Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Gay Brains Reveal Straight Ways

gaybrain.jpg
Science’s foray into sexual explanation continues – and may be making headway.

After studying the brains of forty-five subjects, Swedish researchers have concluded that gay men and women’s respective brains resemble those found in heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

First they used MRI scans to find out the overall volume and shapes of brains in a group of 90 volunteers consisting of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals of each gender.

The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.

The team next used PET scans to measure blood flow to the amygdala, part of the brain that governs fear and aggression. The images revealed how the amygdala connected to other parts of the brain, giving clues to how this might influence behaviour.
Depression link

They found that the patterns of connectivity in gay men matched those of straight women, and vice versa (see image above). In straight women and gay men, the connections were mainly into regions of the brain that manifest fear as intense anxiety.

Scientists have yet to discover what actually leads to homosexuality, but this research clearly indicates a biological factor. This, of course, punches holes in right wing arguments of chosen “gay lifestyles,” and the such.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Jun 16, 2008
Tagged: , , ,

  • 144 Comments
    • Mike
      Mike

      So how long before they state they have found a cure for our biological defect?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 7:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      “Right wing” and religious opposition to homosexual activity doesn’t hinge on whether or not there is a biological factor involved. There’s a biological component to alcoholism, but nobody is arguing that should mean society should accept that lifestyle.

      There’s also a biological component to infection and disease. Does that mean people should accept and/or embrace those things?

      What if there’s a difference in the brains of people who are attracted to minors? Does that mean that society should accept that, as well?

      Look, I realize some folks are blinded by hatred for “right wing” and religious people, but efforts aimed at justifying choices (which may or not have a biological component, as with alcoholism, which also involves choices) in this way are inherently flawed.

      Religious opposition to homosexual activity is rooted in the natural law and the recognition that human sexuality is designed for complementarity between one man and one woman. The design of sex, down to sperm and egg, demonstrates that sex is meant to be between a man and a woman. Other types of sexual contact may be possible, but they are unnatural.

      Pointing to genetic aberrations in people with homosexual tendencies won’t really matter, and as the commenter above noted, only demonstrates a “biological defect”. The effort to overcome such defects won’t be far behind.

      I’m not trying to pick on anyone here. I’m just trying to help people see that fantasies about biological factors justifying the behavior choices of free human beings won’t cut the mustard with anyone but those with a vested interest in believing that matters.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 8:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CitizenGeek
      CitizenGeek

      Marilyn, you are being ridiculous. Alcoholism, disease and pedophilia are nothing at all like homosexuality. Homosexuality causes damage to no one, and when a gay couple gets together it’s mutually beneficial. Alcoholism and disease are destructive, so they should be fought, likewise with pedophilia.

      The fact is that once people understand that gay people have no control over their orientation – and studies like this are helping in a big way – then they will be less likely to discriminate. Most people, I would guess, do think that homosexuality is a choice and it’s so much easier to attack someone over a ‘choice’ than a pre-determined biological factor.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 8:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      What Marilyn has to say is icky – however, she’s right… in the wrong way.

      After all, no civil rights argument has ever been based on biology and won out. In fact, a “benign immutable biological difference” argument usually leads to “Well then it’s obvious that they’re sick, and we should fix or get rid of them.” or “Well then it’s just natural that they are inferior.” See Germany’s smear campaign against the disabled, or why Planned Parenthood still gets shit for its founders’ palpable racism, even though that’s not the mission of PP today.

      The fact is that arguing that the gay lifestyle isn’t a choice is dumb. Wanting to have sex with men may very well be influenced biologically, but living in Chelsea with your boyfriend, a dog, and a Judy Garland poster is very much a choice. There are actually really great, non-right wing scholarly articles on this subject. The “gay identity” is just one of the myriad ways people have chosen to identify themselves post-capitalism. When Mahmoud said there weren’t gays in Iran like those in the US – he was very right: They don’t have the choice to act on their sexual desires by forming communities around their sexual freedom.

      In fact, the argument shouldn’t be about *how* someone comes to feel gay, but whether or not in a liberal (i.e., that secures liberties), purportedly secular state, that the *how* should even matter. Two people doing whatever they want, when it’s not harmful to others and or themselves, with their bodies is nothing for the state to be engaged in. It’s about freedom of choice. That’s the argument that matters.

      Arguing that somehow I’m incapable of doing anything but sucking dick in fact makes me less free. (Hey, what if someday I wanna have mixed-sex intercourse? Do I have to live with the social stigma of switching sides?) What about bisexuals? What do their brains look like? Should it matter?

      Marilyn’s right – the biology doesn’t matter, because biology can say or be made to say anything. But Marilyn’s wrong – that’s precisely the point. Equating homosexual sex or homosexuality (and those two things are very different) to disease, alcoholism, pedophilia, etc. is an incredibly short-sighted and mean-spirited bait-and-switch that bases itself totally on biology and misses the overarching point that homosexuality isn’t a social or physical ailment.

      (Raping a child is way different from consensual sex between people of the same sex, jerk.)

      Jun 16, 2008 at 8:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      The quotes below come from here: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

      In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

      Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully. Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight. Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.

      Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.

      Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

      Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

      The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.

      The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call “bourgeois respectability.” But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their “marriages” will have little meaning.

      Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are. Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

      Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for “cruising” will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.

      Can homosexual unions be life-giving?

      Homosexual sex is not procreative and thus not live-giving in the most literal and important sense of the term. Further, the health statistics are clear. Any sexual behaviors that cut longevity almost in half before the AIDS virus came on the scene are death-dealing, not life-giving. The longevity and disease numbers speak for themselves. So do the psychiatric and drug abuse numbers. Likewise, promiscuity statistics suggest that homosexual activity is not providing much fulfillment to its practitioners. If it were, they would not feel the need for sex with armies of strangers. The statistics make it very clear that homosexual behavior is not enhancing anyone’s inner well-being; in that sense, too, it is anything but life-giving.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      See all that science Marilyn just threw out? Yeah, why not base your rights to make choices arguing against THAT kind of shit.

      (PS: Anal cancer? That’s got to be an awkward biopsy.)

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      The argument that homosexual activity doesn’t hurt anyone is largely rooted in personal bias and is not supported by facts like those listed above or those mentioned in articles like this one: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/BksFrntPorn.htm

      Look, when you predicate your lifestyle based on an argument that denies objective truth and an objective moral law, you open Pandora’s box. It’s hard to argue anything is “fair” or “unfair” or “just” or “unjust” when you’ve already argued that morality is subjective and that nobody has nay right to tell anybody else what is right or wrong.

      You say pedophilia is disgusting and wrong (and I agree) but NAMBLA doesn’t. Without an objective moral law, NAMBLA can just use the same arguments used by the homosexual rights advocates (and they do).

      If morlity is merely a societal convention, then every taboo is merely a civl rights issue.

      Again, I’m not trying to be mean or pick on anyone. I’m just trying to point out the inconsistencies in your position.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Progression
      Progression

      Marilyn,

      Your posts are too big for me to address point by point. Amazing that you have all this data at your fingertips and can type so fast.

      “Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.”

      I did a search on Google for gay suicide rates and found that the only sites offering these numbers are by religious or anti-gay organizations or people. Is there a pro-gay site that tracks this statistic?

      “when you predicate your lifestyle based on an argument that denies objective truth and an objective moral law, you open Pandora’s box”

      What objective truth and moral law are you talking about? There are some “objective truths” and “moral laws” that no trouble accepting LGTBs.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      But there is no inconsistency, Marilyn.

      Pedophilia is a psychological, technical term implying pathologically seeking out children who cannot or do not consent to having sex and raping them. However, I think that inter-generational sex has a long-standing history and is completely OK when properly handled. But see, that’s a nuanced discussion of sexual violence – is there any room for that from you? It seems like you just want to talk about what you believe – those “objective” things you’re discussing.

      And there is no such thing as an objective truth or objective moral law – there are experiential conclusions founded on assumptions based on the life you’ve led in the cultural context in which you’ve lived it. That’s it. It’s a civil rights issue not to talk about what actually *does* hurt people and the people around them in terms of the realities instead of making completely baseless “Pandora’s box” arguments to scare your morals into others who just don’t agree.

      The fact is that, as a society, at the level of government especially, we’ve made the moral argument that all people are created equally and have an equal right to pursue happiness and to be alive and free. However people want to exercise their liberties in order to pursue happiness and have the best form of life they can scrape up, they should be free to do – so long as it doesn’t keep others from doing that. That is the fairness; that is the moral argument. Anything in violation of those principles is a sincerely amoral way of thinking.

      You can believe whatever you want, and base those beliefs on anything you want. And you can believe that I’m a big sinner doing exactly what I shouldn’t do. But, no matter whom I have sex with, so long as the other person consents (or people, why not?), there is absolutely *no* way that my morals affect you, period. (And being grossed out isn’t really substantial enough.)

      I hold as morals that gender should be malleable. People should be able to have consensual sex with each other without having to worry about the state stepping in. People should be allowed to arrange their sexual lives however they deem fit and however it doesn’t actually damage someone else. Regardless of any religious arguments you might have that ask you to find “objective” reasons to say that people can’t choose to live however they please (c’mon, citing a Catholic website about gay people? way to be objective…), the fact is that people have the right to choose to do whatever it is they feel they want to, so long as those things don’t hurt people who don’t consent to it.

      So, go ahead and believe I’m giving myself anal cancer – go ahead and pray for me if I do get it. But the real threat to “Western civilization” and “our way of life” (as people who make arguments like the ones you’ve made so lovingly term our culture) is the vacuous and duplicitous arguing against personal freedom and the freedom of choices.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      I am gay, single, lived alone and without sex for 23 years am not a priest have three cats hate musicals don’t like Judy Garland don’t do drag never been butt fucked so please tell me what lifestyle I’m living and if being gay is unnatural as espoused by the mythology of the bible and hateful people who come to this web site to bash and proselytize that their “lifestyle is the way to heaven (which is also a myth). Maybe I’m unnatural because I like to look at naked men?

      And please spare me any lame jokes.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Go you, abelincoln!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      So, Marilyn, following your arguments to the logical conclusion, wouldn’t it better to identify these evil, sick and perverse homosexuals who obviously contribute nothing positive to society and remove them from society? Except, of course for the Lesbians, who are not any where near as promiscuos and vile as the male homosexual. The male of the species should be removed as humanely as possible, of course.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • l
      l

      Marilyn’s statistics on gay male life expectancy seemed just bizarre to me. So, I looked up the citation. It is by a psychologist who was thrown out of the professional association. He asked 20 year olds in the city if they were gay. Then went to rural Nebraska and asked 55 year olds if they were gay. Wow! There were not many gray and gay types on the farm. So, this quack concludes that most gay guys die before age 55. How nuts is that!? It is sad that this crap is out there passing as science.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Look, all I’ve been saying is:

      a) biological arguments don’t mean you aren’t free

      b) arguments which claim homosexual activity never hurts anyone run contrary to verifiable facts

      c) arguments that deny an objective moral law and render all morality subjective or societal convention completely contradict any notions of objective principles like justice and fairness and render any and all civil rights as debatable, because they deny the existence of objective standards

      d) arguments that deny an objective moral law and render all morality subjective or societal convention open the door for arguments supporting other lifestyles you may not support

      I’m not advocating that anyone be “eliminated”, so that sort of histrionic response isn’t warranted.

      In so far as saying there can be conflicting objective truths by claiming “here are some “objective truths” and “moral laws” that no trouble accepting LGTBs”, this indicates you don’t understand what I mean by the natural law.

