RE: the hammer of homosexuality
October 23, 2015 at 6:04 am
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2015 at 6:07 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
I'm genuinely amazed that they keep trying so hard to deny that it is natural behavior, and instead say it's trying to "justify sinful behavior".
What are the bonobos doing, sinning? We see homosexual behavior in every social species we observe. We are a social species. We have seen in fMRI studies that human brains react to the chemistry of the gender to which they claim to choose actively, showing that what's going on is much deeper than some kind of "decision to sin". When the Christians then say that it's akin to murder "or any other sin" (really?!), and that what these people must hate is their own endocrine systems, essentially, all I can do is point and laugh at what is clearly a form of willful ignorance.
I point and laugh because you say we "justify" our own sins; yet most of the researchers who have done these studies on homosexuals are not, themselves, homosexuals. They (and I) have no reason to justify this as natural if it is not, in fact, natural. Which, then, is the more likely conclusion-- that we're inventing a natural explanation for no reason, or that it really is what research continues to show? Confirming or denying the anecdotal evidence given about human sexuality is part of what science does.
The only thing being justified here is the bigotry of Bronze Age tribal sheepherder-warrior societies, who needed to breed as many young fighters as possible in order to survive against their competition. Had they not attached divine authority to it, you'd be laughing at their ideas about homosexuals the way we laugh at their ideas about menstrual blood and the notion of women-as-property. Necessary for that time and place, maybe (though I also contest that), but ridiculous in the light of knowledge that we have that they did not.
So in response to your notion that it is homosexuals, rather than Christians, who are the ones justifying their beliefs, I say:
![[Image: post-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.pandawhale.com%2Fpost-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif)
What are the bonobos doing, sinning? We see homosexual behavior in every social species we observe. We are a social species. We have seen in fMRI studies that human brains react to the chemistry of the gender to which they claim to choose actively, showing that what's going on is much deeper than some kind of "decision to sin". When the Christians then say that it's akin to murder "or any other sin" (really?!), and that what these people must hate is their own endocrine systems, essentially, all I can do is point and laugh at what is clearly a form of willful ignorance.
I point and laugh because you say we "justify" our own sins; yet most of the researchers who have done these studies on homosexuals are not, themselves, homosexuals. They (and I) have no reason to justify this as natural if it is not, in fact, natural. Which, then, is the more likely conclusion-- that we're inventing a natural explanation for no reason, or that it really is what research continues to show? Confirming or denying the anecdotal evidence given about human sexuality is part of what science does.
The only thing being justified here is the bigotry of Bronze Age tribal sheepherder-warrior societies, who needed to breed as many young fighters as possible in order to survive against their competition. Had they not attached divine authority to it, you'd be laughing at their ideas about homosexuals the way we laugh at their ideas about menstrual blood and the notion of women-as-property. Necessary for that time and place, maybe (though I also contest that), but ridiculous in the light of knowledge that we have that they did not.
So in response to your notion that it is homosexuals, rather than Christians, who are the ones justifying their beliefs, I say:
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
