News yesterday that a group of 700 conservative clergies in the U.S. and Canada have voted to split from the Episcopal Church is the latest and deepest rift yet in the Anglican Communionâs fight over the issue of gay unions and clergy.
For me, this story is personal. Iâve been a fairly active member of the Church my whole life and yesterdayâs schism has me feeling confused, disappointed and even, as a gay person, also a little guilty.
The newly formed Anglican Church of the U.S. is the latest move by conservative church leaders to force the Episcopal Church of the United States to shift rightward. In 2003, the church famously approved the ordination of openly-gay New Hampshire bishop Gene Robinson and also began recognizing gay unions, though officially it no longer permits priests to perform the riteâeven though many continue to do so. Conservative church leadersĂÂ in the U.S. began affiliating their congregations with African dioceses as a way to protest the churchâs embrace of LGBT people.
This summer, with the global church increasingly dominated by conservatives, especially in Africa, where the religion is experiencing its biggest growth, the worldwide community issued a statement that basically told the U.S. Church that itâs continued embrace of LGBT people put it at odds with the greater church. This being Anglicanism, though- â it was done extremely politiely.
Being raised in the Church, Iâve always been proud of its egalitarian qualities. Formed the Church of England in 1533 as a way for Henry the VII to divorce Catherine of Aragon, the Church is about as democratic as a Christian religion can be. It has no official head, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently Rowan Williams, being the closest thing: a âfirst among equals.â The Church with its belief that human reason and intelligence has as much a place at the altar as scripture and creed does kept me interested throughout high school and I have great memories of serving as an acolyte at my church, going on camping trips and doing puppet shows for challenged kids through my youth group and learning about both the historical and liturgical traditions of my faith.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Iâve always wondered if the reason I donât harbor a lot of the dismissive anger that many gay people hold towards Christianity is because the Church I grew up in didnât seem to have any problem with gays and lesbians. When the son of our youth group leader came out, nobody batted an eye and I remember a trip to Toronto where my parents took us to Church on Sunday only to realize half-way through the service that the congregation was primarily gay men.ĂÂ When people argue that Christians are instinctively and reflexively homophobic, I feel compelled to argue that in my experience, itâs just simply not true.
In recent years, my attendance at Church has slipped. Partly, itâs the hectic lifestyle I lead, but partly itâs because of the increasing schism happening in my Churchâ and the strange sense that itâs people like me whoâs at the heart if it. Itâs awkward having your spiritual family fight over you. I take a lot of pride in the fact that the Episcopal Church hasnât backed down and reversed its support for gays and lesbians, despite all the pressure thatâs been put on it. It was heartening to see the Church release a statement yesterday that read:
âWe will not predict what will or will not come out of this meeting but simply continue to be clear that the Episcopal Church, along with the Anglican Church of Canada and La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, comprise the official, recognized presence of the Anglican Communion in North America.
And we reiterate what has been true of Anglicanism for centuries â that there is room within the Episcopal Church for people with different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ.â
Itâs the whole gay marriage debate write small: The clergies which are departing the Church have decided that they can not live in a world of multiple viewpoints and ideas. Itâs strange to me that they choose dogma over fellowship, that they would rather be alone with their beliefs than to be part of a wider community.
The gay community is founded on diversity, but how do we teach that to a wider audience? How do we explain that the sometimes uncomfortable contradictions and disagreements we live with make us collectively a richer people than if we all stood in the corner clutching on to our own sacred cows?
It seems lately that weâve reached the point of no going back. Be it over Prop 8 or gay adoption or gay clergy, there are those willing to accept diversity and tolerance and there are those who wonât.ĂÂ Do we abandon the people who wonât listen and dismiss them just as they have dismissed us, or is there another way? How do you love someone who tells you that your love is wrong?
Joe Moag
Great post, Japhy. I hope that people will learn a little about the difference between a church and its’ central, official – and political – authrorities, and the rest of a church, which is its people and its histories. As a Catholic, I get sickened (daily) by the Vatican and its diocesesan henchmen. But, I also know that there is a hell of a lot more to the Catholic church than just that B.S. I come from a Franciscan and Jesuit background, my dad having been a Franciscan monk when he was very young. My parents are devout left/liberals and Catholic. In my life, that has never been a contradiction, as we have always known that there is a whole lot more to Catholicism than the Pope, that there is a hell of a lot more to Episcopalianism than the Anglican schism, and a hell of a lot more to the United States than George Bush. To castigate all for the idiocy and hate of some is assinine.
ChicagoJimmy
Embracing diversity requires a belief that diversity is good. This seems antithetical to the basic belief systems taught by organized religions whose sole purpose, it seems to me, is to segregate people into believers and non-believers. Those are very black and white categories with little wiggle room for differences of ideas.
The problem isn’t god, but rather the people who run these organizations. How do they decide that the abomination of homosexuality is enough to split up a church, while the abomination of eating shellfish, certain birds, insects other than beetles and grasshoppers, and snakes isn’t quite enough to cause a schism?
Joe Moag
@ChicagoJimmy: That’s a good point, and, actually, that’s what causes Schisms. That’s what has caused the multiple, multiple schisms in the Catholic church over the centuries, 1st to Franciscanism, then on and on, then caused the Protestant reformation, then, under Protestantism, has caused one Batptist alignment after another, on and on.
It’s always, at its heart, a battle between power, theoology, philosophy, and, conservativism vs. liberalism.
And it will always be thus…
Darth Paul
The gay community is founded on diversity, but how do we teach that to a wider audience?
We start with ourselves. People tend to see litte but white liberal youth worshipping in our media, so a leftist fetish club is all they’re going to accept as “gay community”.
Bruno
It almost sounds like a child who blames himself for his parents’ divorce. It’s just simply in no way your fault, and one of your “parents” is acting immaturely.
Darth Paul
Also, screw churches. Grow a pair and take your spirituality into your own hands. Since the Chashashin, there hasn’t been a much of a queer spirituality movement (Dianic wiccan sisters not included, of course) that isn’t a pitifully watered down version of what’s already out there.
cellardoor
As a gay Episcopalian (sort of) myself, I appreciate this post. I’ve always found myself in an awkward position among many of my other gay friends who have deserted their religious ties, and a church that can’t decide what to do with me. I was never incredibly spiritual anyway, so I just have been waiting things out on the sidelines for a while. But at some point I will have to decide whether to rejoin the arena.
DistinguĂŠ Traces
Sigh … I gots to get my lazy ass back in the pew. I’m an unappreciative gay Episcopalian — here they are schisming over me, and I’m sleeping in on Sundays …
ask ena
I wonder if there are any atheists out there (organized or otherwise) who have issues with gay and lesbian rights, particularly gay marriage. Can anyone possibly be against this so called “re-definition” of marriage from a non-organized religious point of view? I know this is a side track…
As a jewish-raised atheist myself, I believe there are common ethical practices which transcend religious values. Courtesy, respect, empathy, to name a few.
GranDiva
@ask ena:
There do appear to be some atheists out there who take a slightly Christianist view that being gay makes no sense in the context of evolution…
Speaking for myself, I prefer the Tralfamadorian view of human sexuality. Vonnegut works for me.
GranDiva
To wit:
dfrw
Much ado about nothing.
Charles Merrill
This is a step in the right direction towards secularism which will eventually lead to no religion at all. Modern science says gays shouldn’t be changed that it is totally natural for some people. Religon says we can change and we should convert to their way of thinking.
Joe Moag
@Charles Merrill: I should have my head examined for even getting into this, but, hey, I’m nuts, so here I go:
There are PLENTY of “modern scientists” who will explain to you that homosexuality is a deleterious allele, vis-a-vis phenotype, and that the resultant ramifications from that allele, and its negative consequences for reproduction, “harm” the species, due to the fact that it leads to a “culling” of healthy, adult reproductive-aged individuals from the pool of potentially reproducing members of the species.
Dumbing that down for you, what they mean is that, biologically speaking (you know, “modern scientifically speaking”), homosexuality is an evolutionary “dead end”, as the act of homosexuality, in and of itself, does not lead to reproduction. Nice, huh?
At the same time, there are PLENTY of religious leaders and people of faith – across all faiths – that fight and fight HARD for understanding that God loves all and God makes no mistakes and that gay people are God’s children and deserve every single last mother fucking ounce of equality, respect and love as any other of God’s children.
I would not, if I were to offer you advice, put all my eggs in either a secular or religious basket. You may not be happy with the other eggs next to yours, either way you go.
Ted C.
@Ask Ena:
There are plenty of homophobic atheists out there. Like, uh, my dad.
Charles J. Mueller
@ask ena:
As a Catholic raised atheist who was pretty much over it by the time I got thrown out of Sunday School for “disrupting the class” with logical questions like, how does one breathe in the stomach of a whale, I can tell you that of the str8 atheist friends I know, not one of them has a problem with gay people or their wanting to get married.
And why should it? It does not go against any books that they read nor have they been systematically brainwashed into believing the lies and bullshit stories contained in the bible and similar clap-trap nonsense and dogma that people are willing to fight to the death over to prove. How many wars have been and continue to be fought on this planet in the the name of religion?
“Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war…
with the cross of Jesus flowing on before.”…
You get the idea.
That college educated, highly intelligent people, in the 21st century, no less, people who have access to the media, the Internet, the sciences and such a vast plethora of information, can be so easily duped into hanging up everything they have learned on the coat rack, each and every Sunday morning, to chat “Amen” to everything the idiot priest, whatever, has to say, just blows me out of the water.
Religion brought nothing but grief and unhappiness to my grandparents and my own parents as well. My mother made my father’s life a living hell because the Catholic Church would not allow her to divorce my father so he could get on with his life.
MY father was a Protestant who had to convert to Catholicism in order to marry my mother in the first place. What right did the Catholic Church have to put a ball and chain on my father’s foot for the rest of his life just because he happened to fall in love with a Catholic?
Creationism. A six-thousand old earth. Sky daddies. Sky pixies. Hosts of Angels. Virgin mothers. A Miraculous Conception (that’s your first clue right there that these religious wing-nuts have a problem with sex). Fatherless sons. Living in a whales’ stomach (and surviving it). The great flood. Noah’s ark. Parting the seas. Performing miracles. Rising from the dead. Ascending to heaven. Being born again. On and on and on with no end.
Has anyone ever heard of such a collection of unprovable hogwash to equal the above? And these people were real serious about making sure that everyone “gets” it.
The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition and the brutalizing of heretics. The Salem witch hunts. The garroting. The hangings. The stonings. The beatings. The burnings. The crushing of legs. The tearing of flesh off of bodies. The mutilation and destruction of genitalia (both male and female) The rack, the brazier and branding irons and a fabulous collection of torture instruments that would be the envy of any practitioner of bdsm. Look any of this up in the Internet if you don’t believe it. Disgusting and sickening.
And you, the worshipers, who believe that God is looking out over everyone, while six-million jews were allowed to be herded off to the gas ovens, not to mention the 10 thousand or so gays who were also exterminated; the genocide that is still carried out systematically in many parts of the world; what say you of all this?
How do you explain the apparent un-caringness of a God who doesn’t seem to give a good fuck, one way or the other way rather than put a stop to it all. An all powerful God, who chooses to look the other way while all is going on but keeps a wary eye over you and your Christopher statue on the dashboard of your car to make sure you arrive home without injury, just be cause you “believe”?
And what of all those who do “believe”, who get raped, robbed, beaten and murdered, get killed in car crashes and die horrible deaths of horrendous diseases? They didn’t believe strongly enough…or often enough. What? What?
Lord spare me from God-fearing people. I say that facetiously, of course. None of my Atheist friends give me any of the grief that the Churches, Clans, Cliques, spell-weavers, Voo-Doo practitioners and other believers in the world of imaginary beings and friends give me.
The world that I would like to live in, is the one that John Lenon conjured up in his heart-touching song “Imagine”.
Wouldn’t you know. Someone killed him just for imagining what the world would be like without a heaven or a hell.
Imagine that!
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
Would you be so good as to provide us with the name of the “Modern scientist” from whom you lifted that particular copy and paste job, and his credentials as well?
Obviously, he is not a member of the American Psychiatric Association whose views on homosexuality are diametrically opposed to those you just quoted.
Charles J. Mueller
@Japhy:
You posed the question:
“What Do You Do When Your Church Schisms Over You?”
For me, the answer would be quite simple.
Get the fuck out of it and…
get the fuck over it…
And let them knock themselves out arguing over it.
It’s NOT your problem. It’s THEIRS.
ask ena
@GranDiva:
Sex in the fourth dimension, eh? Is that sort of like getting a hummer in the last train of the express subway between two really distant stops?
Kid A
@Charles J. Mueller: charles, you had me until you started telling people to get the “fuck over it.” I’m a non-believer myself, but what Japhy and other have experienced can be a lot to deal with (I’ve been there too). Atheists tend to be their own worst enemies by browbeating. I’d rather discuss ideas, and when atheists are rude, it opens the door for others to say that we’re terrible people.
troyboi
I have been going through the same struggle with the church in which i grew up. My church used to keep its conflicts internal; away from public scrutiny.