      You can learn more about those things by checking out the Summa Theologica and the Catholic Encyclopedia over at http://www.newadvent.org

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I’m surprised nobody has any response to this article: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/BksFrntPorn.htm

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Summa Theologica is a religious document. I’m glad you’ve found something you believe in – but I don’t believe in that. And the state shouldn’t seek religious documents in deciding what it wants to do, either.

      And I do reject objective principles – we’ve taken on the social construction of fairness and equality and liberty. That comes with not having your religious views imposed on other people. I’m sorry that you’re so incredibly steeped in your misconceptions about what that means that you think your religion should get privileges.

      And what Bob R said wasn’t histrionic – it’s what Hitler argued, and it was based on the same kind of “facts” that you’re offering.

      Biological arguments mean you can consider yourself objective in your homophobia by citing random and patently warped facts that quiet your own histrionic responses to the sexuality of others to the dull roar of nature. If you’re going to believe something, at least be able to believe in it without crutches – religion can’t be backed up by science, and neither can homophobia. So at least stick by your guns: Your hypocrisy is way more of a disregard for morality than my saying your morals don’t matter.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Don’t be surprised – I’m not responding to an article from a religious source about one man’s conclusions about sexuality that are based on his religion.

      If I shared his religion or the religious commitments of that site, maybe I would respond. But I don’t.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      It sounds like science is your religion. That’s fine. Whether or not you “believe” in the Summa or Catholicism or whatever else you don’t believe in, that doesn’t make you correct and me wrong.

      Science isn’t incompatible with Catholicism, an only someone who doesn’t really understand Catholicism would think otherwise.

      The real issue is that you disagree with positions you don’t want to understand. At least I listen to your side and read up on what those of your perspective say.

      Unfortunately, my experience has been that those with your perspective dismiss those with mine without trying to understand where I’m coming from, and ofte with ad hominem attacks, accusations of hatred, and generally playing th victim card.

      It’s possible to oppose homosexual activity without wanting to hurt anyone. I oppose atheism and other religious beliefs that contradict my own, but I’m not advocating the elimination of those people.

      In so far as Hitler is concerned, his views were based on Darwinian values. Aggressive atheism and moral relativism has killed more than 100 million people in the last hundred and eight years. Religion isn’t the enemy.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Progression
      Progression

      ::this indicates you don’t understand
      ::what I mean by the natural law.

      Marilyn, if it’s Catholic doctrine, then it’s your choice as a Catholic to follow that doctrine, but not all the world is Catholic and not all Christians, for that matter, follow Catholic doctrine.

      For decades, if not centuries, anti-gay forces have argued that being gay is learned and not biological. These types of studies remove one by one those arguments from the anti-gay arsensal. You can choose not to follow your nature just as you can choose not to breathe, but it’s a lot easier if you do follow your nature.

      And although I am not a Christian, perhaps from a Christian view, God has a purpose for LBGTs living just as they are.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      One other thing: in a free society, the laws can absolutely be based on religious values.

      In this country a person is free to vote for whatever they want and for whatever motive.

      It sounds like you are trying to oppress the free rights of others by saying religion has no place in determining societal laws.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Mariyln, that’s an excellent point. You wouldn’t know this, but I actually study religion academically. (And no, not just as an undergrad.) I understand completely that religion isn’t the enemy. In fact, I recognize its crucial role in fighting things like what Hitler did, which were based on Darwinism. And science is barely my religion. I have nothing but respect for religion, but – especially with a First Amendment like ours – it doesn’t have a reasonable place in American jurisprudence.

      You said my religion is science, yet, you’re arguing from science and me from my beliefs and morals. I’m shrugging off your facts for my dogma – who’s clinging to science, again? You are trying to cite “facts” that would support your claims about whatever, when in fact all you should have to say is that you find homosexuality and homosexual sex incompatible with your moral commitments to Catholicism. I would never disrespect that.

      I know that Catholicism – unlike other versions of Christianity – isn’t incompatible with science. (Go you guys for being ahead of the curve on extraterrestrials, by the way.) But science and Catholicism are at major odds, and they have been for a long time. In fact, science arose as a serious method of inquiry in response to Catholicism’s stranglehold on epistemology and the wars that struggle created. My point is that arguing science to support Catholicism is a wee bit schizophrenic, and it would be *actually* counterfactual to deny that.

      At the end of the day, though you might not be hateful, you are homophobic. And ok – great, but preach what you practice; don’t cover it up as though it were just another fact that guys die quicker when you could go find a big bunch of queens living right on past the life-expectancy you offered up. Remember that a lot of science disagrees with a lot of your religion – and this is another one of those things you have to swallow while living the life you lead as a Catholic.

      That doesn’t mean you want to eliminate people. But, it shouldn’t also mean that you want to keep people from having the rights to act freely within their own consciences. As a Catholic, especially living in America, you should understand (for religious reasons) why that’s so vital to the way in which our country and works, and how dangerous it can be when people vote from religion. (Remember when JFK had to give that ridiculous speech about not being an operative of the Pope?) You can vote based on whatever you choose to vote on – but you can’t argue that, if you fight against freedom, that you are doing the work of “objective” science and “objective” “natural law”. You’re making a moral choice based on your want to impose YOUR religion on others in the ballot box instead of from the pulpit, thereby actually doing harm in that you are making everyone less free to disagree with YOU.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      Here’s just an idea to throw into the pot:

      Nature does not deal with absolutes or 100%. Nature is chaotic and for every rule there WILL be at least one exception.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      A few points:

      I never said it was bad or wrong to use science to back up one’s perspective. I would say its wrong to treat science like a religion while using it to attempt to discredit religion, but that’s not really hypocritical.

      “Homophobic” is a lame label. I’m not afraid of homosexuals. If I were, I’d avoid blogs like this. Homophobia is an ad hominem label used to denigrate people who object to homosexual activity.

      Still, I realize that, by the standards of those who subscribe to the homophobia fantasy, I would qualify as homophobic. That doesn’t really upset me any more than you’d be upset by being termed “phobic” about Catholicism or the “religious right” or Republicans, etc. I suspect many, many religious people recognize attempts to demonize and marginalize them with labels like “homophobic” for what they are: propaganda.

      Conscience isn’t a loophole. Liberal Catholics try to pretend it is, but they’re misrepresenting Catholic doctrine.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      p.s. – this is my response to the NATURAL law argument

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Is there an exception to the rule that: “for every rule there WILL be at least one exception”?

      Statements that claim there are no absolutes are internal contradictions and, therefore, false.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      Marilyn –

      Doesn’t Matthew 7:5 in the bible say something like, and I’m just paraphrasing:

      “You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” In other words, put your own house in order before you start criticizing how others keep theirs. By the way in addition to all the stuff about myself that I listed above, my house is a mess. So again, what lifestyle am I leading?

      I’m sure you have some things about you that would be considered flaws. Take a look at your ridiculous 10 commandments and tell us you haven’t broken a single one living your clean wholesome holier than thou lifestyle.

      Isn’t there a bible thumping blog where you can annoy people similar to yourself. Or all pat yourselves on the back for being such perfect godly creatures.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Marilyn, homophobic does get used incorrectly. After all, most things that end in -phobia get used to mean “fear of” but it means “aversion to”. You’re adverse to homosexuals, for whatever reasons. And cool.

      But don’t say it’s not hypocritical to mask religious arguments as scientific ones, then say that science can’t be used to unravel religious arguments. If anything is absolute: If you accept science as true, you have to take that where it leads you. Sometimes that brings you into direct conflict with your religion. So, which do you choose? Don’t confuse the false for the true and try to make the hypocrisy of running from one side to the other in a lame attempt not to say you just don’t like gay people not hypocrisy. You can just say you think we all need to just be straight – freedom of expression is good like that.

      But arguing that somehow your thinking that is just us ignoring the “facts” of “nature” while yourself using facts that most professionals in the areas concerned with those facts flatly reject is a little bit empty. Your arguments would be so much stronger and more respectable if you just owned up to them. Passing the buck on your beliefs and enshrouding them in science that disagrees with your beliefs just makes you and other religious people not very faithful and unable to cope.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • noah
      noah

      “There’s a biological component to alcoholism, but nobody is arguing that should mean society should accept that lifestyle.”–Marylin

      Alcoholism isn’t a lifestyle; it’s a physical illness with a genetic component!! Read a medical journal for goodness’ sake! Anyone who’s over 18 should know by now that alcoholism runs in families! Some people, based on family history, should never take a drink!

      As for sex being about procreation, give it a rest. Sex is more than just a reproductive act. Sex is for pleasure and bonding. That’s something that can easily be observed by watching humans and other primates.

      Catering to the religious set is a joke. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution for a reason!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Perhaps people like Marilyn have a biological predisposition to hate. Their biology will override facts, reason and be able to block out wisdom. The gene of hate also carries with it the ability to cloak your hatred with various guises depending on the circumstances. How adaptable these people are in their rigidity, truly a marvel of nature.
      Speaking of nature, I wonder what Marilyn has to say about the hundreds of species of animals that have been documented in homosexual activity?
      Some people have used their evil nature (those with that pesky hate gene) throughout history to demonize segments of the population for their own ends. In Germany the threat to the Fatherland was imminent and the threats progression spelled out in fact(sic). In the pre Civil War South, religion was used to undermine the humanity of the African slaves thus assuaging the good white folk of any need for guilt. Thankfully in these circumstances enough people had been born without the evil gene to trump those who had. There will always be people like Marilyn who for whatever reasons are filled with hate not matter how they choose to package it. Science is not a savior in and of itself. However, it is a start towards the possibility that one day it will be used with reason and understanding. If you look to younger generations this understanding of nature has already begun.

      Perhaps People like Marilyn can better serve their heterosexual brothers and sisters who seem to be going thru some great turmoil of their own. The divorce rate is highest in the bible belt and lowest in Massachusetts (which allows gay marriage). I think their energy should be focused on why their own marriages fail prior to denying us the same rights. Also, I know that all of the people in the small Austrian towns where not one but two instances of men locking up girls and sexually abusing them for years have unraveled desperately need Marilyn’s help. One of the cases involved a man who fathered seven children with his own daughter who he had locked in the basement. I read a tragic story yesterday that involved a young boy dying after his parents had tied him to a tree for two consecutive nights for punishment. These examples lead me to believe that heterosexuals are unfit parents. Marilyn, I think your help is needed within your own flock. We gay men have our share of problems and heartaches to address. I am confident we can sort them out on our own. You are free to go now.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      possibly, but as far as I can tell that’s not yet in our realm of unerstanding the laws of the universe. could there be a fundemental absolute? hmm.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      Noah, be careful of your rhetoric!

      “Separation of church and state is in the Constitution for a reason!”

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      I Hate Men’s Wearhouse is right, Noah: It’s not in there – though it should be!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      Marilyn, Noah’s right about sex and that’s the idea where I believe the conflict comes from. To limit sex among two humans for the purpose of procreation only is foolish. Sex among the rest of the animal kingdom is entirely different but the Bible would love it if we humans went into this crazy heat and began humping any human of the opposite sex, all the while experiencing no pleasure, but that’s not the case. Sex serves a huge social purpose as well and that’s not a choice.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      Noah said: “Sex is more than just a reproductive act. Sex is for pleasure and bonding.”

      I agree with that.

      Then Noah said: “That’s something that can easily be observed by watching humans and other primates.”

