respect all of your views here. But seriously, within the next 10 years you will all regret what you are saying here. By the time you are close to dying, most of you will consider religion. Whether you ever admit it or not, you will become profoundly afraid of dying. And the fact that so many people in the world seek out a Christian God or any other God to quell their own personal fears should not be the target of your constant banter. If you want to intelligently debate religion then go for it. But that isn’t what’s going on. This is a big Christian bashing community, and that is not wise, intelligent or fair to yourselves. You will only do yourself a favor to open your mind up to the rest of the world outside of what you are so sure about, or what you think you are sure about at the moment.

            • Kodie

              I think you might have fever. I think yes, you have Jesus fever. Thanks for the threats and all, but I don’t need to catch whatever you have. It seems to have made you unable to see straight or think clearly. Any remarks made about Christians who would rather die than be gay are about Christians who would rather die than be gay – and how crazy that sounds, from someone who used to think so, who used to be Christian.

              Are you defending people who would rather die than be gay who use the bible to defend that notion? Are you too upset and persecuted with your Jesus fever to even care about what’s wrong in the world, what’s wrong with others who claim your faith? That’s going to be the first thing people notice about you. How angry and defensive you get when anyone points out crazy things about Christianity is what they see. They are not going to think what a loving and kind and compassionate Christian you sort of associate yourself with obliquely. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it in any of your invective thus far.

              Loving your enemies, did you say? I mean, were you talking about yourself as an example of this, or was it just a more common belief about Christians with verse to back it up to compare with “gay hate”? Who among us will really be sorry for the way we behaved on this blog, us who don’t believe in heaven and hell (it’s really silly), or you being really bad at loving your enemies? Really, really bad!

            • Tabbie

              Connecticut: Whether you ever admit it or not, you will become profoundly afraid of dying.

              Like I have said around here many times before, the human brain finds it very hard to accept its own mortality. Religion is comfort food for the brain.

              I have faced death. I am facing death. It’s not fun being sick, but when I die, I will cease to exist. After death comes nothingness. Sure, I daresay most of us want to live forever, so this is not an ideal situation, but what exactly is there in death to be afraid of? I assure you I have no fear of being dead. I am at peace with it. Please don’t make the assumption that I suffer from your profound fear of dying, because I don’t.

  • anti-supernaturalist

    . . . start with one bible-based Big-Lie, god endorsed male supremacy.

    ** homophobia is a by-product of male supremacist pro-birth mores

    Homophobia is common to the Big-3 monster theisms — since they condemn any form of sex not directed to reproduction. Heterosexual intercourse during infertile periods, anal and oral sex, and the ever dicey coitus interruptus are all forbidden.

    As for heterosexual sex between fertile partners: no chemical contraception: no pill, no spermicides. No barriers to conception: no IUD, no condoms. No abortions, not even in cases of rape, incest.

    These are atavistic pro-birth customs: androcentric, completely misogynistic, demands that *no impediment to births should be permitted by law.*

    Here is the right-wing ideological imperative behind RC priests, fundie preachers, mormons, xian thugs harassing at Planned Parenthood, xian murderers of abortion providers, theocratic Congress members of the “C” Street Family supporting “kill gays” legislation in Uganda.

    Homosexual sexuality obviously fails to be reproductive. On this basis alone, it is forbidden. True believers’ knee jerk horror and disgust are produced by religious conditioning which grinds into the neurons another Big-Lie, the inherent “filth” of sexual organs, sexual attraction, and sexual behavior.

    After all no one knows the voluptuous pain of rigorism better than sexual involutes. They are constantly tormented by sin in their “members” — each true believer a do-it-to-yourself Marquis de Sade.

    Other cultures worldwide, present and past, lack an aversion to homosexuality — which gives the lie to cross-cultural congruence presumed by xian know-nothings.

    Given useless “abstinence only” sex ed, pro-birth fanaticism makes for rampant spread of STDs throughout the US, not just among know-nothing sub-cultures. Xianity and islam have long been widespread moral cancers. That should not overshadow their beginnings as small bands drawn from the ignorant, anti-intellectual dregs of their originating cultures.