10 years ago, when the Methodist Church decided to make public its struggle with gay ministers and gay marriage, i asked my pastor why the church had, uncharacteristically, abandoned its “open hearts, open minds” teachings by aggressively and publicly attacking an active and essential part of its congregation. I asked him to give me a reason why i should stay in a church that, all of a sudden, wasn’t quite sure i was worthy of its blessings. He, basically, told me the church board was old and set in their traditional ways and that if i just held on, they would die and a more progressive board would take its place.
Ten years later and i guess those fuckers are still alive.
Alex
Joe Moag: “There are PLENTY of “modern scientists” who will explain to you that homosexuality is a deleterious allele, vis-a-vis phenotype, and that the resultant ramifications from that allele, and its negative consequences for reproduction, “harm” the species, due to the fact that it leads to a “culling” of healthy, adult reproductive-aged individuals from the pool of potentially reproducing members of the species.”
Firstly, an allele is a variation of a specific gene, for instance the gene for blue eyes is an allele for eye colour. Homosexuality is not tied to a specific gene, it is a complex behavioural variation which seems to have environmental and genetic components, and thus an allele for homosexuality is meaningless. There may be genes that predispose a person to homosexuality, and so there may be alleles that correlate with homosexuality, but there is no allele for homosexuality.
Secondly, while homosexuality may have negative consequences for a species evolutionary fitness, the fact that it occurs in most birds and mammals indicates that at low incidence rates it isn’t a very strong negative effect. If it where the incidence of homosexuality would be closer to that of cystic fibroses.
Thirdly, no scientist worth their lab coat would confuse evolutionary adaptation with moral correctness. Even if homosexuality has negative evolutionary effects, that doesn’t mean that we should persecute homosexuals in any way.
Now within any group there is going to be a few nut jobs, but my experience has been that science, scientists, and science students has been significantly less homophobic, and growing less homophobic faster, than the Abrahamic religions.
Mark in Indiana
Go Charles Mueller–and, I have to say, there’s nothing so special about an addiction to religion that saying “get the fuck over it” is a faux pas…jesus is just like cigarettes to some people, and until I quit smoking, I sure heard that I was supposed to get the fuck over that. Seemed like sound advice, so I like to pay it forward.
james ii
as a catholic who also is disgusted with the anti-gay and right-wing actions of the Church on a daily basis, i have been thinking about joining the episcopalians, because of its inclusiveness but also since it seemed the closest thing to catholicism than other christian churches. this causes me to pause, but i still think i am headed to the episcopalians. the catholics don’t want me or my kind, fine.
niles
It will be so special when the congregants of this new church realize that they have gay children and will have to banish them. This is just too bizarre, basing one’s entire religion on the fear and hatred of one particular (and relatively small) group of people – the scary gays. too bizarre.
Bill Perdue
Religion is the enemy. The schismatic anglo catholics and their big brothers in the roman catholic cult, whose ideas are a carryover of the howling madness of the Dark Ages, are among our worst enemies. Only the ayatollahs are worse because they actively murder GLBT folks. The not so former NAZI Ratzinger and anglican grand poobah akinola differ from the ayatollahs only in their ability to harm us, not their intent.
To the degree that anyone accepts the superstition and ignorance of religious groups about GLBT life they’re accepting self denigration. Joe Moag exhibited a particularly rancid case of falling for the idiocies of superstition. If he wants to adopt a superstiious lifestyle and pretend that he’s related to the sky gods that’s fine but he shouldn’t rub it in our faces.
There are some religious groups which no longer persecute us and I suppose that’s something in their favor but they’re still based on superstition, mythology, and ignorance. TheyââŹâ˘re antiscientific and anti-humanist. They have no value.
Ted C.
@Bill Perdue:
Religion is not the enemy.
Yeah, there are a lot of assholes and bigots who try to use their religion as justification for bad things. But there are also a lot of kind, charitable people who credit their religion as a positive inspiration.
And if you took religion away from those assholes and bigots, they’d still be assholes and bigots. Nothing would change.
CaM
@Joe Moag/Alex:
Yeah, homosexuality is likely a multifactorial trait (many genes and their interactions with the environment contribute to the phenotype). The allele combination (across the loci involved) which predisposes one to homosexuality may contribute to lower reproductive fitness for the individual (the “dead end” which was mentioned). However, when those alleles are not in that particular combination they may impart a significant fitness advantage. Only when those alleles are in that combination is it deleterious to the individual. The reason those alleles persist in the population is their fitness advantage when not in that combination.
In a suboptimal analogy, this is like a game involving rolling five dice (each representing a hypothetical locus contributing to homosexuality) and where your score (reproductive fitness) is the total. Except, when you roll all 6s, you only get 1 point (say this is the homosexual combination). The 6s are all very beneficial except in the combination (which happens rarely).
Now, to address the deleterious allele argument. Even if homosexuality were a single locus trait (highly unlikely), the scientist that says this “harms” the species is not thinking with a wide enough scope. There are several scenarios of why this doesn’t harm the species. Why is it assumed that the allele will always lead to homosexuality (remember: phenotype = genotype x environment!)? For instance, in most cases the environment may influence the carrier to be heterosexual but with a higher reproductive fitness. The effect could be sex-specific: in a female, the allele may impart a reproductive benefit but could lead to homosexuality when homozygous in males (for an example of this, read Camperio-Ciani et al., 2004). The reproductive fitness disadvantage in the males would be balanced against the fitness advantage in females leading to a persistence of the allele in the population at a low frequency. Those are just two of many possible scenarios.
Finally, I’d like to echo what Alex said about not deriving moral values from evolutionary biology. I can’t think of one legitimate scientist that would do that. Because something imparts a reproductive fitness disadvantage does not mean it is “bad.”
Ref:
Camperio-Ciani,A., Corna, F., and Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271: 2217-2221.
Charles J. Mueller
@Kid A:
Oh…like religious people are never rude?
Charles J. Mueller
@Kid A:
.”it opens the door for others to say that we’re terrible people.”
Yep yep. You should never say the word “shit”… even if you have a mouthful.
Charles J. Mueller
@Charles J. Mueller:
And of course, we certainly wouldn’t want others to stop saying all those nice things they have been saying about us, would we?
Charles J. Mueller
@Ted C.:
>”And if you took religion away from those assholes and bigots, they’d still be assholes and bigots. Nothing would change.”
Au contraire, Monsieur.
Take religion away from those assholes and bigots and they would no longer have an excuse or a cover for their blatant bigotry and would be taken to task for it as well they should be.
Religion is nothing but a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for people like this. Religion is an enabler that allows them to get away with lies, deceit, treachery and mental, physical and sexual abuse.
They are nothing more than criminals who hide beneath their holy vestments and under the long arm of the Church to protect them from the legal prosecution that they are so deserving of.
Because they are the self-appointed “holy” people, they believe that they can get away with any God-Damned thing they want to and justify it by invoking God’s name to make it right. They spit at secular law while claiming that they must account to a higher authority.
I say bullshit! You screw little altar boys, you go directly to jail, you fucking pervert!
It’s ok for them to fuck around with children, but we are told by these same people that we, as adults, cannot marry whom we choose?
Who gave them the fucking power, I ask? And why are we letting them get away with this shit?
I am royally pissed, God Damn it, and I wish the fuck the rest of my brothers and sisters would get as pissed as I am instead of always taking the side of the fucking church and telling the rest of us to show respect and cool.
This is war, damn it. Pull the stops out and stop trying to fight a battle with one hand tied behind our backs.
Either we are losers or we are winners? Which shall it be?
Bill Perdue
@Ted C.:
Religion most certainly is the enemy. It’s been the biggest block to human progress and decency for millennia. As the man says at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ it’s humankinds greatest tragedy.
Religion is ignorance and unscientific. Religionists can and do believe 10 unfathomable and unsubstantiated myths and dogmas before their first cup of copy gets them really going. They can count pixies on the head of a pin and think The Exorcist is a documentary.
Religion is bigotry and murder Their toxic hatred for us goes back centuries. Festering and growing in a Dark Ages garden of horrors, their sanctimonious and deeply hysterical bigotry has had one common denominator throughout the ages ââŹâ itââŹâ˘s a money maker. In the Dark Ages we were killed on the pretext that we ââŹËoffendedââŹâ˘ the beliefs of ââŹËholyââŹâ˘ men, whoââŹâ˘d then help themselves to our assets. Today theyââŹâ˘re still well paid for their bigotry. TheyââŹâ˘re masters of the art of embezzling government charity and misusing tax loopholes.
Scandal and criminality arenââŹâ˘t rare in the history of the roman cultists, and they always strive to stifle discussion about their past. For centuries they burned both the books that exposed them and their authors. However the Age of Revolutions combined with the relentless development of secular culture and science has undermined their clout and now people arenââŹâ˘t frightened by them.
But from the Dark Ages until well into the 19th century, the world was afraid. It watched in utter horror as the awful meaning of the word ââŹËfaggotââŹâ˘ was seared into peoples minds. One of the roman cults holiest observances is the Auto Da Fe (Act of the Faith). A calculated mix of pomp, solemnity, and horror, it combines superstition and ceremony to edify the faithful with an early taste of hell. It began with a procession of victims, and sermons about their evil ways. To get the attentions of the faithful and focus their thoughts, the victimââŹâ˘s faces were scorched. This was followed by more torture, and finally the victims were burned alive.
Attendance was compulsory. During these gruesome rituals we were murdered, because our lives were ââŹËsinful and offensiveââŹâ˘. We joined Jews, ââŹËwitchesââŹâ˘, heretics, rationalists, and occasionally just unlucky families with enough money to attract the interest of Inquisitors. In the light of the burning faggots people clearly saw a brutal warning; think long and hard before testing Holy Mother the Church, Inc. These ruthless lessons were provided by a church drenched, then as now, in scandal and corruption.
Religion is about raping little boys and girls. And Mueller is right – itââŹâ˘s always been about raping boys, burning us, and killing anyone rich enough and weak enough to be victimized. DonââŹâ˘t kid yourself about religion having any redeeming values because it doesnââŹâ˘t.
The Gay Numbers
GAY AS BIOLOGY
Here’s the thing homsexuality in nature mostly appears to be a beneficial trait for survival. It seems counter intuitive, but it’s true. We must realize that God does not play with dice. If it appears in nature, it’s therefore a reason. this is not a like a disease which are often relatively simple constructs when compared tow hat we are talking about here. We are in all likelihood talking about something that involves genetics, pre natal brain chemistry, and after birth factors. None of which are easy to understand or address, but all of which can contribut to biological determination.
There are a plenty of traits that may at first seem counter intuitive as survival mechanism, but nevertheless, are. Rember the goal in genetics is survival of the species. Even procreation is understood incorrectly due to cultral lenses. It’s not survivial of the individual or even a particular family line. It’s surivival of the entire species and all of the biology related to it. this is the basic law of evolution.
Take the instinct in nature of self sacrifice. Yes, there is a biological component in which members of other species will self sacrifice. They do it for the continuation of the young. So what may at first appear to be detrimental is in fact not.
Gay biology maybe related to child rearing issues or population controls in ways that we do not yet understand. For example, since humans are what they call a k species (in that human females do not produce massive numbers of offispring (so called r rate species (think of insect or fish which may produce thousands of offspring), but instead produce at a constant rate (k)) one could imagine sexual orientation biology is to create some leve of control on the number of off spring or statis. A sort of natural way to reduce a population when birth control in early human development did not exist. Maybe there was no enough food, and therefore, this mechanism developed as a complex way to address the environmental limitation over our evolutionary history. Thi s is just my best guess. But its not far from whatyou find in other species. That the mechanism for same sex coupling exists for reasons that are helpful to the species.
In nature, some of the species observed with same sex coupling do so for population control reasons as well as child rearing effienciency. I am not sure if that is the case in humans, but maybe it relates also to the mother needing support as well rather than males seeking dominance of the female for reproductive purposes. Again, on the species level.
One other thing, if you look at cultures that predate most western cultures- going by thousands of years- you can see many of them developed religious mechanism in the form of shamans, etc to address what was obviously a population of people who were not straight. This is not proof of biology, but it does suggest that these traits are neither new or reducible to modern influence.
Child rearing and/or population is mostly not proven in humans, but that’s because the science of sexual orientation biology is nascient. It was not until recent decades that older research on the subject was finally allowed to come to light. Most of that science was buried under religious doctrine which could not accept what naturalists/biologists in the field were telling them. Thus they buried it as “must be wrong.”
Anyone claiming for certain that the reasons for homosexuality is a negative in nature is full of crap. We know it serves a purpose in other species. Although not yet proven in humans, it would be hard to believe that it would prove a detriment in humans, but beneficial in other species.
Ultimately species studies is the most damning evidence for the cultural reletavists (queer theory types) and the religious/bigotted types who can not accept that there is a biological component. It can not be refuted by claiming that its a human behavior or cultural. It’s also the most damning of the theories that its detrimental because it is so clearly not in other species meant as a detriment.
The Gay Numbers
UPDATE ON BIOLOGY
I should be clear- when I say gay biology as a mechanism developed as a result of a lack of food or some other value it added to the process for species survival, I made an inaccurate. What I mean to say is that it was something already there or a pathway for development there. The complex of human sexuality is extremely complicated. The group of humans in nature that survived were the ones that had this trait. Whereas, the ones without this trait died off. Because the natural control was lost. This is again just a theory for how such a trait would be beneficial. but, what it means is going into our genetics to muck with this could fuck with stuff we do not begin to understand yet about our own survival as a species.