      I for one can say I’ve never done it with other primates but some some flexible tubing used for insulating pipes can do the trick for a DIYer. You can get it at any lifestyle improvement store like Home Depot, Lowe’s, OSH or that Dave Madden place… I think there’s even a style the ladies would enjoy using.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I don’t hate any of you. I actually think I Hate Men’s Wearhouse has been extremely reasonable, though we disagree in many ways.

      I really appreciate I Hate Men’s Wearhouse’s ability to remain civil and even find common ground, despite our differences.

      That goes much further than the usual tactic of ranting about Christians, allegations of “hate” and claims of victimhood so commonly experienced by those who share my perspective.

      As for claiming alcoholism is harmful but that homosexuality isn’t, that’s an opinion.

      Every claim that one thing is bad begs the question: based on what authority.

      You say pedophilia is bad. I do too. Based on what standard, though? Societal convention? If so, that can change, and NAMBLA wants to make it change.

      If there are no objective moral standards that transcend our own biases and perspectives, then any statement ascribing moral goodness or badness to any given moral act is just a matter of opinion and of no greater value than any other opinion, regardless of the popularity of that perspective.

      If that’s the world you want to live in, you should stop and think about what that will mean when the wind stops blowing in your direction.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      NAMBLA doesn’t advocate raping children. They advocate inter-generational sex and a responsible dialogue about how that isn’t always sexual violence. That’s the standard – that’s the moral line in the sand. Again, bait-and-switch.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GoodBuddy
      GoodBuddy

      The fact that there is an association between brain configuration and homosexuality does not automatically lead to causation – i.e., a person is gay because they have a different brain.

      Marilyn states that religion isn’t the enemy. I agree. But a lot of people who are basically bigots seek justification for their views in many ways, including religion. And science.

      Thomas Szasz used to argue that when society viewed things as a sin, and crime and a mental illness that showed that you were dealing more with prejudice than with reality.

      One way to tell that something is primary justifications for bigotry is the overwhelming negativity. Bigots like to cherry-pick statistics for everything negative that can be said about gay people and ignore everything positive.

      For instance, the statement that gay people have a higher rate of suicide (though the 16 times claim is fabricated). Well, the fact is ALL minorities have higher suicide rates as well as higher rates of depression.

      There would be more credibility if anti-gay bigots cited some positive things about gay people. For example, in recent years there have been many incidents of killings in the public schools, and it usually comes out that the perpetrators have faced bullying and anti-gay taunts. But the perpetrators have not actually been gay. It has been suggested that this is the fact because gay and lesbian teenagers have stronger personalities which enable them to cope with bullying.

      Despite the societal prejudices and non-support for gay couples, many have lasted for decades, while the heterosexual marriage has continued to disintegrate in higher numbers. It would be good if more attention were placed on how gay couples operate since this can be a model for heterosexuals on how to sustain a marriage that is not based on gender inequality. The gay community can act as role models for marriage.

      Most bigots cannot see their prejudices. It is the log in their eyes.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      Marilyn said: “Every claim that one thing is bad begs the question: based on what authority.”

      Wow! Something I finally agree with that she said.

      But Marilyn why do you think you are the authority on this subject?

      Are we just encouraging her by actually debating with her? Maybe a good smiting would be in order. Where is god when you need him?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      In so far as the divorce rate goes, I’m not going to seek to defend heterosexuals who do the wrong thing.

      Catholicism teaches that valid marriage lasts until death. I’m against divorce. Others don’t live their lives that way. I can’t control that, but I don’t see how that means my values have to be thrown out the window to make room for yours.

      You can’t point to bad behavior to justify any other sort of behavior, good or bad.

      I am opposed to all sexual sin, not just homosexual activity.

      My belief is that all deliberate sexual activity outside of the context of marriage between one man and one woman until death, whether alone or with others is sinful.

      I also believe that all sexual activity within marriage between one man and one woman must be open to the possibility of life and that any deliberate sexual activity which is incapable of producing life by nature (not by accident of nature, like infertility, but by deliberate choice whether by artificial contraception or by the performance of unnatural acts like oral or anal sex). Actions to the contrary are against God’s plan for human sexuality.

      I’ve never claimed to be sinless, but my sins don’t mean anything goes. My failure to live up to Catholic moral standards don’t mean those moral standards are wrong, and I regret my sins. When I fall, I repent, seek God’s forgiveness, and I pick myself up and try to live well in the future.

      I don’t try to claim that my personal weaknesses mean it’s okay to throw out the rules.

      And the rules aren’t just against homosexual activity, so they’re not “homophobic”. Homosexuals just focus on the aspects that impact them, which is understandable, but still more than a little myopic.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      God’s probably too busy ignoring black and brown people who need miracles to smite anyone.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      “If there are no objective moral standards that transcend our own biases and perspectives, then any statement ascribing moral goodness or badness to any given moral act is just a matter of opinion and of no greater value than any other opinion, regardless of the popularity of that perspective.”

      THAT is fundemental (maybe that’s too strong of a word). That’s why real change takes time, time to weigh all pros, cons, and consequences. That’s also why I hate it when people blindly say things like “religion is pointless” etc. Take one second to think about that further and you’ll realize how stupid of a statement (and other ideas like it) that is.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I don’t claim any authority. My statements, like yours, are rooted in authorities outside of me.

      You have accepted most of your beliefs based on the authority of others. I think you can admit that.

      Most of you don’t seem to want to understand the why behind my beliefs, though. This is particularly true of the people who simply hurl ad hominem invectives at me in an effort to poison the well.

      As for baiting and switching, I’m not. NAMBLA wants to rewrite the standard. Accepting their arguments means changing the moral standard. Children don’t possess the maturity to make choices of that nature, even if they claim to consent.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whoanellie
      whoanellie

      re: Marilyn’s pontifications-

      Mary,

      What job do you hold down that affords you the time and luxury to peruse gay sites and use your high school debate skills to prove to gays that they’re inherently wrong in seeking to be happy?

      Its fantastic to see how my existence as a gay man gives your life such direction and meaning. We all need a cause to fight for, I suppose.

      My job, however, doesn’t pay me to argue with strangers, so I’ll be getting back to real life now.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood
      Miss Understood

      What is Marilyn doing reading a filthy blog like Queerty anyway? Just looking at this pornography is a sin. She will surely go to hell unless she repents and promises Jesus to throw away her computer.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      “Children don’t possess the maturity to make choices of that nature, even if they claim to consent.”

      Once again, I agree. Sex is something that has to be treated with the respect and maturity that most adolescents (sp?) don’t have. While I believe in sex separately from procreation and God’s will, that doesn’t change the fact that when treated with any disrespect, sex is dangerous physically and dangerous to mental development.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      Why are you people being so childish?

      “and use your high school debate skills ”

      grow up. Marilyn is so far one of the only persons on here who has actually partaken in an actual debate.

      Marilyn, I hope you don’t let this childishness skew your view of homosexuals.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      correction:

      “I hope you don’t let this childishness skew your view of ALL homosexuals.”

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      I think that it is laughable that Men’s Wearhouse is concerned with “Marilyn’s” views of homosexuality being skewed. Isn’t that the whole purpose of her coming to this sight? To espouse her skewed view points on homosexuality. Respect is one thing, pandering is another.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate Men's Wearhouse
      I Hate Men's Wearhouse

      I think it’s laughable that you completely changed what I said. I said homosexuals, not homosexuality.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      What a fantastic start to the week! I’ve seen many of tehse arguments made before, but never with such civility. You all deserve gold stars! Or pink. Whatever.

      So much has already been covered, but Marilyn made one comment—another bait-and-switch, as Banania has been (rightly) calling them. Marilyn said:

      “Aggressive atheism and moral relativism has killed more than 100 million people in the last hundred and eight years. Religion isn’t the enemy.”

      In terms of starting wars, yes…religion hasn’t been a major culprit for the last hundred years, but it held the title for “most likely to start a war/get someone persecuted and killed/allow for the subjugation of man by despots” for many centuries prior. It was in reaction to the horrific abuses of religion that Humanism, the Enlightenment, and more modern philosophies developed. All the while, science and technology has developed, despite the best efforts of religious zealots (a majority at times) to stymie and vex the pursuit of understanding and empirical knowledge (ALL despite Paul’s caveat in 1 Thessalonians to put all things to the test). Just as religion has been abused to justify atrocities, to demonize and terrorize and plunder and destroy for millenia, atheism and technology too have been abused, and in the lasdt century A) religion took a back seat for once, Hallelujah B) we got very good at killing each other…Boo…

      This may make it look like religion is the lesser of two evils, but take just one moment to consider how history might have played out if the Christian god had deigned to supply his followers with nukes even three centuries ago…I dare say there wouldn’t be a Semitic person left on the face of his green earth. And to you, Marilyn—you being a true Catholic—this may seem an appealing scenario, but we who choose to view others based on their deeds, their ability to show compassion and empathy, and to love (no accounting for our physical bodies, which are temporary, vanities, all to be swept away come Judgment Day) rather than those who claim to be righteous because they picked the right team and who will ruthlessly do whatever it takes to make sure they are the last one’s standing (for GOD!)…we tend to think that these atrocities are best avoided, and the first step to doing so is to rely solely on respect for each other’s lives, safety, and well-being.

      Does homosexuality threaten the lives of those who practice it? Only because of the people who have beaten, attacked, murdered, ostracized, and defamed homosexuals—your brethren, Marilyn, like it or not. Being forced into gay “communities/ghettoes” because at least we won’t be lynched puts us in a precarious position of fear, self-loathing, and easy access to sex and other self-destructive behaviors. Are you so surprised that homosexuals are so promiscuous?

      I’m starting to sound like I’m playing a victim, but it is a fact that if homosexuals are more depressed, more suicidal, and more prone to self-destructive behavior, it is likely because of the abuse by people not so different from you. I’m sure you would never wish to harm a homosexual, but I’m sure you would be more than willing to defend others who would. You share the same ideas, though you at least temper it with pity (one degree away from resentment, on the scale of pathos).

      Abuse is abuse: abuse of faith, abuse of trust, abuse of ideas, abuse of emotions, children, drugs, subsance…However it may manifest it means that either the abuser or the abused is suffering harm in the process. Is homosexuality inherently an abusive act? In its pure form, it merely the love between two human beings who share an aesthetic for members of their own gender. How can that possibly be construed as abuse?

      Ponder that while I go check out the Morning Goods like the godless aberration that I am…

      Yea, thanks for calling our brains aberrant. that didn’t slip by me.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Wearhouse, I am not sure that Marilyn makes any distinction between the two. It is a matter of semantics.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Bravo Trenton, Very well put.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate MW
      I Hate MW

      Well said Trenton. It’s the abusive majority factor. Or maybe the abusive norm factor. Maybe they’re the same.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate MW
      I Hate MW

      Alex, if you’ve payed any attention to the debate, I think you’d notice that Marilyn is te type of person to recognize each person as a person, sinful in various ways depending on the person but a person. what I said was unnecessary. What I said was foolish, it made me sound like I depend on his/her approval, but I was getting annoyed at comments like “What is Marilyn doing reading a filthy blog like Queerty anyway? Just looking at this pornography is a sin. She will surely go to hell unless she repents and promises Jesus to throw away her computer.”