    Paternalism, Prudery, Pro-birth fanaticism — Mores dictating sexual control over women by men belong to a common cultural atavism — faith based male supremacy. There is nothing moral about these mores. They are immoral through and through.

    the anti-supernaturalist

  • thomas

    Guys…The gays need to understand this ….. religion is not Christianity. religion is what man is trying to do to please God win his favour…Christianity is what God has done for all mankind .
    God is love and the author of love and cannot contradict Himself .GOD does not hate gays. Jesus came to not judge but to redeem mankind to God .If gay were to understand the character of God and his love and forgiveness they would change their attitude to Christianity and Christians .Sure there are christians who are dogmatic and narrow in theier thinking just as there are in the gay community.Lets not be hypocritical and ignorant of the truth . Do you want to go to a eternity called hell or a eternity with the blessing of God .The choice is yours .God sends nobody to hell or Heaven its your choice .
    Please consider the teachings and claims of Jesus Christ who after all is God in the flesh . Cheers .

    • Roger

      There is no hell, no “god,” and no heaven, thomas. Cheers.

    • JohnMWhite

      “Jesus came to not judge but to redeem mankind to God .If gay were to understand the character of God and his love and forgiveness they would change their attitude to Christianity and Christians.”

      Ok, let’s give this god character a chance. Being loving seems nice.

      “Do you want to go to a eternity called hell or a eternity with the blessing of God.”

      This seems less nice. And not at all loving.

      “The choice is yours .God sends nobody to hell or Heaven its your choice .”

      That’s not really true. God created hell, by HIS choice. He didn’t have to make a horrible box to put people who he doesn’t like in for all eternity. He could just forgive them and let them go to heaven with him anyway. In fact, wasn’t the point of Jesus’ redemption of mankind to conquer death and unlock the gates of the underworld and buy eternal life for all? Seems a bit unfair to attach conditions. By that logic, there was no point in making the sacrifice in the first place. Not to mention the sacrifice was made to… well, himself, because he made a box to put all the people he doesn’t like into.

      “Please consider the teachings and claims of Jesus Christ”

      We did, that’s why we’re here.

      “who after all is God in the flesh”

      Citation needed.

    • yahweh

      “The gays need to understand this…..”

      @thomas, I guess “the lesbians” don’t need to understand this? Or are you grouping everyone under one big bigoted umbrella?

      Does anyone else find the description “the gays” offensive?
      I don’t mean to nitpick but that just seems so wrong.

      • Kodie

        I thought the whole “do you want go to hell or do you want to stop being gay? it’s up to you” scheme was off as well.

      • beyonddeities

        It irritates me as well. Another quirk of being in a patriarchal (rooted) society. You can say a ‘gay woman’ but not a ‘lesbian man.’

      • Custador

        The group noun “The gays” used by Thomas is at least as offensive as that used by Steve when he talked about “the heterosexual obsession with gay animals”. So yes.

    • Tabbie

      Thomas said: religion is not Christianity and Christianity is what God has done for all mankind

      This is the same tired old game of semantics which Christians love to play, especially when out proselytizing. Christianity is by definition religion whether you claim to have personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a born again Christian or you are a devout Russian Orthodox adherent.

      Thomas said: The gays need to understand this

      What about the breeders, Thomas, or the celibates? Is there anything they need to understand? Do you have anything to say to the sheeplovers or the wankers? What about the polyamorous crowd — anything they need to understand?

  • Brian

    Jesus Tits!

    Every time I subscribe to email notifications I tell myself I’m not going to do it next time.

    Thank God for Gmail’s ability to group them all into one conversation!

  • Noah

    An interesting, and slightly disturbing article. Reminds me a little too much of the environment I grew up in. And the attitudes that are still held in some local churches here today. Honestly I’ve seen too much to trust anyone, of any faith, unless given good reason to.