Michael
Ultimately, would it matter? Should it matter what the genesis of homosexuality is? What if it were choice? What if it were genetic? What if it were a genetic defect? In then end, what does any of that matter? The point remains that we are healthy, functioning human beings and should be allowed to persist and flourish, unencumbered by the shackles of lunacy (I call it the “Church” for short).
osocubano
United, they stand,
Divided, they fall.
Not soon enough, if you ask me.
Nick
I was raised in the episcopal church too, but don’t really see how it’s remotely democratic. Any system of bishops is bound to be pretty top-down. I would’ve thought any evangelical church was more “democratic”.
Ted C.
@Bill Perdue:
You seem to see religion as being an obstacle to reason. I don’t see religion like that at all. I see religion as filling in the gaps that are left when you’ve reached the limits of reason.
And within the church, tradition should never trump reason. (But that’s pretty much what the debate within the Anglican Church is about, isn’t it? And for the record, I fully expect reason to win.)
And you can talk about long histories of scandal and rape and mass murder. I don’t see any of that as being specific to religion. I just think that’s human nature.
Church congregations are just people. I don’t think they’re collectively any more or less evil than any other group of people.
Ted C.
Also, @Charles J. Mueller:
“I can tell you that of the str8 atheist friends I know, not one of them has a problem with gay people or their wanting to get married.”
That might be true for your circle of friends, but it’s hardly a universal truth. China is an example of a society where most people are atheists, yet being gay is still illegal.
Homophobia is a fairly universal part of human history, and homophobic churches are merely products of their time. They too will change.
Jeffery Self
Great post, Japhy. I also grew up in the Episcopal Church and found it to be one of the most open minded, loving, genuine groups of people I’ve ever been around. There were a large number (well, a large number for Rome, Georgia) of gay men and women that attended the church, openly and proudly. I even produced a Broadway Cares benefit reading of this terrible “gay play” I’d written in high school there. I think its important for us not to write off Christianity as a whole and recognize these smaller communities of people who are supporting us.
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: I have a Double Bachelors Degree in Biological Anthropology, and I can tell you that homosexuality is not, in and of itself, a beneficial trait.
The “goal” of evolution is survival of the gene, not the specifies. Species are nomencalture creations of humans to group like things. Within a species – as between species – there is massive variation. Only certain individuals survive to pass their – not the entire species’ – genes on. This is called the Selfish Gene Theory, first proposed by Edward O. Wilson in his seminal book “Sociobiology”.
Now, as for nature: homosexuality occurs all the time ALONG WITH heterosexuality. Animals are not gay. They practice homosexuality along with heterosexuality. Thus, taken together, there is nothing deleterious about homosexuality, as it deos not “keep” individuals in nature from procreating. It is the same in man. Unless, of course, someone only – ONLY – has homosexsual sex. Biologically speaking, this is deleterious, as it takes that person’s genes out of the gene pool.
This does not make it morally bad. Just biologically deleterious.
There is zero evidence that homosexuality – in nature or in man – has anything whatsoever to do with child-rearing or any other behaviors. Zero.
Joe Moag
@CaM: I agree that “gay” is a phenotypical response to a set of genotypical attributes (alleles). In nature, homosexuality and heterosexuality are both practiced by the same individual, thus there is nothing a priori deleterious about homosexuality.
If, however, in nature or man, an individual ONLY practices homosexuality, and IF that is a genotyopical trait of that individual, it is deleterious, as it takes that individual’s genes out of the gene pool.
Joe Moag
@Alex: I did not – nor do I – derive morals from biology. I was pointing out that it is SCARY to do so. The commetor that was responding to was advocating the idea that “modern science” is better than having any religious values, and I was pointing out that if one walks down that road too far, one can get into some scary things. That was the point of the comment “Nice, huh?”
Get it?
Joe Moag
@Charles J. Mueller: Read the comments later in this post and see if you can follow the point more accurately.
epluribusunum
@ Bill Purdue:
While I agree that religion does not have many redeeming qualities, you are coming off as very intolerant of these groups’ right to exist.
I consider myself a secular humanist, and a member of the Episcopal Church, and I do not see that beliefs of the former do not preclude those of the latter.
People can believe what they want; that’s why we live in America.
I know that I will be in my pew on Sunday morning to support my Episcopal diocese in standing up for and openly embracing us homosexuals.
dsdrane
This is a refreshing and meaningful post…not to mention extremely brave considering the inevitable onslaught of ranting, mouth-bespittled hucksters for Orthodox Godlessness.
I am also a gay Episcopalian — openly and proudly gay and very actively and equally-proudly Episcopalian. I’m not a cradle Episcopalian, though; I came to it at age 39 after more than 16 years of happily towing the anti-religious line in the gay ghettoes of Manhattan. I worked at GMHC; I protested with Act Up and Queer Nation; my partner and I registered as domestic partners on the very first day it was possible in March 1993 (couple no. 57!)…in other words, my gay cred is unimpeachable.
My reasons for joining the Episcopal church are deeply personal and, therefore, non-transferable. I have no desire to proselytize, nor am I threatened by the fact that there are many others out there who have vastly different beliefs or who think I’m delusional/self-loathing/stupid/naive for aligning myself with a church. It’s a ME thing, and seeks permission from no one.
In response to Japhy’s question (what do you do when your church schisms over who you are?), my answer is simple: you stay and fight. And you do everything you can to support the good people who are out on the front lines waging the battle. Remember: the folks who are fighting for full inclusion of gay people in the church aren’t doing it just to be nice; they’re doing it because it’s right and, for bonus points, actually is in line with the teachings of Christ.
I’m deeply proud of TEC’s progressive tradition and see the current struggle as one more step in the evolution of not only the denomination but of society in general.
In short: keep the faith, Brother.
The Milkman
“It’s strange to me that they choose dogma over fellowship, that they would rather be alone with their beliefs than to be part of a wider community.”
Good point, but not at all strange. Religious fanaticism has always valued dogma over fellowship. The only comforting thing is that these sad and bigoted people, railing against a societal change that has already and irrevocably happened, will diminish over time. We’re already seeing the initial process of the marginalization of religious bigotry, and I predict that these groups will continue to fade into irrelevance.
The Anglican communion will only be stronger without these false friends…
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: You are wrong about the child rearing in other species. Look it up. There is a difference between having not been fully proven, and no evidence. You lost me with claims of no evidence. This is a nascient area of science mostly for political reasons. The evidence is inconclusive, not nonexistent. It makes me question your political motivation if you claim nonexistent unless you happened just not have looked it up.
I have a degree in Biology. Not Anthropology. The point I made about survival of the species and traits was a simplified way of describing how a process like gay may work to survivial of the biology of being gay in an advantageous way. It was oversimplified, but essentially accurate. The role of some traits is not per se the continuation of that particular organism, but the effect is the continuation of the species and the gene. Hence, the example of self sacrifice found as a trait in other species. Or my guess bout population control where gay biology exists such that those with that biology in the family pool had a greater chance of survival since it effectively meant a control on over population (again just a random guess) whereas those without that biology did not.
Just like population control, child rearing is just a guess. The point is that it is way too early to determine the role of the biology related to sexual orientation. It may turn out that I am completely wrong. But it is inaccurate to claim that biology is as simple as you describe> or that there is no evidence. Its accurate to say that its inconclusive.
By the way, we are not just talking about one gene here, but apparently several, and several biochemical interactions occuring prenatal, and I think I read somewhere some that maybe post natal– again the science is early and maybe wrong, but its a seems to be a complicated process – sexual orientation- both straight and/or otherwise since this would tend to give a way of looking at the biology of being straight too.
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: There is no doubt that “gay” – and all sexuality – is a confluence of multiple genetic and environmental factors. No doubt at all.
But to the extent that homosexuality – the act of same-sex – is genetically based, then that behvior – the act of same-sex – is not adaptive. Why? Because, by definition, it is not a sex act that leads to procreation, and thus is incapable of passing the individual’s genetic material on.
As I have repeatedly stated here, in nature, individuals that behave homosexually also behave heterosexually. To the extent that this pattern has genetic components, then that phenotype is not deleterious, as it does not prevent procreation.
Take 2 squirrels. One male squirrel has a genetic predisposition so strong that it only engages in heterosexuality. The other squirrel has a genetic predispostion so strong that it only engages in homosexuality. Which of these squirrels is going to pass on its genetic material and which one is not? Or, put another way, which of these genetic predispositions is adaptive and which one is deleterious?
Animals, of course, do NOT seem to behave in the black and white nature of the above hypothetical. But that is not the point. The point is that purely homosexual phentypical behvior is deleterious, by definition.
And, just to once again reiterate to anyone who refuses to look at what I am saying and, instead, substitute it for what I am NOT saying, I am NOT saying that this in any way, shape or form predicates a moral position on any of this. PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD.
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: J
Why do you assume that people who disagree with you have not done their research too? I just disagree with your interpretation.
As I said, it can be adaptive in a non obvious way. What I desceribe is called the ‘gay uncle” theory. In this theory, the families of humans with a gay uncle having not produced children onf his own will gather resources for the siblings who may carry the gene for homosexuality. The idea is that it may continued for resource gathering or saving reasons. What’s adaptive is in fact contextual.
Here is what Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, says on the subject:
“Another theory, the ‘sterile worker,’ starts from the well-understood observation that worker bees, ants, wasps, termites and naked mole-rats divert their energy and time away from reproduction and towards the welfare of their young collateral relatives. Perhaps Pleistocene children, while their macho fathers were away hunting, were left under the protection of a gay uncle? The uncle’s genes, including those promoting homosexuality, would have a good chance of being reproduced by the children whom he protected as surrogate father.”
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
There are problems with this theory, but it is one of the competing theories. There are other theories. I am just pointing out that your certainty is in fact wrong because there are theories of how it is adaptive.
RCDC
i’ve always been deeply disturbed by the fact that my friends (gay straight, whatever) all ssem to hold this belief that reason and faith cannot coexist. to be sure, it’s a balancing act on both sides; too much faith and the result is knee-jerk zealotry, too much reason and the soul dies. i’ve seen my friends who don’t believe in anything. many of them have no place of quiet in themselves, and it eats them. every problem becomes bigger, and anger seeps in.
not everyone needs that community that religio (lit. binding) of the self to something bigger. some people are happy to be alone, here, now, and our insignificance is comforting. but not for everyone. so when people rant and rave against religion as a whole, i wonder – what are you really trying to accomplish? you know it won’t convert anyone, because they can’t convert you. it’s an intangible matter, so why are you so very anxious to be right?
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: I don’t recall saying that you didn’t do research. I am disagreeing with you. There is a differnce, you know.
The Dawkins point is about Selfish Gene Theory, and is dead on. In fact, it compeltely refutes your pointing to both “species” or “altruism” as evolutionary forces. It supports the concept that evolution is about the survival of the gene, as represented by the individual, not the species.
Bees all share extemely close genetic materials to each other, as they all have the same mother. They are ALL brothers and sisters in the hive. All of them. Under the selfish gene theory, if one cannot reproduce on one’s own, one will act to enable a close relative to reproduce OVER a distant relative or a non-relative, as a close relative shares the bulk of the same genetic material that you do. This explains all manner of supposed “altruistic” behvior (as it shows that it is not, indeed, altruistic at all). It does not, however, give any credence to any concept of “pure altruism”, in which one individual lays down his/her life for another that he/she has no relationship to at all.
So, to equate homosexuality with some form of altruism is weak, as that would imply that homosexual behvior is concurrent with living in close proximity to only those who one is related to, and that there is some tangible benefit to having your relative instead of you reproducing. There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows homosexuality to be highly correlated with groups of closely related members of the same species living together over homosexuality occurring among groups of non-closely related members of the same species.
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
>”Biologically speaking, this is deleterious, as it takes that person’s genes out of the gene pool.”
Six billion people on the planet…and the population time-bomb ticking away.
And this is a “problem”?
Charles J. Mueller
@RCDC:
>”so when people rant and rave against religion as a whole, i wonder – what are you really trying to accomplish? you know it won’t convert anyone, because they can’t convert you. it’s an intangible matter, so why are you so very anxious to be right?”
Let’s turn that statement around and look at it from a different perspective, shall we?
So when people rant and rave against homosexuality as a whole, I wonder – what are YOU really trying to accomplish? YOU know it won’t convert anyone because they can’t convert you. It’s an intangible matter, so why are YOU so very anxious to be right?
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: You need to re-read what he wrote. He’s pointing out competing theories. He does not say which theory is right.
Moreover, he’s pointing out that non-obvious theories are not wrong just because their advantage is not immediately obvious for adaptation. YOU are the one who keeps arguing that these things are readily obvious. I am giving you guesses based on my actual knowlege of the science about why your views are in fact not true. The environment will determine which traits are advantageous for adaption of the surival of a gene and which are not in any given situation. He says exactly what I have been saying.