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      I would also like to add that I appreciate Marilyn coming on here. I was formerly very religious, and I know a great deal more about Christianity than most Christians I know. But Christianity shaped my ethics, and I am very happy with them. Love thy neighbor; judge not lest ye be judged; don’t screw your wife while she’s on the rag. These are all very good ideas. That means I’m picking and choosing (like most Christians) the things I focus on from that book. I don’t condone slavery, raping and enslaving women of conquered nations, and those nasty dictums from the OT, but neither do MOST Christians I have met. I am from the South, though, where I met a few who do seem to take it quite literally.

      By the by, Marilyn has proved that she cares about her fellow man, even if she vies them as lost or in pain. While it is at first insulting, and her rehtoric, when take out of context, will only lead to more oppressoive behavior, it is generally innocuous, and it’s fair to say that between Marilyn and me, the person who suffers most becausde I am gay is Marilyn, in this case, so her pity is more than reciprocated.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      Ugh…proofread, Trenton! Proofread! “vies” = “views” but you probably already guessed that.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      There is no sense in debating or arguing with Marilyn because she is in possession of the “truth” as revealed to her by her mythical god. She is a Catholic, a member of one of the most criminal and vile religious sects to darken mankind’s history. Four hundred years ago she would be gleefully burning you at the stake. She would do so today if civilization hadn’t advanced far enough to make such action less acceptable now. She’s delusional. There is no point in dealing with religious fanatics. Her beliefs are simply that. There is little of logic and less of science. She believes in an omnipotent mythological being with severe anger management problems. If you don’t accept her “truth” you will burn forever in a sea of fire. She believes in a church that is archaic and a fraud. So my suggestion is to waste no more time and effort with Marilyn as she will never change her mind and cannot change the subject. And yes, there are those of us who do believe, just as strongly as you don’t believe, that religion is indeed the enemy. Go mumble over your beads and leave us doomed homo’s alone.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate MW
      I Hate MW

      wow Bob. “She would do so today if civilization hadn’t advanced far enough to make such action less acceptable now. She’s delusional”

      wow.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Hate MW
      I Hate MW

      well Marilyn, it was fun but the stores getting busy. See Ya!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      Bob, as frustrating as it may be, taking an insular “don’t talk to me and I won’t talk to you” approach does nothing to advance our understanding of each other. It only fosters resentment and reinforces the “otherness” that created this mess to begin with. This sort of discourse may seem futile; at the end of he day, I sincerely doubt anyone will be changing their minds one way or the other. We will at least have formed a discourse, however, and have proven that some of us are comfortable and functional as we are. We will have dispelled a myth or two and come closer to TRULY agreeing to disagree, rather than saying “Your’re wrong, and you are two steps away from being boy-hungry pedophiles, but there there…God loves you.” One day, we might even get a “Well, I will never understand what it is like to be you, but come to think of it…my dogma is based on the mistranslation of two thousand year old book by a misogynistic warmonger who wanted homosexuality to be called an ‘abomination’ to demonize it, when in fact the original word only implied that a ritual bath was necessary before entering the tabernacle…so hey! Maybe being gay isn’t such a big deal. I’ll never agree, but…have at it, you darling faggots, you!”

      What a happy day that will be!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Don’t egg on the trolls. Marilyn’s type only gets off on this crap if people respond. It’s enough for her to know that we don’t give a crap. Since gay relationships is a decision gay adults enter into, it’s not hurting anyone else. That means if she, or anyone else, has a problem with it, it’s their problem, not ours.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      Trenton: I consider people like Marilyn to be extremely malignant. It has been religion and most specifically Catholicism that has arrested the progress of science and humankind by at least 500 years. If we followed church doctrine, we’d still believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around it. I’ve seen people like Marilyn work their wicked ways. God fearing, religious people meshing god’s work into government and politics. It was people like Marilyn that have supported so much intolerance and hatred throughout world history. It was educated, literate god fearing church going lawyers that fashioned the eugenics laws and racial purity laws that resulted in the murder and imprisonment of millions of men, women and children. It was god praising physicians that conducted the most heinous of medical experiments, church going, tithing Christian engineers that designed the crematoria and Biblically indoctrinated folks that created the pogroms that slaughtered millions of innocents because they were not Christians, or were deemed psychologically defective, or physically handicapped, or “just different”. No, I will not dialog and agree to disagree with people like Marilyn. I’ve seen her ilk all too often. They use phony statistics, false science, distorted facts and anecdotes to coerce people into compliance with their perception of what is proper and acceptable behavior. And those that refuse to accept Marilyn and her ilks arguments will be dealt with in other ways. No, religion is mankind’s enemy and religious loons like Marilyn can seldom be reasoned with or enlightened. She is at the very least an agent provocateur, here to entertain herself and perhaps friends, and at my age I am no longer willing to suffer fools gladly.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Bob R, no no no.

      If it hadn’t been for Christian movements, we wouldn’t even have racial equality in the US. (The Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements were both heavily carried out by Christians.)

      Religion isn’t the enemy. Religion and religious people don’t always do what’s right – but that’s not an indictment of religion, it’s an indictment of people.

      Religion isn’t a necessarily bad thing, and what you’ve just said about religious people is just as bigoted as what she was saying about gay people.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      Bob: Believe me, I understand your frustration, but Marilyn and those like her are not malignant. She may have skewed information, she may regurgitate spurious claims that we have all heard before and used in truly malignant fashion (to justify physical and emotional abuse inflicted upon us or others) and some of what she has said sends chills down my spine…BUT tolerance is a two way street, and she isn’t being abusive nor is she advocating intolerance outright. Her approach may be misguided, and often miseducated (I’m sorry if that sounds pejorative, Marilyn, but is objectively the truth given the specious “facts” you have cited), but it isn’t heartless by any means.

      Maybe I’m forced to be a little more tolerant because my family is still religious and my brother is…a “reformed” gay… *twitch* *shudder* *twitch* …but I’d rather turn the other cheek and go on with my day without harboring anger and resentment than contnue to let the past indiscretions of religious authorities and the continued offenses by fundamentalists (a blessedly dying breed) spoil my opinion of all religious people.

      Perhaps you think that at ‘your age’ you can afford to shut people out, but my life has just begun and I don’t want to limit the peple that come into it, even if we don’t always agree. I won’t judge you for shutting a whole group of people out. You may have your reasons. Still, at the risk of sounding namby-pamby and self-righteous (I’m really only namby-pamby) I think you’d be better off if you weren’t so fundamentally vitriolic against a group so varied and immense and often well-meaning as the so-called “Religious”.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Trenton,

      Where do you draw the line between being malignant and espousing malignant views?

      Perhaps your need to understand hateful people like Marilyn is actually based in your family dynamic more than anyting else. That would be understandable to be sure.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      I see a couple flaws in this study – or rather, in using it to jump to conclusions.

      The first one, of course, is that I have a hard time believing that sexuality can be lumped into four neat categories – that we’re either HeM, HoM, HeW, or HoW.

      Is the macho guy who only fucks transgendered women HeM or HoM? How about the transgendered themselves? Or the man who will fuck anything that moves? Or bisexuals, switch-hitters, and prison punks?

      This whole idea of rigid gender categories falls apart even more when you look at indigenous cultures.

      My second problem is that we’re not shown the numbers. Did every single HoM and HeW have a bubbling left amygdyla? Or was there some variation there? I would suspect some variation …

      As for Marilyn, “The design of sex” also includes lots of pleasure-receptors in my ass. Ergo, getting fucked by another man is exactly as your god intended. Natural law is on my side.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      I second the comments of Bob R.

      This is an argument between proponents of opposing ideologies. Liberal interventionists like myself are intolerant of intolerance precisely because we have learned from the example of fundamentalists.

      The fundamentalists are correct: this is a culture war. No peace, no truce, nothing less than the complete transformation of society along liberal principles and the relative marginalization of conservative interests (religious or otherwise).

      Discourse is beside the point. Discourse did not make same-sex marriage (both civil and religious [in some faith communities]) legal in Canada five years ago. Legal action and political activism did. If it were a process amenable to discourse, we would still be arguing, over and over again.

      Modern liberalism is characterized by an acceptance of economic and social interventionism based on a belief in developmental individualism and positive freedom.

      Religious fundamentalism is the belief that political and social life should be organized on the basis of religious principles, commonly supported by a belief in the literal truth of sacred texts.

      People like Marilyn are religious fundamentalists who (generally and overwhelmingly) have zero interest in authentic discourse or genuine debate. Discussions over the possible mistranslation of contested terms in ancient texts are beside the point: the Catholic theologian Raymond Brown acknowledged that there is no biblical basis for belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, but continued to hold that belief as an article of faith, as part of the fidei depositum of the Catholic Church.

      Regardless of how many obscure mistranslations are corrected, people like Marilyn will believe whatever they are told to believe, or whatever they are expected to believe. And to believe that they will ever do otherwise is truly the height of folly.

      A biological predisposition to hate? Perhaps. More likely an infection by a particularly virulent religious meme, the kind that is almost impossible to eradicate (at least in the short term), and can therefore only be contained (that is, socially marginalized) in the interests of the health of the greater organism (society) in its entirety.

      I think it’s wonderful that gay men and lesbians in California now have the opportunity to marry if they so choose. Not because marriage is the summit of human life (it isn’t), but because it’s the one social institution that religionists believe they are entitled to keep entirely for themselves.

      Well, they no longer have an absolute, uncontested monopoly over it. They see their social influence (and their attempts to exercise social control) steadily diminishing over time, and they’re furious, absolutely furious. They’ll stop at nothing to try to reverse the trend, and will lie, lie, and lie again if it serves their purposes.

      Californians, be vigilant. Jesus of Nazareth referred to such people as a “nest of vipers.” Don’t get bitten by these deceitful serpents in the interests of discourse and debate. However sweetly and reasonably they phrase their words, however interested they seem to be in dialogue and consultation, it’s all a lie. A complete and total lie. Pure poison. They have only one interest: power. Not to liberate, but to control; not to expand, but to contract. If it were up to them, society would still be burning the faggots along with the witches. Sweetly and reasonably, of course, after much discourse and clarification of terms.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tallskin
      Tallskin

      Folks, I think one thing we learned over here in the UK battling for gay equality in the early 90s, when I was involved in groups like OutRage! , in arguing with religious loons I learnt that we gays and lesbians can crawl on our bellies and beg for acceptance like whipped curs, but that makes no difference, they will still hate us.

      The Lesson is: give no respect or quarter whatsoever to the religiously afflicted – they don’t deserve any, and use the weapons provided by our allies like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in ridiculing religious ideas. Be Contemptuous at all times and MENTION THE DINOSAURS , cos that really fucking pisses them off.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      I’m curious about when or how atheism was used to cause the death of millions of people. Hopefully you are not referring to the Nazis as they were righteous christians albeit in their own curious way.

      The only connection I can see with atheists causing the deaths of millions is that they caused their own deaths when they said they didn’t believe in someone’s god or gods.

      Maybe I’m not quite up to snuff on my history of atheism or maybe I misread those posts or maybe just skipped over the bullshit parts of them.

      BTW – I would call this discussion a crusade more than I would a debate.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      Alex: It could be that my family dynamics are part of the reason why I try to understand people like Marilyn. And perhaps I should apologize, because it wasn’t very proper to air that dirty laudry. I only mentioned it to cite that people with these views about homosexuality being sinful and detrimental do exist, and even beyond that “hate the sin, love the sinner” nonsense, they often think they are doing us a favor.