YOU are the one arguing certainty regarding gay biology being deleterious over adaptive, but your argument presupposes you can know that because of some obviousness about reproducing the biology. The biology would be passed along by siblings – on the X Chronmosome for example. I am the one arguing that there are competing theory some of which are adaptive. The gay uncle theory being only one. That your view of deleterious is not per se correct. You keep saying there is no evidence but that’s a bit silly considering you then use the limited amount of science to make arguments you can not substantiate. I am not claiming certainty here. You are.
Where did I write about altruism as you describe it? That’s a social normative construction of what I wrote. I was discussing how non-obvious biological traits can be passed along. This was just one random example
This is getting tiring. You understand some of the science, but not enough to appreciate how little we can reasonably conclude right now. Its way to early in the scientific inquiry here for you to be jumping to the conclusions that you have about whether the gay biology is deleterious or adaptive.
If you will take notice, I have made it painstakingly clear that my views are just guesses, not facts. I made points i made out of the interest in having people realize that this is scentitifc inquiry that’s still on going, and anyone claiming otherwise is pushing an agenda outside of where the science is.
Charles J. Mueller
@epluribusunum:
> “you are coming off as very intolerant of these groups’ right to exist.”
And the Church is NOT coming off as very intolerant of the LGBTs right to exist”
Good. Goose. Gander.
>”People can believe what they want; that’s why we live in America.”
Oh really, now? Can I believe that God wants me to kill you and act on it, as so many religious wing-nuts have done over and over and over?
It may be perfectly legal for me to have murder in my heart, so long as I do not act on it. When I do, however, I have clearly stepped over the line and WILL be held accountable for my actions by a secular court of law.
Stepping over the line is exactly what the Church has been doing since religion since it’s inception. It has proven itself, time and time again, to be no supporter of the law of man.
It not only believes what it will, it also acts on those beliefs, as we have just witnessed in CA, AR, AK and FL.
Let’s hear it for the Church!
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: I agree with you TGN, this is really tiring. You referred to altruism repeatedly in several comments, and just because you did not use the word altruism (you kept referring to “species” and helping the species) does not mean that you were not talking about altruism. With a biology degree, you should know that.
Moreover, all I have ever said is “where is the research…” As you have pointed out, you are theorizing, as was Dawkins. Theories are not research. As someone with a biology degree, again, I would assume that you know this.
All I have done is walk through the reasoning that flows from evolutionary science and apply it to homosexuality. That’s it. As someone with a biology background, again, you should understand that.
Moreover, I have not offered any “theories”, “guesses”, “hypotheses” or “bullshit” as to WHY homosexuality exists. I have merely pointed out – CORRECTLY – that the act of same-sex is not, in and of itself, adaptive.
I typically enjoy your comments, TGN, whehter I agree with them or not. In this area, you have taken things that I have said and run with them incorrectly, and put words in my mouth that were never said.
I look forward to a different subject matter altogether.
Joe Moag
@Charles J. Mueller: Did I say “problem”? Did I make any value judgement about any of this whatsoever? NOPE. To point out that something is not adapative is a biological concept. Not a moral one, not a values one, not an ethical one…
Jeez, I would dumb it down more but I would need hand puppets…
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
>@Charles J. Mueller: Read the comments later in this post and see if you can follow the point more accurately.”
Sorry, buddy. I have no wish to enter an idiotic discourse with you to “prove” my right to exist as a homosexual, any more than a str8 person would have any wish to enter a discourse with you to “prove” that they have a right to exist. Who cares?
And frankly, I don’t find your arguments to be very much different that that of the Religious Right. Obviously, on some level, you seem to have a problem with being queer, or you wouldn’t be so worried about “taking genes out of the gene pool.”
Joe Moag
@Charles J. Mueller: Charles, you are so pridefully and wilfully stupid as to what I am and am not saying that you are living proof of deleterious existance. Thank GOD you won’t be contributing to the gene pool.
shivadog
@Charles J. Mueller: Thank you for bringing up the overpopulation issue. Everyone talks about “saving the planet” while ignoring the problem, overpopulation. We have caused the extinction of thousands of species, damaged our atmosphere, polluted our waters, destroyed our forests, and we can all ride bicycles, recycle everything and develop green energy sources, but if we do not control and reduce our population it is not going to make a difference.It’s like sticking bandaids on someone dying of ebola, we are treating the symtoms while ignoring the disease. That is why it really kills me when anti-gay and anti-choice people try to tell us how terrible it is to not reproduce, like we don’t already have too many people. “if everyone was gay the human race would go extinct” sure,as if we don’t discriminate against gay people everyone will turn gay. As far as homosexuality being “deleterious” to a species, i would think that the fact that it occurs in almost all species would tend to refute that. Someone said that animals aren’t “gay”, and even though they may engage in homosexual behavior they all engage in heterosexual behavior also. This is not true, there are same-sex pairs in species that mate for life, these individuals never engage in heterosexual behavior.
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
And Thank You for revealing yourself to be the insult-slinging and name-calling bigot you have just proven yourself to be simply because I do not agree with you. It’s so typical of folks like yourself who have an axe to grind…at any cost!
You’ve made my point.
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: The reason why other actual people in the area aren’t sure yet is because despite what you say the research is so young no one knows the answers. The problem with your posts are that you seem to have powers of knowing that even the most advanced researchers and observers do not. Thus the link that I provided you. If you can show me research that conclusively proves the various competing theories wrong rather than speculate, then let’s talk more. What I am tired of is your certainty. You have no basis for it in the scientific record. Your so called reasoning that flows is precisely why I made the point about the danger of focusing on a scientific question in terms of what is “obvious the case” asyou keep writing. What may seem obvious, may never the less be wrong. We don’t know yet. Until they do more research there is no way to know. You can talk until you are blue. The science is so new that it’s irrelevant what you can reason. The thing about reason is that it has its limits. Science is more than reason. Reason is a foundation, but it’snot enough. Theories and ideas must be tested, and proven as in fact true or not. YOu can not make the assertions you are making as if they are fact. That’s all I have written. You can dress that up as you may like. But it still remains. You can not make the assertions you are making because the science is not there yet. This is the limit of logical inquiry- it must be tested to see if what it postulates is in fact the case, and it must be tested as to competing theories. You aren’t doing tha there. You are just asserting its obvious that the gay biology is deleterious. Again in terms of scientific inquiry- you are just factually wrong.
Joe Moag
@shivadog: If there are animals in nature that mate same-sex for life and never engage in heterosexual behavior, then they do not pass the genetic material on to the next generation and are, by definition, deletterious.
shivadog
@Joe Moag: Look at wolves for example. Only the alpha male and female mate. The rest of the pack never reproduces. By your logic they are deletterious. Yet wolves could not exist without the rest of the pack.
Charles J. Mueller
@shivadog:
Your points are well-taken. I could not agree with you more. And what is it with these “self-perpetuation” driven people who fear the extinction of mankind if every last person on the planet does not keep fucking 24/7/365?
They are the antithesis of the lemmings who march to sea in hordes to leap over the cliffs to their death because they have no natural predators.
One could also argue that in so doing, they too are removing themselves from the gene pool which is deliterious to their survival.
It simply depends on the bullshit one is trying to peddle. đ
And thank you for the correction regarding same-sex pairs in species that mate for life. If Joe could get his nose out of a book long enough to go visit a zoo, he would be well aware of that fact.
Book learnin’ is a good thing. But when it ignores and discounts reality, then it is not. Sometimes street learnin’ is just as powerful.
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: You are stating the since there is a paucity of evidence, that it is likely true. If that’s the scientific method, then I guess I missed class that day.
I am talking about resoning out a phenotypical trait using biology. What is so hard to understand about that?
As for my certainy: to have an individual genetically predisposed to not procreate is, by definition, deleterious. This is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, NOT what the realities are of the phenotypical existance of homosexuality as it actually exists in the animal kingdom. If there are animals that are purely homosexual, and that pure same-sex behavior is genetically coded, then that is a non-adaptive genetic trait. How can it be adaptive if it precludes you from having offspring? You can argue around that, ignore that, hypothesize on the causes of this until you are blue, purple or red, for all I care.
I think that you must believe that somehow I am making some sort of moral argument here, when I most explicitly am not.
I am moving on to other issues, like cutting my toenails, that are more rewarding than contanstly having to tell you and others what I am and AM NOT saying. Figure it out, don’t figure it out, whatever…
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
Saints be praised.
Charles J. Mueller
Apparently, this had something to do with something?
Joe Moag
@shivadog: Selfish Gene Theory explains that altruism occurs among closely related members of the same species. Wolf packs consist of siblings. “Allowing” one sibling to mate at “your expense”, while living with the group and helping to raise your brother’s offspring, is adaptive, as it perpetuates a nearly complete copy of your genetic code (your brother’s code is almost identical to yours), and allows the pack to surive amidst scare resources. If all members of the pack reproduced, the pack would starve, as it would not be able to find enough food to support its numbers. So, letting your brother have kids is an adaptive comprimise.
All of this – and any other examples that you want to name – have been addressed a thousand times over by evolutionary biologists. Grab a copy of Sociobiolgy by Wilson.
This all may be new to you guys here on this thread, but, believe it or not, this has been studied for decades and decades.
It is really funny to watch the knee-jerk reactions that I am getting to stating evolutionary theory. My, my, my, aren’t we all a bunch of moral evolutionists here on Queerty. I point out that same-sex, as an act, is, by definition, not adaptive, and everyone on here thinks that a) they are Darwin and b) that I am equating this with some moral position, that I am self-hating fag, yada yada yada…
So tell me guys, what exactly is the difference between your views and those of the Ludite Christian Conservatives who refute evolution and go ballistic when they have to discuss evolution?
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: No, I think you are making arguments not yet proven as if theya re based on your ability to reason. I think there are competing theories which do not your logic, and therefore you discount them. I think this is tiresome because you do not understand my analysis which is to point out the limits of what you are doing. As I said- something being obvious does not make it right. There are non obvious theories that could also be right. I am not vested in saying which is right. You are. I think its more an ego thing than anything else. People who are smart tend to want to think their own theories are right. This is what gets good scientist into trouble all the time.
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: Oh,a nd despite you diss, the difference is that I am advocing open minded inquiry even with nonobvious theories, whereas you advocating that by the process of logic alone you have determined the answer.
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: TGN, I have addressed your points and I don’t agree with them. Yes, I think that I am correct. Shocker, there…imagine someone posting an opinion that they think is right.
Have I said that you are dumb? No. Have I said that you are incorrect? Yes. Have you said that you don’t think that I am correct? Yes.
So, what’s the difference?
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: No, by logically applying biological premises to the quesiton, I am refuting your arguments, as I don’t agree with your reasoning. You can do the same to mine.
But somehow, this makes me a really mean, intolerant person? That’s some wild definition of intolerance…
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
>”I am moving on to other issues.”
I guess keeping our word is not a strong point for you.
And to back-up what you are saying, The Gay Numbers, intellect is a very fine attribute. Intellect is what took us out of the caves, huddled together and shivering in the cold and trying to keep from being eaten by wolves and is now taking us on a exploration of space.
However, when intellect is used as a weapon to pistol-whip people with in order to prove their own theories, then that is not at all smart.
A truly intelligent man does not need to vanquish another in order to make himself look good. Doing so only tends to display an ego that needs constant stroking.
JJJJ
Ted C. : That’s so true. Not that religion isn’t sometimes a problem, but the atheist governments of the 20th Century proved to be horribly homophobic (as well as being mass-murdering).
Bill Perdue
Ted C.
I see religion as filling in the gaps that are left when you’ve reached the limits of reason. What limits of reason? The only boundaries that religious people should be wary of are those between sanity and superstition. You folks are always crossing it.
And you can talk about long histories of scandal and rape and mass murder. I don’t see any of that as being specific to religion. I just think that’s human nature. TheyââŹâ˘re linked by the use of superstition and ignorance, which you disingenuously describe as ââŹËtraditionââŹâ˘, as a justification. Show me a criminal and IââŹâ˘ll show you someone who says ââŹĹI did it because ââŹËgod told me tooââŹÂ or ââŹËgodââŹâ˘s in the mixââŹâ˘Ă˘âŹÂ. You know the type. Nixon, Colson, LBJ, Clinton, Obama, Robertson, the Crusaders, the witch burners, the Conquistadores.
epluribusunum says While I agree that religion does not have many redeeming qualities, you are coming off as very intolerant of these groups’ right to exist.
I said no such thing. I said that religion has no redeeming qualities.
I think that a sane and healthy society would do all it could to suppress the superstitious ignorance and criminality of the cults. For instance, I think that roman catholic and other cult schools, especially those engaged in ââŹËcuringââŹâ˘ GLBT children should be closed to prevent rape. ItââŹâ˘s just common sense and basic public health to close these dens of iniquity.
Here’s a link to the most recent scandal regarding the franciscian boy rapers http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/08/03/priest.molestation.ap/ and heres one about the jesuits http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/13/local/me-mayor13 . Both groups are venerated by Moag in the opening comments of this thread.
I think that children should have armed guards with shoot to kill orders when priest are nearby.
I think that every bishop who abetted the rape of young boys and girls should be arrested and prosecuted, and that an arrest warrant pursuant to extradition proceedings should be brought against those hiding in Rome, beginning with Ratzinger. (That would be most serving bishops.)
I think all tax breaks, ââŹËfaith based bribesââŹâ˘ and other financial aid to cults like yours should be abolished. Cults are really just part of the entertainment industry and if Disney and DreamWorks can be taxed for depicting modern fantasies, then the cults should be taxed for presenting ancient fantasies.
I know that I will be in my pew on Sunday morning to support my Episcopal diocese in standing up for and openly embracing us homosexuals.
Fine, but anti-bigots will be picketing mormon temples and catholic cathedrals. And your cult center if that jackass bigot Rowan Williams shows up.
shivadog
@Joe Moag: So, “allowing one sibling to mate at “your expense” while living with the group and helping to raise your brothers offspring is adaptive” but, if the individual is gay it’s deleterious? That seems to be your logic. I fail to see why homosexuals would not fit the “altruism” theory. I know I have helped (and helped raise) many of my nieces and nephews, and while I don’t think any of them would have died without me, I could easily see where, in a more hazarduos society,say a primitive hunter-gatherer society, it is quite possible that my presence could make a life or death difference. Seems to fit right in with the altruism theory. Also, being homosexual does not preclude someone from passing on thier genes. As far as I can determine, every gay person I know has,at some point in time, had sex with someone of the opposite sex.
fbloss
As a long-time member of Unitarian Universalist congregations, I can tell you, in our world, there IS no schism. My partner and I have been members of U.U. congregations for more than 10 years and have met with nothing but love and acceptance anywhere we went within that community. And we’ve moved a lot. It’s not a measure of the whole, it’s a measure of the company you keep.
Joe Moag
@shivadog: If you look at the numerous posts that I have in this, you will see that I have constantly differentiated between individuals in the animal kingdom that have both hetero and homosexual sex and those that have, theoretically, only homosexual sex. I have repeatedly pointed out that there is nothing deleterious about that cycle of behavior (the cycle of hetero to homo to hetero, on and on), as it allows the individual to reproduce. I have also pointed out that if the individual NEVER has hetero-sex then that takes their genes out of the pool. That seems pretty darn obviuous, doesn’t it?
I have made the point – until I am blue in the face – that the act of same-sex is not adaptive, in and of itself. An individual (and in most mammal species for instance they do) can do both. That is not deleterious. Why? As it does not preclude the individual from procreating.
As for your example of being an uncle to kids, that’s great, I am too. The uvunculate relationship is a principal relationship studied by Anthropologists all the time, and it reinforces the idea that altruism occurs in close family settings, not across non or very distantly related members of the same species. Moreover, you raising kids as an uncle does not preclude you from mating and procreating, if you wanted to.
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: The experts in the field itself disagree with you about whether your argument is necessarily true. This remains the point of disagreement.
You confuse the fact that you may understand some general concepts with whether that means something that may seem counter intuitive actually is.
You can not point to these general principles to say that the mechanism described is wrong. The mechanism that I described does not contradict the general principles.
The idea that genes want to survive does not mean that how they survive must be a direct or linear fashion. The linear – parent to child may itself cause problem for the genes survival. Hence the point about resource allocation within a pool of genes. Hence my analogies regarding other mechanisms in nature that at first seem counter intuitive, but actually only serve to reinforce the basic principles but with different mechanisms
Where you arguments go off the ranch is where you assume which mechanism is going to prove adaptive. Yet, in nature itself, there are too many examples that refute your assumption.
The Gay Numbers
@Joe Moag: We are talking about genes for families within the species here. So I find your comment about individuals bizare. Are you solely talking about the ability of a group of genes found in one single organism of a species? The question is overall whether it provides the pool of genes some adaptive advantage. Not whether it provides a single individual an advantage.
The Gay Numbers
I have to go, but I think the point is that you are overstating your case if I am understanding it. Animals do exhibit social behaviors that are biologically based that provides for example for cooperation. That’s what I am discussing. The social behavior mechanisms of adaptation. That gay biology is a product of that social behavior mechanics.
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers</ That is a good point. It relates to the principle of altruism. The examples in nature that you have referred to – and that Dawkins hypothesized in your quote – were about Altruism.
Wilson talked a ton about this, and pointed out – as I have tried to do – that altruism occurs between closely related members of the same species. It occurs when there are externalities that favor less-than total survival of all. In those situations, it is better to have your siblings or close relative’s genes carry on than it is to have no genes from your lineage carry on. Thus, altruism, in which one individual may sacrifice its procreation for that of a healthier or more hearty or more able close relative’s procreation, happens a lot.
This is firmly within Selfish Gene Theory reasons around social behavior and its relationship to genetics. Moreover, it does not, nor have I, assert that this is only some sort of mom-son linear arrangement. It is, however, family-rooted, and you will see less and less altruism the further you get away from closely related individuals, as they don’t “have a dog in the procreation race” at that point.
My arguments don’t go off the ranch one iota. They stay right on it, eating beans and watching the tumbleweeds and awaiting the next personal assault or deliberate misinterpretation from posters on this thread…
So, this self-hating fag who wants to get rid of every gay person’s right to exist awaits the next round of incoming flak…
Joe Moag
@The Gay Numbers: Look, I can’t keep saying this. Genes mutate and genes, as represented by individuals, are the locus of evolution. Not species. Species don’t matter, the gene matters. This is the selfish gene theory. If we can’t agree on this fundamental premise of the locus of evolution then there is absolutelty zero reason to discuss any of this any futher.
Rob Moore
@JJJJ: So the theocracies are better than the atheistic governments? What about Hitler, Iran, the Taleban, the Inquisition established by the Spanish monarchs? Were they not mass murderers simply because they steeped their motivations in religion?
shivadog
@Joe Moag: I fail to see how the altruism theory can’t apply to homosexuals. Just like the case of wolves, most of whom never reproduce individually, they help assure thier genes pass on by helping thier relatives. You state that it is deleterious if an “individual never has hetero sex” because they do not directly reproduce. I guess it is ok for wolves, as long as the wolves occasionaly have hetero sex, but if it was a gay wolf, that would be “deleterious”. That really makes no sense whatsoever.You also state “altruism occurs in close family settings”. Of course gay people would mostly be helping close relations,(this is why I brought up my uncle status,not to show what a swell guy I am but to demonstrate how this all fits in with the altruism theory) especially in pre-historic times when people lived in small tribal groups. I have yet to hear a rational explanation for why being homosexual disqualifies one from the altruism theory. Or how disagreeing with you makes me a ludite. (or Darwin)
Puddy Katz
There are too many words up there!
But that robin egg blue outfit dress that man’s wearing, along with the matching hat, in the photo is tres fey! Is he the gay bishop?
Bob Conti
As a cradle gay Episcopalian, I’ve always found my parishes to be inclusive and welcoming. Maybe a few raised eyebrows by the older parishners when my husband and I went back to my childhood parish in Maine, but it was quickly overcome during the pancake breakfast/coffee hour. My church in Long Beach, CA is the most inclusive place we could possibly hope for. And I think we really focus on Christ’s two great commandments, love God with all your heart and to love one another. Which, after the Prop 8 debacle, ain’t all the easy! The downside to orgnized religion is when they lose sight of Christ’s teachings and start substituting their own perverted view of what Christianity truly stands for. For me, getting back into the pews and being part of a religious community has made me a better person, I think about others and what effect my actions may have upon others. I’m a lawyer, and there are times when I throttle back because I’m taught not to exert my power over the weak and helpless (I can still do my job in a less obnoxious manner). So I’m good with the split; one parish in Long Beach has split off, and frankly, we feel no loss and made gains in membership because of it. They can get their knickers in an uproar (I mean, they started getting pissed off when the new BCP came out and women could become priests, the gay thing was just the proverbial straw). And if the ECUSA is kicked out of the Anglican Communion, fine. No more ECUSA dollars to the bigoted dioces in Africa, we can focus our charity here. There’s plenty we can do.
Phoenix (The One-Nelly Army Fighting For Equal Rights)
“What Do You Do When Your Church Schisms Over You?”
I don’t know what to do when a Church schisms on you. I’ve never had a Church schism on me. A couple of priests, yes! That’s happened a few times, but never a Church.
JJJJ
Rob Moore : Yes, they were all horrible too. I’m not saying they weren’t. But, just to be historically accurate, the atheists Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. were just as bad, and….numbers-wise as to victims…even worse. (I believe the best governments are somewhere in between the two extremes).
Mike Phelps
Are they joining the Nigerian monkey church?
Bill Perdue
Mike PhelpsââŹâ˘s racism is putrid.
chuck
@Bill Perdue:
I am with you 100%. And while we are on the topic of dirty laundry, here’s another load…from the infamouus Magdalene Laundry in Ireland. More proof that the church has NO redeeming qualities.
It sounds medieval, something that happened hundreds of years ago, but, in fact, the last Magdalene laundry closed just over eight years ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/sunday/main567365.shtml
chuck
@JJJJ:
>”But, just to be historically accurate, the atheists Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. were just as bad, andââŹÂŚ.numbers-wise as to victimsââŹÂŚeven worse.”
This argument is frequently raised by those defending religion. He is a link that should help to clarify that erroneous belief.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Stalin,_Mao_Zedong_and_Pol_Pot
Albert Einstein summed it up best when he said…
“”One strength of the Communist system …is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.”
chuck
@JJJJ:
More material for your perusing delight. đ
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1779,Hitler-Stalin-Mao-etc-were-atheists-and-they-were-terrible–Answer-that,RichardDawkinsnet
chuck
31 July, 2003 “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” condemns same sex deviants who seek marriage. In contrast, no Vatican condemnation of priestly paedophiles.
chuck
A slight change of pace, but entirely apropos to the subject at hand.
Candide
Written by: Unregistered
Voltaire’s Candide is a philosophical tale of one man’s search for true happiness and his ultimate acceptance of life’s disappointments. Candide grows up in the Castle of Westfalia and is taught by the learned philosopher Dr. Pangloss. Candide is abruptly exiled from the castle when found kissing the Baron’s daughter, Cunegonde. Devastated by the separation from Cunegonde, his true love, Candide sets out to different places in the hope of finding her and achieving total happiness. The theme of Candide is that one must strive to overcome adversity and not passively accept it in the belief that all is for the best.
Candide’s misfortune begins when he is kicked out of the castle and experiences a series of horrible events. Candide is unable to see anything positive in his ordeals, contrary to Dr. Pangloss’ teachings that there is a cause for all effects and that, though we might not understand it, everything is all for the good. Candide’s endless trials begin when he is forced into the army simply because he is the right height, five feet five inches. In the army he is subjected to endless drills and humiliations and is almost beaten to death. Candide escapes and, after being degraded by good Christians for being an anti-Christ, meets a diseased beggar who turns out to be Dr. Pangloss. Dr. Pangloss informs him that Bulgarian soldiers attacked the castle of Westfalia and killed Cunegonde – more misery!
A charitable Anabaptist gives both Candide and Dr. Pangloss money and assistance. Dr. Pangloss is cured of his disease, losing one of his eyes and one of his ears. The Anabaptist takes them with him on a journey to Lisbon. While aboard the ship, the Anabaptist falls overboard in the process of rescuing a crew member. Candide finds it more and more difficult to accept Dr. Pangloss’ principle that all is for the best.
In Lisbon there is an earthquake which kills thousands of people, throwing the city into ruins. Later, Dr. Pangloss is hung as part of an auto-de-fe. Candide is miraculously taken in by an old woman and is brought to his love, Cunegonde. She tells him of the torture she suffered and how she barely survived. She further explains that she was “shared” by a Jew named Don Issachar and the Grand Inquisitor. Candide kills the two men and escapes with Cunegonde and the old woman.
At this point we begin to see Candide struggling and fighting to make his existence worthwhile, in the hope that he and Cunegonde would marry and live happily ever after. We saw Candide taking matters into his own hands, instead of accepting his fate, when he killed Cunegonde’s two lovers. At this point one begins to see his maturity from a naive young man into a realist.
Candide’s travels take him to “the new world” where he hopes that Dr. Pangloss’ theory might be justified. Candide finds people of wealth who are bored and still unhappy. When he finds a nation of happy people he learns that they must be secluded from the rest of the world to preserve their happiness. Cunegonde leaves Candide for a man of wealth but that turns out to be the beginning of her ruin. Candide is robbed of great wealth and, when he tries to help others, he finds that they are not appreciative of his efforts. Candide’s doubts about Dr. Pangloss’ theory continue to grow. He learns to make his own happiness, battling hardships.
At the end of the book, Candide is reunited with Dr. Pangloss who gave Candide details of how he survived his hanging. They go off in search of formerly beautiful Cunegonde who had become fat, ugly and bitter. Nevertheless, he had vowed to marry her and so he does. The reader might expect that now Candide would be happy, having realized his dream of marrying his own true love, Cunegonde and being reunited with his teacher and mentor, Dr. Pangloss. Candide is not happy! He no longer loves Cunegonde and no longer believes in the principles of his teacher.
Throughout Voltaire’s Candide we see how accepting a situation and not trying to change or overcome obstacles is damaging. What comes to mind, for me, is the attitude of many Jews during the Holocaust. While there was mass murder and torture of innocent people the world’s countries did nothing. Even the victims themselves rarely fought against the tyranny. If only people accepted that they have the power, in many instances, to influence their fate, not accept reality, waiting for things to change, history might have turned out differently. We learn that in life there will be many obstacles which can and should be overcome. Life has its struggles but it would be a miserable place if people passively accepted that everything was for the best, shrugging off responsibility. We see, in contrast to Dr. Pangloss, Odysseus in Homer’s The Odyssey, is a man of great courage who masters all situations and even searches for new adventures and challenges.