      It’s easy to say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” It’s also very easy to say, “Fuck off you passive-aggressive, pharisaic lump of shit.” Oh, the temptation does flicker in me to do so…But as I said before, discourse is essential if we are to show that we are comfortable with who we are and not in any ‘spiritual agony’ beyond the isolation brought on by THEIR problems. No amount of science, pseudo-science, cogent discussion, or even divine revelation will sway them at this point. I know that…but I know that when we act so venomous, they walk away and say “Oh, the devil has a strooooooong hold on them ones! Lawdy, lawdy pray with me!”

      I’m probably naive, but misanthropy just isn’t a fit for me. That’s why I gave up Christianity in the first place (which like most monotheistic religions manages to be anthropocentric AND misanthropic. Talk about grim…yeesh.)

      I still say ‘Kill ‘em with kindness’, and eventually some of them will catch on to the fact that the only demonic strongholds in this situation are their own brittle chimeras. In the mean time, if they want to continue suffering fervently with confusion, anger, and frustration over our loving the “wrong” sex for our bodies and this so-called biological imperative (better lock up the infertile women, too, the heretics!)…Godspeed. It’s no skin off my nose.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      AJ (and Alex, too):

      Can we agree that the political realm demands vigilance, fervor, and zeal which an internet discussion board do not. By all means, we mustn’t allow theocrats like Marilyn to dictate our lives and we must fight (and indeed, I think we will inevitably prevail after much agony and defeat) in securing the rights that should not be denied anyone in a “free” society. However, I still do not condone a complete rejection of these people, particularly those who at least take a civil approach rather than spewing flames like so many anonymous cowards that troll the net. Reason being, when the day comes that we secure those rights, the better we have communicated and established ourselves as more than heathen hordes leering over their delicious, delicious heterosexual children, the less backlash and the greater peace there will be overalls. As tempting as it is to bulldoze them with the same disregard as we have been shown, it is dangerous, because that animosity and momentum will carry on even after the walls have toppled, and it will only create further tension and strife down the road, I fear.

      All the same, I’m glad to have some cultural hawks on our side. Shit certainly gets done faster that way.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      AJ,

      I agree. It is a war and we have enemies that need to be understood and watched.

      My initial post was meant as farce.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      Trenton: I applaud your tolerance. You’re obviously a young man and perhaps in many ways still naive (perhaps due to family circumstances) about religion. But trust me, Marilyn would have no qualms about throwing you under the bus or finding a spot for you in the cattle car. I’ve experienced a lot of Marilyns throughout my lifetime. Don’t ever think that in the end you matter, only their mythological god matters. If they can’t save you (or at least your immortal soul), then you will be condemned to burn for eternity in hell. They’ll joyfully pray for you as you burn at the stake. You really must spend more time reading the Bible. I mean really reading the Bible, not just picking and choosing. It’s quite a book. Especially the Old Testament. You may, for example, find there’s a lot more to Leviticus than just a condemnation of homosexuality. And if you really pursue some religious study, you’ll find out about language misinterpretations and how Christianity stole so much (including Christmas) from the Pagans. It is the purpose of religion to control people. It’s god is a myth, superstition, Santa Claus for adults. If Jesus were alive today, spoke of love and tolerance, hung out with twelve guys and didn’t date, Marilyn would brand him a dysfunctional fag. Oh, and don’t think Jesus really loves you, because he didn’t come to change god’s laws or punishments “one jot or one tittle”. Believe if you choose to. Just don’t expect me to, nor penalize, inconvenience or condemn me if I don’t. And I’ll treat you likewise.

      Banana Blogger: Yes, yes, yes. You kid yourself if you think the church is responsible for racial equality in the U.S. First, racial equality in the U.S. is a lie and you’re going to find that out as this Presidential campaign progresses. The Civil Rights movement was carried out through the Black Churches because that is the only place black folks could gather without violating the law and being beaten. Although good Christian white folks would blow up a black church, while occupied, on occasion. The Catholic church played a minor role, if any, in the civil rights movement. The Jews played a very large part in the civil rights movement, more so than the Catholic church. Are all Christians bad? Of course not. Those that practice true Christianity (a minute number)are not bad. They practice charity, tolerance, love for their fellow man and they judge not lest they be judged. How many of those have you met? Honestly? I’m still looking. These “well meaning” people as you describe them have a history of causing more pain and agony for mankind than they do for doing good. I’m afraid on the historical scoreboard the church’s negatives would far outweigh their positives. So, yes, Banana Blogger, I think there is more evidence to prove religion is the enemy rather than the friend of man. It’s been my experience religion poisons everything it touches.

      As for abolition of slavery. The concept was born in Europe and England as part of the Age of Enlightenment. Abolition of slavery was championed by “Free Thinkers” or “Secular Humanists” and was opposed by the orthodox churches who used the Bible to justify slavery. Free thinkers believed that humans should not be governed by faith in a supernatural being. Some Free thinkers acknowledged a “spirituality” but rejected religious authoritarianism and they laid the basis for a universalist (Unitarian) belief. It is this set of beliefs, in man and his ability to think and reason without some mythical “divine” intervention that set the stage for abolition of slavery. Not Biblical dogma, as you would like us to believe. It was the Bible that was in fact used to justify slavery. God allows slavery and even sets out rules as to how they may be treated and punished by their owners. Nasty fellow that Old Testament god. Now HE has lots of vitriol and no qualms about smiting those who in any way disagree with him. So don’t try to educate me on religion and history, I think I’ve probably lived and studied more of it than you have.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shawn
      Shawn

      Everyone (but Marilyn), really when she said that her statistics were from the “catholic encyclopedia” that should have been a BIG RED FLAG that what she was spouting was not science but dogma-dressed-up-as-science. The creationists do this too. They create organizations with pseudo-scientific names and titles and then try to pass of their dogma as science.
      I personally think that we should ignore these people because a flame war is WHAT they want. That’s their goal. They troll sites like queerty and look for opportunities to strike. They do this stuff on DailyKos and Huffington Post all the time.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      Bob: Thanks for the kind words! And believe me, whether its Sol Invictus, Mithras, (to this day, a temple to him lies beneath St. Peter’s catehdral at the vatican) or any of the other sacrificial gods from which the myth of the Christ figure was…ahem…”borrowed”, or the wording chosen for the King James version to skew the original text and call homosexuality an abomination (cited above) as a greater, ultimately political condemnation (though Jimmy himself was quite the boy-loving frotteur), or all the condemnations of “lying with a man” as sinful, though in both the old and new testament the implicaion was rape in the original Hebrew, not a consensual act (for as we well know, a well-formed male slave wasn’t just kept for building monuments in those arcadian days), or any number of other distortions perpetrated over the years for purposes that essentially boil down to denigration of feminine characteristics and a desire for the men of one’s country to produce babies babies babies as much as possible…well, I am at least a little familiar. These distortions don’t make the whole book rubbish, nor do they make the whole religion rubbish, assuming one actually lives a Christ-like life…but as Nietzsche said, ‘The last true Christian died on the cross.’ If you ask me, even that’s a stretch, seeing as big J contradicted himself quite a bit, too. If he came to die for our sins, we have more than reciprocated. I think, actually, he owes us another 10 billion crucifixions for the trouble we’ve experienced thanks to him and daddy dearest.

      In any case, what I do “pick and choose” I know see as so fundamental, I can hardly credit Christianity for being its source. It just happens to be where I picked it up first. And because I see how, if things had been different, I might still be lost in that morbid world, I sympathize with those who still are “keep the faith” that some will come around one day. But as I said before, I’m glad to have firebrands on my side. Good cop, bad cop stuff, ya know.

      A general statement to the board: Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. It’s been very pleasant and reassuring to read these opposing but generally respectful opinions.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trenton
      Trenton

      God help me…I just can’t do two things at once. Sorry for all of the typos. What I just wrote was almost English. :(

      Jun 16, 2008 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny J
      Johnny J

      Marilyn is trying to reason out something that is really unexplainable. Basically, its her “yuck” gut feeling toward homosexuality and she’s trying to make sense out of it. To compare gay sex (no victim) to Pedophilia or rape or diseases (someone is victimized) is no different that equating heterosexual sex to these things (I like the bait and switch comment). I think she is unwittingly hurting people as she tries to come to grips with her own sentiments.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RPCV
      RPCV

      Queerty, you’re partly correct. The study does confirm, however, that homosexuals are ABNORMAL otherwise our brains wouldn’t resemble those found in heterosexuals of the opposite sex. We all just need to accept the fact that we’re freaks, plain and simple……..

      Jun 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      People who are left handed are abnormal as well. I wouln’t call them freaks.
      It is sad how much self loathing still exists.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kcb79
      kcb79

      I thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussion on this page. The arguments take me back to when I was being heavily envangelized on UNC campus by the Baptist campus ministries. They come up to you like they are your friend, bullshit with you, and then later get mad at you… “Why can’t you devote your life to Jesus?!!?!?” My answer was I couldn’t devote my life to their notion of who Jesus was. But anywho, I figured I would say “hi” and “thanks” for the read. Anyone read “God’s Debris” or seen Zeitgeist (www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

      P.S. Someone had mentioned “what about gender identity” in regards to study presented. I wouldn’t equate gender identity and sexuality, they are different. Even though they are often intertwined. Probably our use of “homo- and hetero- sexuality” are misnomers since they are based on the gender identity or sex of the person, and I am not really sure which exactly. (Shall we move to something like gynophile or androphile? So clinical sounding) Consider a F2M who sleeps solely with men. Is that person homosexual or heterosexual? Is it defined by gender identity or chromosomal gender? Are they heterosexual or homosexual pre-op? Is J. L. Curtis gay or straight? Just destroy the labels… one love!

      Jun 16, 2008 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood
      Miss Understood

      Re:I Hate MW

      Why are you so ready to respect Marilyn’s religious beliefs and opinions but not mine. I believe she is a filthy sinner who will burn in hell. That is what my faith tells me.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SeaFlood
      SeaFlood

      Marilyn, wait.

      You use rhetoric (because all if not most of that has been debunked, starting in 1975 when gay-ness came out of the DSM signaling that it was no longer considered a mental illness) that is OLD!

      That thinking was over 30 years ago. Are you really standing behind it?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SeaFlood
      SeaFlood

      “Look, when you predicate your lifestyle based on an argument that denies objective truth and an objective moral law, you open Pandora’s box. It’s hard to argue anything is “fair” or “unfair” or “just” or “unjust” when you’ve already argued that morality is subjective and that nobody has nay right to tell anybody else what is right or wrong.”

      “Your lifestyle” ? Really now!

      To argue that morality is sujective is not the same as “nobody has nay [sic] right to tell anybody else what is right or wrong.” Indeed, it is because morality is sujective that people DO say that the things humans do are right or wrong or fair or unfair or just or unjust.

      I understand. You want a world of black and white. I am glad you do not get to make up the world. Because there IS no objective truth. There are only subjective truths (and laws). Subjective because we are people and people are subjective — even when they are being objective.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SeaFlood
      SeaFlood

      “a) biological arguments don’t mean you aren’t free

      1) That double negative you have going does nothing for the clarity of your argument.

      b) arguments which claim homosexual activity never hurts anyone run contrary to verifiable facts

      2) You have not proven, first of all, that cosensual homosexual activity hurts anyone. You ask for verifiable facts, yet you provide none yourself — except to say you think that’s personal bias. Sure, it looks specious, but truly… I think it has merit.

      c) arguments that deny an objective moral law and render all morality subjective or societal convention completely contradict any notions objective principles like justice and fairness and render any and all civil rights as debatable, because they deny the existence of objective standards

      3)The standards used for civil rights… I am not sure we should call that a standard. The standard would be B/black people being treated in a manner that established a system where white people were on top and assignments bled from there. Now, is whiteness a standard? No, not really. It is merely a dominate discourse. Dominant does not mean it is without flaws, does not mean it is objective OR subjective.