Voltaire believes that people should not allow themselves to be victims. He sneers at naive, accepting types, informing us that people must work (be active) to make their happiness.
Mark
LOL. Anyone who lets a ‘church’ dictate their spiritual experience has relinquished control of their innermost being to someone else. After all, the church has long sought to detach YOU from your own spiritual knowledge.
When you let them do that, you are subject to them. And that is the purpose of the church. Power and control. Over you. Then your MONEY goes, too.
Do yourselves a favor and remove yourself from ANY church.
This is just really hilarious. Let them schism. After all, the Christians have been doing it for so long that there are approx. 5000 different flavors of Christianity. Some have come and gone. If this church splits, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE in the grand scheme of things?
NONE. N.O.N.E.
JJJJ
Chuck : Nothing in those articles changes the mathematical facts though, as to what atheist governments were like. I see it the opposite way from Einstein: the religious organizations can sometimes go very wrong and bad, and act more like atheist tyrants. And I bet Einstein would agree with that too.
Bill Perdue
@JJJJ
JJJJ youââŹâ˘re an ahistoric moron. A certified christian nut case.
The Japanese Shintoist empire builders butchered millions of Chinese and others. It was their divine mission. The English empires builders killed millions kidnapping and transporting Africans to slavery and millions more in the artificial famine they created in Ireland. And they werenââŹâ˘t exactly kind to the Indians, Africans and the Chinese, with whom they fought a war for the right to export opium into China. They were on a mission for god. Who’s an anglican.
Hitler had the full support of the leaders of the catholic and most protestant cults who ignored the murder of 22 million Russians, 6 millions Jews and countless others to support the NAZI war on godless communism. Belgium raped the Congo for jezzuz and Leopold because god winked and said ââŹËgo for itââŹÂ. The Spanish and Portuguese relied on vatican support when they committed genocide against native American peoples. They and the English colonists deliberately spread smallpox and other diseases. Muslims committed large scale murder conquering ââŹËnon-believersââŹâ˘ and then the crusaders and Hulagu Khan did it to them. Jupiter Optimus Maximus himself encouraged the butchery of millions by Caesar in Gaul. Carthage was exterminated by pious Romans and the Jews expelled from Judea with great slaughter. And the list goes on and on.
The crimes of the Stalinists are terrible indeed but absolutely pale before the record of genocide practiced by the superstition driven cults whose beliefs become insanely savage when it comes to war.
Perhaps that’s why a French subject, Jean Meslier, who died in 1733 put the following message in his will;
Of course the guillotine they used to shave Louis the Last 60 years later was incomparably faster, but for sheer drama…
Charles J. Mueller
@Bill Perdue:
Bill, you’re confusing him with the facts.
JJJJ’s already made up his mind! đ
Bill Perdue
@Charles J. Mueller:
My error, Charles. Sorry. I keep forgetting that with sufficient ‘faith’ anything can be believed.
chuck
@Bill Perdue:
LOL
Incidentally, you write very well and I very much enjoy your posts.
Keep up the good fight. đ
Bill Perdue
@chuck: Thanks, but this JJJJ is the perfect foil.
WillBFair
I thought this post was about the fight in the church. Now we have a pack of atheists bitching us out for being religious. How tired.
So you don’t have the mental agility for the faith experience, and probably haven’t lifted a finger on behalf of the weak and the poor. Fine. Noboby expects you to. But please ditch the attitude. You’re boring me.
WillBFair
@Bill Perdue: Excuse me doll. But there are good and bad people in all groups. And also cherry picking dingbats trying to use anectodatal evidence to trash people they don’t like. Get some larnin’.
paul
Chuc@chuck:
Thanks for the lovely post. I must pick up and read Voltaire’s Candide.
Cheers,
Paul
Brian Miller
Why not just quit “churching,” Japhy? It’s all mythology.
I understand the “need to belong,” but there are plenty of other social groups one can belong to that don’t require belief in 2,000 year old fairy tales.
Brian Miller
@WillBFair:
So you don’t have the mental agility for the faith experience, and probably haven’t lifted a finger on behalf of the weak and the poor.
Oh man, mysticists’ self-indulgent declarations on stuff like this are a HOOT!
You boys probably give less of your wealth to the poor and weak than your typical unbeliever — and for different reasons.
While rationalists donate to actually help those in need out of a sense of concern for their welfare, you guys give what little cash you don’t pour into your big stained glass palaces to the poor not because it’s the right thing to do… but because you believe you’ll be rewarded “in the afterlife” for it.
It’s so hypocritical. Even in their secular charitable activities, the religious only do it for their own benefit — not out of genuine concern for others.
Some “mental agility.”
chuck
@paul:
You’re very welcome, Paul. Glad to be of service. đ
chuck
@Brian Miller:
In the inimitable words of Ronald Reagan, “There he goes again.”
Why is it that the Pope and all the kings men can rag about gays and Athiests until the cows come home, but let one queer or Athiest say a word about their religion, and they get all touchy and upity about it.
What’s the matter, guy? Can’t take what your practitioners of witchcraft dish out to the gay community on a daily basis?
Please ditch the attitude you say? Who was the first one to start giving “attitude”. I ask? When the curch was roasting faggots over an open spit during the middle ages, were we giving them attitude then too?
What are you doing here, anyway with your religious attitude? Don’t you have some rosary beads to finger or novenas to recite?
Want some cool advice? If you can’t take the heat, then GTF out of the kitchen.
And if your’re bored, take a nap. The conversations will go on very well without you, I’m sure.
Bill Perdue
@WillBFair:
Oh my.
WeââŹâ˘ve been skewered by WillBFair. WeââŹâ˘re done for. We might as well give up and join monasteries or convents, depending.
WBF says ââŹËI thought this post was about the fight in the church.ââŹâ˘ No. Any time brainwashed promoters of ignorance and superstition brave the daylight itââŹâ˘s ok for saner people to puncture their holier than thou egos. And great fun.
Then WFB takes off the gloves. Glowering, he wonders why ââŹËââŹÂŚ you don’t have the mental agility for the faith experienceââŹâ˘ We can only wonder in turn if he has these hallucinations often. And if his spirituality is so polished that he can twist his head 180 degrees and vomit pea soup on command. Will these spells end if he just follows his doctorââŹâ˘s advice and takes his lithium?
ââŹËand probably haven’t lifted a finger on behalf of the weak and the poorââŹâ˘ ââŹĹCharity creates a multitude of sins.ââŹÂ Oscar Wilde. Not the least of which is your sanctimonious posing, WBF. Spare us.
ââŹËBut please ditch the attitude. You’re boring meââŹâ˘ Do you imagine anyone cares whether or not youââŹâ˘re bored. Or venting. Or that youââŹâ˘ve actually got a good count on the number of sky pixies who can dance on the head of a pin.
ââŹËAnd also cherry picking dingbats trying to use anectodatal evidence to trash people they don’t likeââŹâ˘. Get some larnin’. You misspelled and misused the term anecdotal. What anecdotal evidence? If you want to talk to rational people you have to supply fact, analysis ââŹâ not just the ââŹËfaithââŹâ˘ that feeds you delusions.
Actually I blame it all on that penny pinching miser Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. If heââŹâ˘d just imported a few more lions and tigers and kept them well fedââŹÂŚ
Oh my. What a better world itââŹâ˘d be.
chuck
@Bill Perdue:
And to top it all off, WBF tosses the word Athiest about like it is a bad thing.
Some fucking nerve! đ
Jere L Griffin Jr
I am a Personal Friend of Cannon Rees Hay , Founder of Trinity Prep School in Orlando Florida.
Before His Move to The Real Reality! I had the Opprotunity to ask Him . Cannon What do you think of me being Gay? He said , ” I don’t Believe you had a choice” That has to be the single most important thing anyone in my Life Has said to me LOVE JJ
chuck
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
And Hitler loved dogs, so I guess that didn’t make him all bad, eh what?
Joe Moag
WillBFair, JJ, others: It is damn nice of you to calmy waste your time “debating” with Bill Perdue on matters of faith and religion, but it is about as useful as tits on a bull.
Mr. Perdue has obviously been in read-only format for decades. Nothing gets through to him that could possibly augment, equivocate, temper or question his very-religious-zealot-like dogmatic allegiance to some crap he must have read in some 1966 reprint of someone’s college treatise on “Secularism and the ulimate saving graces of Marxist/Maoist governance.”
You’ve heard of the Village Idiot, the character that would roam around a village and spout stupid crapola on all manner of things? The Village Idiot never actually did anything about anything, just spent all his time screaming ad nauseum about anyone who actually did, anyone who actually tried, or anyone who actually believed in things that could not be reduced to a quip.
Bill Perdue has updated the role of Village Idiot into the role of Village Atheist. Just as ridiculous, but not nearly as broadly amusing.
Let him live it. He does it so well.
Jere L Griffin Jr
I debated no one! Dogs? Did you go to High School?
1 thing I was Taught is that I should Think before I type! Perhaps? You Reap what You Sow! Love thy Neighbor as thy self! or have you read or know of this Book? Mean people SUCK! Merry Christmass Charlie Brown!LOVE JJ
WillBFair
@Bill Perdue: I’m sorry I came across like a know it all.
Spelling anecdotal wrong was a typo. But the content is fine. I was refering to you, or someone else here, using the bad actions of some christians to condemn the whole batch. It’s also false generalizing, another standard tactic of the religious right, and I don’t think it has a place in our discussion.
I don’t need lessons in rationality. I was studying Plato and the rest in my teens and have used the system ever since. Some people can use logic and still enjoy the faith experience. We do it because it includes an ethical system that’s really really fair and kind and beautiful. If you prefer logic only, fine. But why do you have to be so dismissive of others?
WillBFair
@Joe Moag: You’re right. I just stumbled onto this blog, and I was trying to join the conversation. I’ll know better next time. I also took a know-it-all tone, which I shouldn’t have. But Perdue is outright venomous, with insults and name calling. Yikes.
WillBFair
@Joe Moag: You’re also pretty clever with the ‘saving graces of marxist governance.’ It’s hilarious.
WillBFair
@Brian Miller: We donate. But we also work, and not from hoping for reward, but because the gospel points out quit correctly that the social structure is heartless and unfair, and from compassion for people who suffer, and because it’s part of living an educated life.
The comment I made may have been unfair to you. But still, in the many groups I’ve worked with, secularists were in short supply. Can you explain that?
chuck
@WillBFair:
>”using the bad actions of some christians to condemn the whole batch.”
Umm…how many Christians, including the Mormon cult, would you say, contributed money to Proposition 8 in California and voted yes on it to strip California citizens of civil-rights they already had, and…voted yes on propositions in three other states, namely, AZ, AK and FL, to make sure that gay people could never obtain their civil-rights in those states as well?
Inquiring minds need to know.
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the term “some”. That word leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation.
Perhaps we could employ a more accurate word instead?
Like a “lot”?
chuck
@chuck:
And while we are on the subject, perhaps you could also inform me as to how many signs you saw in the National Day of Protest that followed saying,
I AM A CRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES THAT VOTING ON PROPOSITION 8 WAS WRONG.
Again, inquiring minds need to know?
chuck
Correction: That should have read that voting “YES” on Proposition….
WillBFair
@chuck: On this issue probably most christians and most straights are against us, becuase they’re so selfish about marraige. But I also think the polls show that most agree with civil unions. And my freind thinks we should push for that to get them used to the idea. It’s the strategic approach. But I’m not going to get all hysterical about marraige rights because for me there are more important issues, like fair housing and employment and healthcare.
WillBFair
I just got that you’re trying to make another dig at all christians. I don’t know how many contributed, but I’d guess that most were fundys. Maybe we should ask how many christians were abolitionists? How many work their as-es off on behalf of the poor. How many would marry us in their churches if the law were changed? The answer in each case is ‘plenty’.
chuck
@WillBFair:
>”But I’m not going to get all hysterical about marriage rights because for me there are more important issues, like fair housing and employment and healthcare.”
I got it. It’s not your problem, so why should you give a shit? That seems to be the position of almost every one of my gay friends as well. My str8 friends, interestingly enough, are all supportive of my right to marry the person I love, irregardless of their sex. I find that curious.
Now, let me pose a question to you.
You meet a Philippine man on line almost six years ago. Every year, you spend $2500. on a round-trip plane ticket to fly down to the Philippines to be with with him for several months out of the year plus all of the living expenses involved.
After two years of doing this, you get him enrolled in a prestigious American university and try to obtain a student visa for him to come to America to study, so you can be together for at least the four years it will take for him to earn a degree. You will be guaranteeing his tuition, books and living expenses for the entire period he is here in the country.
However, the American Embassy in Manila denies a visa, on three separate occasions, stating that they do not believe that the applicant will have sufficient reason to return to his country of origin after he has completed his studies. Another door slammed in yoiur face.
You cannot marry this person because it is against the law and unlike heterosexual couples who meet under similar circumstances, you cannot obtain a green card to bring the one you love to this country.
You find out that you and your partner are one of 36,000 multinational couples who are also being discriminated against in the same manner, but there is nothing you can do about it, except cry a lot at night when you go to bed each night….alone.
Because you cannot legally bring your partner to this country like str8 people can, you are obliged to buy a house plus expenses on foreign soil so you can be with your loved one, in addition to having to run a business and maintain a domicile plus expenses on American soil at the same time.
You work your ass off campaigning for the man you would like to see become the next President of the US, Mr. Obama. Because most of your energy is going into that, and being a resident of Florida, there is not much you can do besides send money to Equality California and hope for the best.
You sit in front of your TV and cry tears of happiness when the man you supported wins the election, but your happiness is quickly circumvented when you learn the next day, that existing civil-rights that Californians already had, were stripped away from them by the Christian coalitions that worked tirelessly to bring that about.
Would you be “hysterical” then? And would YOU be willing to play the role of the perfect martyr by putting YOUR personal happiness on the back burner while you concern yourself with more important issues like fair housing, employment and healthcare?
Oh, and how would YOU tell the person you love, who has been waiting faithfully for you for almost six years, that getting married is not something to get all “hysterical” about?
You see, WillBFair It’s what you’ve just told us both to do…and I don’t think that’s fair.
But, it’s no skin off your ass, is it? It’s somebody else’s problem.
Sometimes, I wish that all of my friends were straight. At least, they are desirous of seeing me happy, which seems to be more than I can say about members of my own sexual orientation, judging by what I read on these blogs every day.
chuck
@WillBFair:
>”How many would marry us in their churches if the law were changed? The answer in each case is ‘plenty’.”
Oh really? “Plenty”. Another one of those vague adjectives like “some” that you like to toss out there and which leaves the actual numbers open to wide interpretation. No statistician or fact gatherer you. Folks like you simply dabble in the improbable, the unlikely, the unfounded and and the unprovable.
If you can make that comment with a straight face, then you must have had your earplug in when your beloved Poop, er…pope took two shits the other day. Queerty reported on both.
Vatican Lambasted for Opposition to Decriminalization of Homosexuality
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=84114
I am trying real hard not to get angry, but your staunch, Christian protectionism, at the expense of gay people, is really beginning to piss me off.
Like so many other stupid and uninformed Christians, you don’t seem to have a fucking clue as to what is actually going on out there in the real world, do you?
Spare me the self-righteous, sanctimonious sermon on how Christians are working their asses off on behalf of the poor. Many are poor precisely because of the church confiscating their time and money, like we just witnessed with the Mormon Church regarding Prop. 8 in California.
The Church encouraging the collection and spending of $60 million just to take away the civil-rights of fellow Americans, is hardly what I would call working their asses off on behalf of the poor. Some 32,000 infants around the world starved to death on the evening of the passage of Proposition 8. Where were all those Christians working their asses on behalf of the poor that evening?
Hang on very tightly to that rugged wooden cross you love so much, because when the Christian right comes for you, and it is beginning to look more and more like a possibility the way things are going in this country, because you are going to need it, buddy.
And, it won’t mean shit if you have fair housing, employment and healthcare, because as a second-class citizen who has been stripped of his human rights, none of that will save your queer ass or mine.
6 million Jews and 10K homosexual had to learn that lesson very painfully in Hitler’s Germany during WWII, didn’t they? They were stipped of everything, including their eyeglasses and the gold in their teeth.
Have a very Merry Christmas, WillBFair. After all, paying homage to the Christ child and fattening the coffers of retail stores and corporations is infinitely more important than equality for all American Citizens, isn’t it?
Christians, Evangelicals and Log Cabin Republicans will be the death of the LGBT community in America.
Bet on it.
Bill Perdue
MoagââŹâ˘s miffed because not everyone agrees that his “Franciscan and Jesuit background” is something to be proud of.
As I pointed out many ‘modern’ Franciscans and Jesuits and thousands of other roman cult priests, enraged because secular legal systems that won’t let them burn witches (feminists, midwives, etc.), Jews (they even had to apologize for their centuries-old anti-Semitic Holocausts), Muslims, Africans, Asians, Americans (IââŹâ˘m not referring to Euroamericans but real Americans) and faggots. So they work out their delusional superstition-driven ignorance by raping children. How could anyone conceivably be proud of the long record of the sexual and psychological rape of grade school boys by the Franciscans? http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/03_04/2006_03_14_Guccione_DealReached.htm Or the depraved criminality of the Jesuits. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/13/local/me-mayor13
Christian anti-GLBT folks like Moag might have a wider audience if they didn’t trumpet their social Darwinist views that our lives are not only pointless but “Biologically speaking … deleterious, as it takes that person’s genes out of the gene pool”
======================
WFBs vexed because, innocence personified, he just ââŹËstumbledââŹâ˘ in on this thread using terms like ââŹËcherry picking dingbatsââŹâ˘ who need ââŹËsome larnin’. (It should be noted that he still refuses to provide evidence that the clear historical record of the crimes of the christers is anecdotal. I wouldnââŹâ˘t want that assignment either.)
Then, stumbling along, he describes how bad boy atheists are just a tiresome ââŹËpack of atheists bitching us outââŹâ˘. (Please, lose the sexist banter, WFB. It doesnââŹâ˘t suck, it prays. And it demeans us all.) To make up for that he compliments us: ââŹËSo you don’t have the mental agility for the faith experienceââŹâ˘. Hopefully not. I think most of us are proud, smugly so, that we donââŹâ˘t suffer from hallucinations, vomit green goo, hear voices or feel duty-bound to obey burning bushes. Then, more stumbling. We donââŹâ˘t, he says, lift a ââŹĹa finger on behalf of the weak and the poor.ââŹâ˘ Holier than thou, some how he finds us boring.
When WFB gets convincingly and repeatedly burned for his arrogance he whimpers. ââŹËYikes’. Clearly heââŹâ˘s in over his head. He expected meek atheists. It wonââŹâ˘t happen. WeââŹâ˘re unrepentant. WeââŹâ˘re sane. WeââŹâ˘re here. Deal with it.
Perhaps, WFB, the best part of valor (and damage control) would be for you to just stumble out the door you stumbled in.
WillBFair
@Bill Perdue: I will stumble out. Name calling, generalization, misplaced emphasis, and other errors of logic are not my cup of tea. And though rehashing the horrifying crimes of western civilization would probably make me feel self righteous, I have actual work to do.
I apologized once for my combative tone. I won’t again. But it’s too bad we can’t speak civily among ourselves. It looks like another sign of internalized homophobia.
Goodbye for good.
Charles J. Mueller
@Bill Perdue:
>”Perhaps, WFB, the best part of valor (and damage control) would be for you to just stumble out the door you stumbled in.”
BRAVO, Bill. You said it better than I ever could have. You do have a way with words.
Will is obviously the one suffering from internalized homophobia. We didn’t attack his being gay. We attacked the unfounded Christian buy bull shit he was laying on us.
I, for one, am delighted that he has opted to say “Goodbye for good.” This room will be a better place for his having left it. I mean, who needs to be constantly denigrated by some stumble-bum who obviously does not know his ass from a hole in the ground? Good riddance, I say.
Bye-bye, Will. Don’t forget your bible and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Charles J. Mueller
Moag sayeth: “Biologically speaking ââŹÂŚ deleterious, as it takes that person’s genes out of the gene pool”
With any degree of luck, perhaps Moag will, like WBF, will take his “genes” out of this “pool” (blog) as they are deleterious to common sense and sane, logical debate.
Joe Moag
@Charles J. Mueller: I love it when you sadly attempt to regurgitate the slams I have knocked you with and try and use them against me. It’s so cute!
KJ
Oh my.
At mid-life, I came out of Evangelical Land, and a few years later found an amazing place of refuge within The Episcopal Church. It is very “broad” group, which I see as a very good thing; those leaving do not. Sayonara!
Those of us who have found a life-affirming, giving back spiritual home within TEC have to scratch our heads at the anti-religious diatribes directed our way. Such detractors accurately decry a religion of exclusion that most of us in TEC would also decry. We too do not believe in the god that you do not believe in, if that makes any sense.
To the original question, what’s a gay boy within TEC to do? I find that if I get personal about “schismatics” shooting their nonsense my way, I get pissed. Yet, when I think about the closeted glbt in all religious, and non-relgious settings, and those yet to come, there is nothing that I wouldn’t do, and if that means being in a place in which Christian spirituality is believed and lived, then that’s where you’ll find me. I know others are not led to be there, but what is it to you if I am?
Charles J. Mueller
@KJ:
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/nigeria-akinola.htm
Nothing for us “schismatics” to get hysterical about, is there?
You ask, “but what is it to you if I am?”
Those of you who are holed-up comfortably in your little religious closets, just don’t get it, do you?
Peter Akinola is not in your backyard, so what is it to you that your gay brothers in Nigeria have to suffer?
Really makes a fella want to embrace Christianity, doesn’t it?
M Shane
It is my belief , very simply, that in an age when the real enemy of ethical action which the church needs to engage, the source of all modern evil, is imperialistic, uscrupulous capitalistic greed. That which tears up the earth and murders people by the millions.
This is what the churches need to be confronting if they are to have any conscience at all. What the Republicans have given them as scapegoat, Gay people in the same way as the Nazis turned to the Jews . This is a hateful and fearful neofascist use of resources.
If the churches confronted the real source of evil in this world, which they won’t do given where their bread is buttered, this would not be happening.
Gays in mainstreaming have laid down in the bed of their enemies and surely the source of
hatred and bloodshed.
Charles J. Mueller
@Joe Moag:
Glad to have been of service, although I haven’t quite gotten the knack of rotating my head 180 degrees as I regurgitate.
Perhaps if I convert to being a believer, I could master that feat?
Joe Moag
@Charles J. Mueller: Well, you manage to get your head up both yours and Bill’s asses quite easily…maybe you could use that as a basis of practice…
KJ
@Charles J. Mueller:
Charles, have you read what I wrote? Given your take on it, I had to reread what I wrote since as what it says has nothing to do with your response to it.
Akinola is in my “faith backyard.” I am in frequent contact with those whom Akinola opposes in Nigeria. The “schismatics” to whom I refer are those who wish TEC to be kicked out of the Anglican Communion lest they catch glbt cooties. My political and spiritual being is about those in harm’s way and is why I am at home in TEC. How you take difference with that, I cannot understand.
Rob Moore
@JJJJ: If we take a certain point in time, let’s say the 1930s and 1940s, and compare Hitler and Stalin it comes out about the same. Stalin murdered around 20 million Ukrainians through a forced famine when he confiscated all their food crops for resisting collectivisation. Hitler killed about 20 million Russians. Hitler killed about six million Jews, about 1 million Gypsies, several hundred thousand queers, a couple million “enemies of the state”, the previously mentioned 20 million Soviets, another couple of million Poles and Slavs. He would have killed more Jews, Gypsies, and queers, but Jews and Gypsies under his control were becoming scarce and a lot harder to find and queers were being particularly careful not to give themselves away. The Arabs should be particularly grateful he didn’t defeat the British in North Africa. He didn’t like Muslims anymore than he liked Jews.
Stalin lived and ruled longer and had a larger empire to practice his cruelty. He wasn’t particularly an atheist as much as I think he hated the church. He was more along the lines of Saddam Hussein. He enjoyed the power and viewed murder has just another political tool. I shouldn’t be terribly surprised to learn he jerked off while watchig torture. I don’t think Hitler had really been able to get it up since the niece he liked to molest committed suicide. Hussein didn’t particularly care if Uday raped and murdered for kicks as long as he didn’t make a mess for daddy to clean up.
I don’t believe in gods or spirits in all honesty. I tried to do it. I was a faithful Catholic until I had my St. Paul moment at Mass one day. I was the head lector and was doing the readings at the Saturday vigil mass. I think I had just finished reading the Old Testament reading and was waiting while the psalm was sung. I just had this moment of mental clarity and realised that I was reading something no more real than a Grimm Brother’s fairy tale. While it was mildly entertaining with all the ceremony and solemnity; incense and incantations; I didn’t actually believe any of it. Suddenly, it became clear we were carrying on the tradition of our neolithic ancestors. What we could not explain with current knowledge, we explained with mythology and made up stories.
M. Shane – Churches require evil to exist. Without it, they whither and die. To maintain their reason to exist, they must act as enablers.
Jere L Griffin Jr
You People at this Blog are The most Hatefull ,dispecable , Disrespectable people I have ever encounterd ! Period! I hope Your Happy about who and what you are because you are not my people! Period! The Hate that you spit out speaks Volums of how MISERIBLE you are in your own Lives ! You make me ashamed to be Gay! Period! You need to step back and collect your thoughts and learn to be nice! Jesus said what you do unto the least of these you have done to me ! I understand your Pain and resentment but People we are all brothers ! why ? Do you spit vile and hate if what you want is LOVE and Understanding! it is not Logical! Merry Christmass and Happy new year ! Please think before you type Like an adult! Like a real Human Being We are all the same! give it a break and cool off what you write type is perminently here you can’t take it back ! Why Preach Hate when that is what we are all fighting against! ? LOVE JJ
WillBFair
@Jere L Griffin Jr: Thank you, thank you, thank you. I just started looking at this blog yesterday, and was shocked by what I saw. I even copied their heartless tone for a minute.