      What we identify as just or fair is COMPLETELY subjective. Perhaps you have read some Said… or other people who have made convincing arguments about “objective standards” but I bet they are coming at it from a particular postion you are failing to consider.

      d) arguments that deny an objective moral law and render all morality subjective or societal convention open the door for arguments supporting other lifestyles you may not support

      4) Ah. It all comes down to maintaining and protecting the status quo.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I read through most of the comments. some got kind of long and seemed to devolve into invective laden rants, so I skipped a bit.

      I had stopped commenting because I had to go to work.

      The person who asked about when atheism killed over 100 million people should study up on Communism. Joe Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot killed people for being Christians, as did Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and any number of Communist dictators. Mexico and Spain martyred a lot of Christians, as well. The same can be said for Portugal.

      Militant atheism has killed more Christians in the past century than all the wars ascribed to Christians and other religions over the past 2000 years.

      And Hitler wasn’t a Christian; at least not a practicing, believing one. Yes, he was superstitious and tried to cover all his bases, but he was into the occult and mass murder isn’t kosher in Christianity, so calling a mass murderer a Christian fundamentalist is more than a stretch.

      I’m curious as to why people who say such hateful, horrible things about Christians and utter blasphemies about Jesus and Christian notions of God, (including the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc), can still feel comfortable demanding that Christians respect their values.

      Look, I respect the dignity of all human life, whether that person is homosexual or not, a Christian or not, and whether that person respects me or not.

      I would not and do not advocate doing anything to anybody that denigrates their intrinsic human dignity. I would never advocate genocide, as has been implied by zealous homosexual advocates here. What is more, the language I’ve seen here makes me wonder if people are projecting and whether they will be coming for me when they win the culture war, as they appear to be doing.

      If you were objective in your assessment of my comments, you’d realize (as at least one of you has) that I have been trying to have a dialogue and articulate a perspective that is being misrepresented with straw man arguments.

      The notion that biology playing a role in homosexuality would somehow end Christian opposition to homosexual activity essentially misrepresents the reasons Christians believe what they believe, and it creates an inappropriate expectation among homosexuals that will essentially be a premeditated resentment when its hope is never realized.

      Biology may persuade Christians who don’t understand Christianity, or provide an excuse for Christians who prefer human respect over fidelity to Christ, but authentic Christianity is incompatible with homosexual activity (which is different from homosexual temptations and tendencies, which are not sinful unless consent is involved).

      Although homosexual inclinations are considered a disorder, any attachment to sin is a disorder. Homosexuals aren’t “special” or different in having their tendency called a disorder. It’s not discriminatory. All temptations are the result of a disordered appetite for some good thing. Adultery is also disordered. So is fornication. So is masturbation. So is looking at pornography. So is getting drunk. So is stealing or defrauding laborers f their wages. The problem is that homosexuals (understandably) get upset at the notion that Christians (or anyone) thinks they’re doing something wrong.

      Yet you have no problem pointing to some objective standard of your own construction that claims it is wrong for me to believe as I do or act on those beliefs or express them, etc. Doesn’t that strike you as even the slightest bit hypocritical?

      I guess my point is that when many of you speak about Christianity, you become the very things you claim to despise about us.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim
      Jim

      Dr. Simon LeVay, in 1991, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue his research The “Hypothalamus Study”. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. According to a 1992 Newsweek story, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether”. In 2001 Simon LeVay, admitted that the study was inconclusive.

      In 1993 Dr. Dean Hamer at the NCI reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. But Hamer’s study was discredited as both biased and corrupt. Even an article in the same-gender sex magazine, New York Native, was titled: “Gay Gene Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.” And the NIHO alleged that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).

      In October 2003, Dr. Qazi Rahman, Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson said they found sex differences in the eye blink in response to loud noises. The authors found that women blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition. And they themselves introduced cautionary notes in the study: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DanGOP
      DanGOP

      So let me ask you, Marilyn, do you cover your head and stay utterly silent in Church, or do you sing with the congregation? Do you submit to your husband in all things, or, if you are unmarried, what about the most senior male in your family, whether that be your father, or your eldest brother? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibres? How about eating pork or shellfish? If you do any of those things, then, according to the Bible, you are equally as sinful as a gay person who is sexually active. Don’t believe me? Read the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Codes set forth for Levite Priests in Leviticus. Before you seek to defend your “Christian” ethic, if one can even deign to call it that, learn to read the Bible, and obey it fully, yourself.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      In so far as the first article I cited, that is not from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In fact, I never cited the Catholic Encyclopedia or the Summa Theologica. I simply mentioned that they explain the correct understanding of the natural law, and like it or not, some of our justice system is rooted in the natural law, so it is good to understand what it really is, and so far, nobody here has demonstrated anything remotely close to an understanding of it, resulting in a lot of semantical arguments aimed at tearing down straw men.

      The evidence I gave for homosexuality not being harmless was in the statistics about drug use, STD’s, suicide, promiscuity, mental illness, etc. The other link I posted also makes an excellent argument halfway through the article about the ultimate aim of the homosexual rights movement and the nature of homosexual attractions (which the author argues, are ultimately a kind of fetish). The article also cites personal experiences that may or may not resonate with you, but are probably not unheard of, even to you, and which definitely indicate that homosexual activity isn’t harmless.

      Heterosexual activity isn’t always harmless either, I’ll give you that, but the reason it’s not is because when people abuse sex, it hurts them.

      Look, when a person (homosexual or heterosexual) has to be drunk or high to have sex, that’s a problem. Now, how common is that when comparing homosexuals and heterosexuals? [Note: percentage-wise, not numbers-wise, because there are always going to be more heterosexuals, so there will generally be more heterosexuals numbers-wise, but the percentage of heterosexuals and homosexuals may be telling.]

      The same goes for things like sex with minors. More heterosexuals have sex with minors numbers-wise, but if you look at percentages, I think you’ll find the percentages are dramatically different. Does that mean I’m saying all homosexuals are molesters? No, so don’t get your panties in a twist. But you may want to look at the numbers. Here’s one place you can start: http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      DanGOP,

      The moral law never changes. Dogma and doctrine can’t change or contradict what has always been held, otherwise nothing would matter, would it, since it could all be thrown out the window at some point?

      Ceremonial regulations and disciplines can change.

      There are disciplines in the Old Testament which were dispensed in the New Testament by Divine Revelation, but none of those things relaxed any moral laws.

      The New Testament didn’t relax any moral laws. In fact, if anything, things were tightened. Jesus forbade divorce, something Moses allowed. Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The ceremonial laws that were dispensed were replaced by a new law that perfectly fulfilled what the old laws sought to attain, but couldn’t actually accomplish.

      St. Paul and St. Peter both repeat the teaching that homosexual activity is sinful in the New Testament, which means this was a teaching of Christ. Christ didn’t focus on this aspect with the Jews, because it wasn’t an issue for them. They wouldn’t have argued against it.

      It was, however, an issue for Peter and Paul (and the other apostles) whose ministry to pagan nations required them to actually articulate these teachings of Christ.

      Finally, whether or not I am a perfect Christian doesn’t let anyone else off the hook any more than I can be let off the hook in terms of my duties as a Christian.

      I am the first to admit that I’m a sinner, but being a sinner doesn’t justify my sins or yours.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      I do not use drugs. So, I do not need them to have sex. The reason that gay teen suicide is higher is because of people like you Marilyn.
      Do you know that fear of realizing that you are so different and you have tried everything to change but can’t. That being who nature intended you to be can cost you your friends and even your family. Do you have any idea the pain people like you inflict on innocent people? You are shameless.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Life is pain, Alex. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JD
      JD

      You lost all credibility when you got to the link with http://www.catholic.com at the beginning.

      ‘Natural law’? wtf? Is there a book on that?

      Straight people kill each other and give each other (often) deadly diseases (both involving sex and not) in vast numbers. They can never win the argument that they are better than us so they should just shut up and hide.

      Does that last paragraph sound stupid to you? Well try (go on, really try) and understand how stupid you sound to me.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I know a lot of gay men who grow weary of hearing other gay men constantly play the victim card.

      I realize that the homosexual lifestyle isn’t a picnic in the park. I realize you want everyone to agree with you.

      So do I.

      Do you think it’s easy being a Christian? Do you think it’s easy having homosexuals blame you for all their problems?

      Things are tough all over, but life isn’t always fun and games. Some things are hard – for all of us, not just homosexuals.

      Homosexuals may not like having people disagree with them in this country, but their lives aren’t nearly as difficult as the lives of 90% of the people on the planet.

      It’s not that I feel zero sympathy, but having experienced persecution from homosexuals an suffered personal losses because homosexuals had authority over me, I can honestly say that homosexuals can persecute others just as easily as anyone else, and to say otherwise is to ignore reality.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JD
      JD

      “Life is pain”

      Spoken like a true Catholic.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      It was actually a Princess Bride reference.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      The Whore and the Priest
      A Hindu priest lived across the street from a prostitute. Each day as he was going in to do his prayers and meditation, he would see men coming and going from the prostitute’s room. He would see the woman herself greeting them or bidding them farewell. Each day the priest would imagine and ponder the shameful acts that were committed in the whore’s room, and his heart would fill with strong disapproval of the woman’s immorality.
      Each day the prostitute would see the priest at his spiritual practices. She would think how beautiful it must be to be so pure, to spend one’s time in prayer and meditation.
      The priest and the whore died on the same day and stood before judgment together. Much to his astonishment, the priest was condemned for wickedness.
      “But,” he protested, “my life has been one of purity. I have spent my days in prayer and meditation.”
      “Yes,” said judgment, “but while your body was engaged in holy actions, your heart was consumed with vicious judgments and your soul was ravaged by your lustful imagination.”
      The whore was commended for her purity.
      “I do not understand,” she said. “For all my life, I have sold my body to every man who has had the price.”
      “Your life’s circumstance placed you in a whorehouse. You were born there. But while your body was performing unworthy acts, your heart was always pure and forever fixed in contemplation on the purity of the holy man’s prayers and meditations.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DanGOP
      DanGOP

      Marilyn,

      Where to begin to respond to your amusing response. Firstly, you cite NARTH, an organisation that is as disreputable among the medical community as a society that advocated changing one’s skin colour would be. Secondly, you cite to natural law. Let’s not forget that, in the United States, the opinion voiced by Justice Iredell in the Supreme Court case of Calder v. Bull, and vindicated by other, subsequent decisions, was that Natural Law holds no place in American Law. Feel free, please, to advocate in the Church, but know that no place whatsoever exists for so-called “Natural Law” in the laws of the United States.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Marilyn perhaps if you did not seek homosexuals out on their websitess you would not run into this kind of problem. You are really showing your true colors tonight. The difference between this morning and tonight is like that of the old and new testament. Who is playing the victim now?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DanGOP
      DanGOP

      Oh, and I feel obligated to add, the Spanish Crown never sent Christians to their deaths. No, that was the Jews and Muslims.

      And one final comment, the victimised Christian notion is utter crap in this country. Sorry, Christians who wish to impose their worldview upon the Nation are forbidden to do so, just as Atheists who wish to impose their worldview upon the Nation are equally forbidden. Christians are not persecuted in the United States. If you believe that, then I’d hate to see what you think of the reaction to Christianity in Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, India, China or the Sudan.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Telling me to shut-up doesn’t strike you as the slightest bit oppressive?

      Sometimes people try to win arguments by shouting down, demonizing, marginalizing, and even silencing their opposition. News flash: that isn’t winning, it’s oppressing.

      If Christians told you to shut-up, you’d be the first to cry foul.

      I don’t want you to shut-up. I’m not afraid of your beliefs. They don’t threaten me. If anything, they sharpen me, in terms of forcing me to re-evaluate my beliefs, and whether you realize it or not, I am actually paying attention to what you say.

      Most of the responses here don’t seem to indicate a willingness to listen to what I say and discuss it objectively without getting vitriolic and personal. That’s unfortunate.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      I’m not claiming you are victimizing me and I’m not complaining about anything I’ve seen here. Again, these reactions aren’t surprising.

      In so far as the decision about natural law, one decision doesn’t overrule the reality that all laws against murder, regulations determining responsibility due to pre-meditation, and any number of other things in our justice system are, in fact, rooted in the natural law, believe it or not, like it or not.

      In so far as “imposing their worldview”, I’m afraid you’re wrong. Anybody in this country can impose their worldview through their vote for whatever motive they choose, and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

      People can vote for whoever and whatever they want for any reason, whatsoever, even down to whether they think a candidate is more attractive or they like the sound of the persons name.

      Proscriptions against religious beliefs influencing peoples votes are liberal fantasies. They aren’t in the Constitution or any amendments to the Constitution. They don’t exist in civil law and would violate the First Amendment if they were enacted.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      As much as I would like to be angry at you Marilyn, for all of your disguised hate. I can not. You are so lost and you are already mortally wounded inside.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      Marilyn, to quote your own words, Life is Pain. Deal with it. And fuck off. Yes, I am oppressing you. Every single post of yours is vitriolic and personal, albeit hiding behind a facade of false reasoning. You came here with the sole purpose of attacking us. There is no indication in any of your posts of a willingness to learn.

      So fuck off. Get out of our house.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      God still loves you and wants you for Himself. Nothing in this world can compare with what He ahs prepared for those who love Him.

      Nothing is worth losing Him.

      I can easily deal with the things you’ve said, and I don’t hate anyone for having said it.

      Those who’ve sought to silence me do need to realize that they are, in fact, being the very thing they claim to hate.

      Read Romans Chapter 1. You may hate what it says, but many people here have reflected what is said there perfectly.

      The thing is, I do apologize for making people angry. I don’t want to make anyone so angry that they never listen to anyone else just because what I had to say wasn’t said well enough or in a way that was gentle enough, etc.

      I wish you well.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      Trenton wrote:

      “However, I still do not condone a complete rejection of these people.”

      It is not the people but their positions we must reject. Clearly and unambiguously, without hesitation or apology.

      “Reason being, when the day comes that we secure those rights, the better we have communicated and established ourselves as more than heathen hordes leering over their delicious, delicious heterosexual children, the less backlash and the greater peace there will be overalls.”

      We will always be regarded as heathen hordes (if not worse) by those who are inclined to so regard us. Peace will come (as it continues to come here in Canada) with the acceptance (either tacit or total) of same-sex relationships as a distinctive part of the social fabric.

      “As tempting as it is to bulldoze them with the same disregard as we have been shown, it is dangerous, because that animosity and momentum will carry on even after the walls have toppled, and it will only create further tension and strife down the road, I fear.”

      Religious fundamentalists will be with us always; their animosity will never wane, which is why their influence must be undermined and their opinions marginalized. A policy of appeasement will never work, because they will always seek to insinuate their agenda into public policy.

      I condone a complete rejection of the influence of these groups and individuals in the same way as I condone a complete rejection of the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler. There is no fundamental difference. There is no merit whatsoever in even attempting to dialogue with these people; that is the last thing they are interested in, whatever protests to the contrary they might make. People who are *absolutely* and *unequivocally* committed to the position that same-sex marriage ought not be permitted *under any circumstances whatsoever* are, in my opinion, nothing less than demagogues whose methodology is similar to that of the KKK and other hate groups. They will lie, lie, and lie over and over again (always with a smile on their faces, like the representatives of the Family Research Council) in order to further their agenda. Their intentions are purely evil, inspired by the desire to wield absolute theocratic power. If they had the opportunity to exercise such power, they wouldn’t hesitate.

      Do not handle or approach poisonous snakes or other venomous reptiles unless you are prepared to be bitten.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Don’t you see you are advocating treating Christians as vile for disagreeing with you, while accusing them of the same thing and using that as the justification for your actions?

      Don’t you see that comparing Christians with the most loathsome elements in society is a step towards demonizing and marginalizing them which cannot but eventually lead to their oppression and persecution?

      How is that not hypocritical?

      How is that not being the very thing you claim to hate?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RPCV
      RPCV

      Marilyn (or whoever you are), please go away.

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      Ah Marilyn now you are just being boring.

      Chat again tomorrow, eh?

      Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      Marilyn wrote:

      “Don’t you see you are advocating treating Christians as vile for disagreeing with you?”

      Not Christians but fundamentalist religionists who masquerade as what they claim to aspire to. I have many Christian friends and acquaintances whom individuals such as yourself routinely refer to as “pseudo-Christians,” i.e., liberal Protestants like members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the United Church of Christ. I do not advocate treating Christians as vile. I advocate treating the beliefs and opinions of fundamentalist religionists as vile.

      “Don’t you see that comparing Christians with the most loathsome elements in society is a step towards demonizing and marginalizing them which cannot but eventually lead to their oppression and persecution?”

      I see that comparing fundamentalist religionists with the most loathsome elements in society is a (belated) step towards demonizing and marginalizing them which will, hopefully, lead to the minimization of their opinions and their marginalization of their influence.

      “How is that not hypocritical?”

      It’s not hypocritical because liberal interventionists like myself are intolerant of intolerance. We don’t wish to dialogue with our opponents, we wish to marginalize them into utter irrelevance through legal action, political activism, liberal education policies and secular humanist rationalism. We wish to utterly obliterate their influence in modern society. Not unlike what they wish for us. Yes, it’s a crusade and yes, we’re winning. Slowly (incredibly slowly in some places), but surely.

      “How is that not being the very thing you claim to hate?”

      Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it isn’t, but I don’t particularly care. I do care that gay men and lesbians be free to marry the partner of their choice, just as straight men and women are. You aren’t. I guess that’s the difference.

      Anyway, that’s all I have to say, Marilyn. Good night and good luck.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob R
      Bob R

      Marilyn is a patronizing zombie, a religious automaton that has been thoroughly programmed with her religious dogma. She resides in a fantasy world. She clings to it like a security blanket. A truly pathetic creature, unable to think and question doctrine and authority. Her Pope says it’s so and it must be so. As I said in a previous post, trying to debate or reason with such a closed mind is pointless. She’s clearly delusional and believes in myths and superstition. Her arguments about atheism are straw men. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. didn’t murder people in pursuit of any atheistic dogma. They didn’t believe in god, except for perhaps Hitler who felt he was placed on earth by god to do his bidding. Hitler was a Catholic and at one time considered entering the priesthood. These sociopaths didn’t torture or kill people who refused to convert to atheism. They attacked religion because as communists they recognized religion as a capitalistic business, which it is. Religion is big business, a tax free racket that rakes in millions and has stolen even more in art and treasure than any other criminal enterprise.The Catholic church especially is deeply involved in all sorts of capitalistic ventures, many of them less than honest and ethical. Remember the Vatican Banking scandal? Of course the Catholic church supported Hitler and the Pope assisted him covertly to protect church property. The Vatican also aided and assisted many Nazi murderers and war criminals to flee post war Germany, providing money, documents and transportation to South America. The Catholic church fomented violence in Viet Nam and Southeast Asia in the ’50’s and 60’s for business interests. The Catholic church still encourages genocide by preaching condoms don’t help stop the spread of AIDS, so millions in Africa and other poor countries continue to be infected and die. God is a figment of an ignorant mind. He’s a business entity that exists in the feeble minds of the intellectually bankrupt. Marilyn believes men rode dinosaurs like depicted in the Flintstones, the earth is only 2000 years old and she eats the body and drinks the blood of a mythological creature called Jesus. And if you don’t buy into her fantasy, she’ll give you a slight smile and a glassy eyed look and offer to pray for you. Well, Marilyn, Jesus may love you but I think you’re religious whacko.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin Foster
      Kevin Foster

      Marilyn has tried to teach us much, but she forgets this one passage:

      1 Timothy 2:12
      I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

      She insists we follow her Bible, but refuses to follow it herself.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrooklynD
      BrooklynD

      Wow. I totally came to this site to look at pictures of Sean Biloski. Look where I ended up.

      Marilyn wrote: I also believe that all sexual activity within marriage between one man and one woman must be open to the possibility of life and that any deliberate sexual activity which is incapable of producing life by nature (not by accident of nature, like infertility, but by deliberate choice whether by artificial contraception or by the performance of unnatural acts like oral or anal sex). Actions to the contrary are against God’s plan for human sexuality.

      Don’t know what Marilyn is doing here, but it sure makes for a good read. Especially when I realize that every sexual act I’ve engaged in since adolescence was in staunch resistance of procreation.

      I know this is only going to fuel the fire, but masturbation, oral sex, anal sex… It feels GOOD! God, I love my body. And I love other people’s bodies. And I love sharing that intimacy and connection and hot, sweaty action with someone else, or just myself! Whatever. I thank God every day to be alive, to be able to breath and laugh and love.

      All my sexual acts… no procreation. And yet, while I don’t have any kids, I feel like I’ve created plenty and continue to create. Every orgasm is a little, “Thanks God for this body, this life, this opportunity to explore my humanity.” Seriously.

      Marilyn, keep it coming. This perspective is just what I need for the drag show I’m creating about the life of a 16 year old Catholic schoolgirl from Pennsylvania. And please don’t feel attacked by this, but your husband must be a saint ’cause you sound like a total bore in the sack! (And I have to wonder if you’re going to print this entire thread out and post it in your church bulletin.)

      Gents, I apologize if I’ve just continued the stereotype and given substance to the insubstantial…

      But for God’s sake, Life ain’t pain… it’s pleasure. Spread some love.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil S.
      Phil S.

      Even Jesus lost his faith right before the end. He believed, and yelled out for all to hear:

      (Matthew 27:46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

      If Jesus was incapable of keeping his faith at all times, why should mankind be expected to have a more perfect faith than Jesus?

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin Foster
      Kevin Foster

      Interesting! If Jesus believed that God had forsaken him, even for one second, then — quite clearly — Jesus did at least momentarily lose his faith in God. Obviously, not having faith in God is the same thing as not believing in God . So, Jesus broke the first commandment, and that’s an unforgivable mortal sin!

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil S.
      Phil S.

      Exactly right. If God is without sin, and Jesus sinned at least once, it follows that Jesus cannot be God. If there is to be a Savior in the human person of God, He has not yet come.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin Foster
      Kevin Foster

      Christianity, according to the New Testament itself proves to be a false religion. The logic is inescapable.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 2:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      Her fangs drip with venom, yet she feels so sorry for making people angry.

      She’s so brave … and so anonymous. Why not post a link, lady? I do. Anyone wants to know who I am, friend or foe, they can find out.

      What are you afraid of? A bunch of angry fags? God loves you (heh). He’ll protect you. You’re only doing his work.

      Or do you have doubts that what you’re doing is the right thing. Is that the reason you hide your identity?

      Show your face.

      Or fuck off.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 2:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jean Omicinski
      Jean Omicinski

      The “studies” Marilyn quotes were all done by the Dr. Paul Cameron. Do a Wikipedia search on him. He advocated tattooing AIDS patients on the face and sending them all to a desert island to die of thirst and starvation. And, if that didn’t rid the world of AIDS, Dr. Cameron suggested that we might need to exterminate all homosexuals. Marilyn conveniently does not include THOSE quotes.

      “At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” – Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

      To support her arguments, Marilyn is quoting a man who if he had his way, would happily have had our government kill more people than even Hitler ever dreamed of! If America has 300,000,000 people, and only 2% are GLBT, that’s SIX MILLION murders! A crime equal to Hitlers! THIRTY MILLION if the US GLBT population is 10%! And worldwide, if the GLBT population is 10%, we’re talking about a man who advocated the MURDER of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE! More than 1/3 the entire population of the United States!

      I find it very difficult to think of someone who tries to spread the views of Paul Cameron to be human, much less a Christian. Really, Marilyn, if you want to make the world a better place, I suggest you give serious thought to jumping off a high cliff.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 2:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete S.
      Pete S.

      Jean, your math is a bit off. Six billion divided by 10 is six hundred million. Cameron had no moral qualms about murdering SIX HUNDRED MILLION people, a crime 100 times worse than Adolph Hitler’s and equivalent to murdering every man, woman, and child in the US twice! In terms of ambition alone, Cameron is perhaps the worst monster to ever walk this earth.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 3:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      If we gay guys have the brain of straight women we are actually straight women in a man’s body who love other straight women in a man’s body?

      So we are not gay because we have a straight brain!

      We are actually a unique sex! Cool!

      Jun 17, 2008 at 6:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      This is an interesting debate, and hats off to Marilyn for conducting her side in such a civilized fashion, especially in the face of some vituperative rhetoric from the opposition. Marilyn, I don’t think you come across as homophobic (people, if you want to experience real homophobia, try Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, David Daubenmire, the utterly evil Fred Phelps, or Linda Harvey — some of these also deny that they are homophobic, but the difference between their way of expressing themselves and Marilyn’s is considerable). Marilyn, I agree with you: there can be no convincing the churches that interpret the Bible at all literally on this question. The relevant verses are quite clear, and attempts to explain them away are specious, in my opinion. I think the argument for gay rights must be a secular one — the right to religious freedom. The Catholic church opposes divorce, but the law in various countries allows it, because other people are allowed to differ with the church over what is morally acceptable; especially as in this case, no-one, with the possible exception of the divorcing parties and their children, is harmed. Similarly with gay rights, including gay marriage: religious gay people must interpret the Bible differently from the evangelical or Catholic interpretations; and many gay people (like me, for example) are not religious. So, as it is a matter of religious freedom (including the right not to be religious), and as homosexuality harms no-one except (perhaps) those who willingly participate in it (I’m not talking about child molestation, which is a form of rape, and is practised by straights as well), then allowing gay rights is on a par with allowing the secular authorities to grant divorces.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 6:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      Dear Andy,

      all religions are man-made and have the aim to enslave the sheeple so that they will willingly work for the creator of the created religion. All organized religion is evil as it enslaves human beings, makes them less so that a few sick creatures can be more!

      Religion, the money-lending business, the industrial-military-pharmaceutical complex etc., are all branches of the same company owned by people of a certain ethnicity.

      The bible (a collection of writings by man), by the way, has been translated 5432 time at least.

      If you are not afraid of the TRUTH please watch this:

      zeitgeistmovie.com

      A real eye opener.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 6:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      Dear Peter

      I agree with you 100%. I am very anti-religion myself, but this was not the point I was making in my post.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 6:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      Dear Any,

      I am sorry, I went off half-cocked (blush). The zeitgeistmovie.com is still great though.

      Have a nice day! x

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      Just to make my position as clear as possible: if as a Catholic you tolerate secular divorce, then you should tolerate gay rights, including the right to marry; if you oppose gay rights, then you should be opposing the divorce laws with equal fervor.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @ Peter Pan (124) — Zeitgeist hasn’t reached the screens here in South Africa, but I’ll watch out for it in the video shops. Sounds like my kind of movie.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Andy,

      Just because I tell you that I wish you dead in a soft and soothing voice does not negate that fact that I still want you dead.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 10:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      @ Andy –

      Just go to zeitgeistmovie.com and you can watch or download it for free! It’s BRILLIANT!

      Jun 17, 2008 at 11:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      Ew! TWO mentions of “Zeitgeist”? Piece of filth on film. AND inaccurate. “The Federal Reserve is about as federal as Federal Express.” Yeah, when the President appoints all of FedEx’s board members and when Congress has scheduled oversight meetings with them, I’ll be more convinced. Really blows people’s minds to feed them a bunch of BS about politics and a bunch of pseudotheology and propagandistic, sliced-up religious history and interpretations of the Bible that make the golden calf into a metaphor for the constellation Taurus. Gross.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      @ The Banania Blogger

      I think you might have things ‘arse about face’ re Zeitgeist! Probably on purpose?! The film is BRILLIANT and an eye opener to many.

      See, now there are three mentions of Zeitgeist…

      You could also go to http://www.brasschecktv.com/ if you want to know more truths…

      Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      There’s nothing brilliant or eye-opening about it. It’s the film experience for the Ron Paul supporter: Shocked by half-truths and distortions of facts, indignant over inaccuracies, unaware of contexts, and hopelessly overhyped on the Internet.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn

      Christ forbid divorce and remarriage. He didn’t forbid divorce, per se.

      A validly contracted marriage is indissoluble. I would tolerate civil divorce in circumstances where physical safety or mental health required a complete separation from the abusive spouse for the sake of the other spouse and/or any children.

      However, Christians in such circumstances would not be free to remarry, in keeping with Christ’s teaching that divorce and remarriage is essentially adultery.

      So supporting the ability to get a divorce isn’t a compromise of Christian values, because divorce isn’t a sin, per se, if there is a sufficiently grave reason for the separation. It’s remarriage that creates the adultery, and in in the case of remarriage, that adultery is essentially a lifestyle choice.

      I don’t tolerate any laws which violate the moral law and/or create structures of sin within society. I may not be able to change them, but I don’t have to support them and I can vote against them.

      The “intolerant of intolerance” thing is an amusing internal contradiction. It speaks volumes about the logic that propels such thoughts and the actions that flow from it. It’s pure, unadulterated hypocrisy, masquerading as enlightened thinking and an example of becoming the very thing you claim to hate. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

      Jesus didn’t doubt or deny God’s existence. Jesus is God. As God, He knew all things and couldn’t doubt His own existence or any other truth, because He knew these things with certainty.

      As God, Jesus was incapable of sin. So nothing he did was sinful, ever. Any example offered of Jesus “sinning” involves ridiculous, wishful thinking on the part of the one offering the example.

      Jesus was quoting one of the Psalms, Psalm 22, one which would have been familiar to the Jews standing around Him on the cross. The Psalm was essentially a prophecy of the crucifixion and basically described the scene being witnessed by those persecuting Christ on the cross. Those who heard Jesus utter the beginning of that Psalm could not have helped noticing the similarities between the Psalm and what they were seeing.

      The Psalm isn’t an expression of doubt, denial, or rejection of God. Reading it through to the end shows that. Expressing the appearance or feeling of abandonment by God isn’t a sin anyway. Feelings and perceptions aren’t sins, it’s how we act on them that is or isn’t sinful.

      Here it is: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm22.htm

      I have to go to work, but may check back tonight.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      The Banania Blogger said ‘There’s nothing brilliant or eye-opening about it. It’s the film experience for the Ron Paul supporter: Shocked by half-truths and distortions of facts, indignant over inaccuracies, unaware of contexts, and hopelessly overhyped on the Internet.’

      Nonsense! I’m glad Zeitgeist got to you, even though you seem to have failed to grasp the whole truth. Or maybe you are an affected party and grasp the truth only too well?

      Keep watching. There is MUCH more where that one came from. Enjoy!

      BTW: I love brasschecktv.com.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      “Affected party”? Doesn’t that movie make everyone an affected party of their imaginary conspiracy against everyone? As an academic, yes, I do understand all too well – that “Zeitgeist” is baloney.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      What is this insanity? Are the people supposedly carrying on an “intelectual debate”
      with this nut bag Marilyn at all sure that they are just being lead on by her claims none of which rely on anything but faith: may as well listen to Micky Mouse. She truely is a right wing bimbo and doesn’t deserve your time.

      Your act as if there might be some validity to anything that she says. She just need to get laid. As do you in likelihood. You just got a good lesson in how these dingbats opperate. look at how much time you wasted in a self hating enterprise.

      You can see why some dictators get tired of listening to this Catholic crap trap. They can go on forever saying nothing. Imagine being her husband

      Jun 17, 2008 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Meeg
      Meeg

      Interesting, I think left-handed men have brain patterns more like women as well.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RPCV
      RPCV

      Marilyn, please assume the proper role of women in society. You are a second class citizen who should walk behind men and, when told to do so, shut the fuck up.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Banania Blogger
      The Banania Blogger

      RPCV, now *that* is some Catholic thinking!

      Jun 17, 2008 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Super Cat
      Super Cat

      There is no non-objective viewpoint. Everyone views the world from a diffrent perspective. None of us have the level of insight to decide what ethics and morals are correct and what are misguided. All we can do is live our lives as best we can and respect each other. All I know is that two adults of the same sex living together and loving each other does not hurt anyone.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      @ Banana Blogger who said ‘“Affected party”? Doesn’t that movie make everyone an affected party of their imaginary conspiracy against everyone? As an academic, yes, I do understand all too well – that “Zeitgeist” is baloney.’

      As an academic(!) I know very well that people once thought that the earth was flat (it isn’t, you know, just in case you are still wondering)!

      I am sure people are able to decide for themselves what the truth is. If you think the movie is ‘baloney’, that’s your prerogative!

      I believe the Zeitgeist Movie at zeitgeist.com is a real eye opener regarding the truth how the world is being enslaved by a few greedy, heartless psychopaths, who think this planet belongs to them! ‘Up yours!’ I say to them!

      Enjoy watching.

      Jun 17, 2008 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      Sorry, the URL for the Zeitgeist Movie is zeitgeistmovie.com

      Jun 17, 2008 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter Pan
      Peter Pan

      @ Super Cat ‘All I know is that two adults of the same sex living together and loving each other does not hurt anyone.’

      Especially not when both are very careful! :)

      Jun 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @ Marilyn # 132 — So, Marilyn, do you spend as much time on dating sites, flaming divorced people who want to remarry, as you do here, warning us of our sin? Do you picket clothing stores that sell polyester blend suits, in flagrant contradiction of Leviticus 19:19? Do you go round the countryside admonishing farmers who breed hybrid cattle, in defiance of the same verse? Or is homosexuality somehow specially wicked?

      PS: I grow tomatoes and basil together _in the same windowbox_! Pray for my lost soul!

      Jun 18, 2008 at 3:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      Wow, Marilyn needs to get f***ed more often. She might have less time to worry about dumb stuff she shouldn’t worry about and be a generally happier person.

      Jun 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.