Don’t waste your breath here. I tried, but they’re too into spitting venom and are not going to stop.
chuck
@WillBFair:
Goodbye for good. Posted: Dec 8, 2008 at 10:51 am
Exactly 12 hours ago, to the minute, WillBFair bid his fond farewell to us. Like so many of the things that the sky-daddy crowd say, they should not be taken literally and with a grain of salt. Like slippery eels, you just can’t hold people like this to their word, because their “word” changes from moment to moment, depending on how they are trying to take advantage of the situation.
In their lexicon, “for good” means a hiatus of a few hours. Accordingly, “eternity’ might emcompass all of a day. “Some” means most and “plenty” means just about all to disingenuous liars like Willie.
And these people wonder why we Athiests don’t take them seriously or buy into their bullshit?
Willie came crashing onto these blogs like a bull in a china shop, stepping on toes left and right, something religious types always seem to feel is perfectly acceptable. I don’t recall him showing any “heart” for anyone on these blogs. Everyone was fair game for his snarky remarks and insults.
When some of us put our hands on his chest and shoved back, Willie was shocked to find out that we were not about to take his shit. Surprise. Surprise.
Now, in typical Christian fashion, his feelings are hurt and he now accuses of of being a bunch of bullies, Athiest bullies, at that. Religious people can attack like sharks at a feeding frenzy, but let someone strike back, and they become cry-babies.
Obviously, Willie’s mother never taught him the finer points of life, like courtesy, respect and how to be polite to people…all people. Most likely, she was too busy filling his head with how gays are not worthy of any of the foregoing considerations and Willie just became an insensitive, faggot-loathing clod who thought he could come in here and wipe the floor with us like the rest of his Christian and Log Cabin Republican buddies like to do.
Spitting YOUR venon at us aside, Willie, you were damned lucky you were in a gay blog site. If you had run that shit past guys and gals in a str8 blog, you can bet your sweet ass, someone would have made their business to find you so they could punch your headlights out for being a smart-assed little fucker.
If you’re looking for love and acceptance, I would suggest one of the many Christian chat rooms where you will find any number of people who share your childish sky-pixie fantasies and warped, bigoted viewpoints about gay people.
And if per chance, you do reply to this post, then you will have proven yourself, yet once again, to be the disingenuous liar I accused you of being earlier.
chuck
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
You wrote, “You People at this Blog are The most Hatefull ,dispecable , Disrespectable people I have ever encounterd.”
Spoken like Sylvester, the cat! Tell me, do you do that with the same sloppy, stridulating lisp that Sylvester uses?
So why, pray tell, are you here then? Are you a priest? Are you a Friar? Are you a Reverend? No, you say? Then what give you the right to come into this blog and lecture us like one? May I come to your Church next Sunday, without benefit of having been invited, and do likewise?
No one is preaching hate here. We are simply telling it like it is. We will leave the hate to those who have had some two thousand years to hone and perfect their hate preaching. Sad to say, gays would be the losers at a preacherââŹâ˘s bee.
Incidentally, I picked up at least a half dozen spelling errors in your rant. You make me ashamed of being gay when I see people like you who write like they flunked English 101 repeatedly.
It’s called spell check. Look into it.
Jere L Griffin Jr
The Problem of Atheists is not that they don’t Believe in GOD!! It is that they Know GOD and CHOOSE evil! It is your GOD given right!
As far as spelling goes . The sequence of the letters is not important , It is the understanding of the words and the Meaning there in. You might look into it!
Merry Christmass & Happy New Yaer! :)~ LOVE JJ
Jere L Griffin Jr
Oh I would prefer Snydly Whiplash Thank you very much!:)~
Roland Basque
The heavens were displeased with the sons of Arabia because of their proclivity towards homosexuality.The Arabs abuse women and beat them .They do not like women they only seek intimacy with other arab men.The practice of homosexuality was introduced to Arabia by Irish
“wild geese”.The arabs took up this custom with great glee and even neglected their camels to bestow their affections on other Arabic males.Little is known about the original Irish practicioners of this custom other then they went on to the countries of England and Scotland for a lengthy sojourn.Now the Arabs perform puerile acts of violence to disguise their rampant homosexuality but without the desired results.The world is aware of the fact that homosexuality is a way of life in Arabia.
Roland Basque
Wherever there is a confab of elitists who seek to implement their demands at the subjugation and suffering of others you will find the majority of this group is comprised of self seeking heterophobes.
Carl
Wow, it’s fun to watch you rabid anti-church nuts rip yourselves apart. You’re funnier than the religious right.
Your ignorance of your own bigotry is astounding.
And, for the record, I’m a gay Episcopalian whose partner is an Episcopal priest. We are well-respected in our rural New York State congregation and in our very liberal diocese. We do not believe that the actions of a few power-hungry, orthodoxy-obsessed clergy and their followers should deter us from our mission of reaching out beyond our church’s walls to do the work we believe we are called by God to do. We have already moved on.
The constant harping on how the “ENTIRE church” is this or that, believes this or that, does this or that… it’s naive, short-sighted, and ignorant of the facts. The church is no monolith, any more than the gay community is a monolith.
Bill Perdue
Carl, my bf is an MD and I’ve been a union organizer/griever and am a veteran of the antiwar, anti-nuke, pro-Palestinian and GLBT movements.
You didn’t say what you do but obviously your partner needs to find some productive work. Priests, rabbis, imams, preachers, pastors = parasites. He needs to find a way to contribute to society, not parasitize it.
All religious people are superstition driven and ignorant and to the extent that they buy into that shoddy lifestyle theyââŹâ˘re lost to the movement. YouââŹâ˘re like most christers, unable to be quietly eccentric, or wildly insane, as the case may be. You have to proclaim stuff and rub you shoddy lifestyle choices in our face. Basta!
Religious right, religious parasite or religious centrist – there is no difference. As for the religious left it’s virtually nonexistent. People moving left, and thereââŹâ˘ll be a lot of them as the economy tanks and the war and bigotry continue unabated under Obama, soon find that a chosen lifestyle of superstition and parasitism are not compatible with being a rebel or a serious social activist.
Jere L Griffin Jr
The Unfortunate Consequence of this Debate! If I am Wrong I Lose nothing and If YOU are Wrong YOU lose EVERYTHING! On a Positive note! God Loves you despite yourself! And When you choose to open your eyes and hearts and SOULS to HIM He will welcome you as if YOU are the only person that matters! The Bible is not only the Oldest Book in existance it is the most widely distributed and reproduced! It is the all Time best seller in human History! You might want to read it! You might also try a childrens version first so you can comprehend the small words first before you Graduate to Grade school level! LOVE JJ
KJ
@Bill Perdue:
Hey Bill, Peace. But I’ll be sure to pass on to my fellow parasites at my Episcopal parish that they need to stop housing homeless women each evening (typically about 30) and working on efforts to eliminate homelessness, desist in feeding those who need food, trash the clothes purchased for children, desist in assisting the elderly, stop assisting laborers on foreign ships that moor in the local harbor, and what are they thinking about with their efforts to provide healing in efforts directed at local environmental projects?
You wish to make all those with a Christian faith fit into your stereotype, a stereotype that fits some, not all, rather than learning about real people in real efforts to help others. Slamming stereotypes is great fun for those with whom you already agree, but it does nothing to help those who need help.
While there clearly are people in this thread who take offense if others don’t share their faith, that’s not true of most of us within TEC. So rather than getting upset when others belittle our faith, we are more bemused as to why others would attack us while we’re doing what we can for those around us, and those yet to come, while not particularly having our panties in a twist about the “correctness” of belief of others. As we’ve seen in this thread, there’s enough of that nonsense, both christian and not, to go around.
Again, peace.
Charles J. Mueller
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
Your self-righteous, mollifying and ingratiating references to God love and the rest of the senseless and idiotic bible bullshit that follows in your post, is exactly the same as that of Reverend Haggard…before he was caught with meth up his nose…and a dick up his ass.
Why do religious freaks like you always tell other people that they should read the bible, when it is obvious that you yourself, have never read it. Had you read it, you would have a hard time trying to convince yourself that God is the all loving sky-daddy you Christians feel the need to cram down everyone else’s throat.
The Oldest Book in existence? Obviously, you have never heard of Google.
The most widely distributed and reproduced book? All that proves to me, is the sheer amount of ignorance and stupidity that exists on this planet.
The all time best seller in history, you say?
Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.
http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/mcl112001.htm
Substitute religion for the Bush Administration and you’ll get the idea.
How sad that people like you do nothing more than suck-up valuable oxygen and pollute the planet with your non-factual, improvable and childish notions about invisible friends and sky-daddies.
What else do you do besides this to make the earth a better place to live in?
Bill Perdue
@KJ: If you’ll notice the comment referred clerical parasites. I stand by it.
We need a set of federal laws and constitutional amendments guaranteeing an adequate income, good housing and socialized medicine for all working people. That can be done by taxing the uberrich until they have the same income as the rest of us (which will not amuse most Episcopalians, especially the rich ones.) Charity is appreciated but it doesn’t begin to cover the problems of homelessness, bad diet, low wages reserved for women, minorities and the many GLBT youths thrown out of their homes at an early age by christian bigots. Those conditions exist because the super rich are too rich at our expense.
Cults, whether christist, religious jews or islamist should be taxed just like any other component of the entertainment industry.
1. Faith based charity fund are a source of corruption and should be ended immediately and any cult that received them investigated by the FBI.
2. The wealth of the catholic cult should be confiscated without compensation to repay their victims and supply condoms and other items to help prevent the spread of HIV, which the catholic cult favors and promotes.
3. The wealth of the southern baptist cult was for decades identical to the KKK. Their wealth should be confiscated without compensation to aid in the eradication of racism.
4. The wealth of mormon cult should be confiscated without compensation to promote womenââŹâ˘s and GLBT rights.
And etc.
Charles J. Mueller
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
. “As far as spelling goes . The sequence of the letters is not important.”
Is that what you said to your English teacher after she gave you an”F” on your report card?
Following your flippant dismissal of protocol, now I can understand why the accuracy of what you are saying leaves something to be desired.
To paraphrase what you said, “As far as fact goes , the accuracy of your comments is not important . It is the understanding of the words and the Meaning as YOU understand them that is important.”
And that is the fly in the ointment, so far as religions go.
They are only able to see things as they understand them. No one else’s opinions or thoughts are worthy of being heard or respected.
It’s the stuff wars are made of…and frequently have been, if you look through history.
But, why would you want to look through history? You’ve obviously already made up your mind and don’t want to confuse yourself with the facts.
Charles J. Mueller
Bill, I jsut love how the pious religious types always use the argument of, “Oh, but we Christians do SO much good” as a balm and a deceptive stratagem to cover and hide all the evil, harm and suffering that has been perpetrated on humanity by the Church.
As if giving out left over table scraps and a few tattered rags will atone for it all.
Of course, we all know that Athiests and Agnostics NEVER do anything kind to anyone. It’s only the good, God-fearing Christians who do nice things. Yeah. Right.
I’m with you,Bill. Strip these rich phonies of all theiir ill-begotten worldly goods and wealth, in the very same manner in which they have just stripped the GLBG community of their humanity, civil-rights and the right to exist on this planet. Who the fuck do they think they are?
I am sick to death of listening the bleating of wolves in sheep’s clothing while they wreak their havoc on mankind, especially we gays.
KJ
@Bill Perdue:
Hey Bill,
In the “liberal” (Hate the use of the word as it means too many different things to too many people.) spectrum of TEC there is little disconnect between the clerics and parishioners. Remove the collar, and you would see little difference, and I mean that in a good way. Also, while the Episcopal church as a history of having “monied” and politically connected families, that would not be true of most parishes. Speaking for my own, the entire breadth of the socio-economic spectrum is present, and all work side-by-side. I chuckle, not at you, but at the assumption that many Episcopalians would differ greatly with your political leanings.
Of course charity is not the only answer. Our parish is involved in a city-wide effort regarding homelessness that includes private charities, the private sector, and city and state government.
If you are truly interested in learning more about the social efforts of TEC, go to the mother ship’s main website and check out the “8 Millennium Development Goals.” None of us is involved in these efforts alone, and that’s a very good thing.
Jere L Griffin Jr
Ha , Cast not your Pearls before SWINE!
Unimaginable ! MR. BILE đ GOOGLE Sociopath/Psycopath ,You will appreciate the spelling!
I truely read your pain and self Loathing! What does your Theripist say about your HAPPiness and Love for humanity?
It’s Sad that you exist to spread your poision and hate! BUT GOD loves you anyway , and In time yall be commin back , and we will welcome you and all those like you ! MerryChristmass Scruge , I mean Grinch! LOVE JJ
Bill Perdue
Charity on any level is not the answer.
I’m not at all interested in the episcopal cult. I’m glad that part of the anglo-cahtolic cult is not as virulent bigoted as the roman catholic cult but that, in my mind is like comparing a python and a cobra. IââŹâ˘d want to avoid both.
After your cult begins fighting for confiscation of cult riches, ending their tax privileges and for confiscatory taxes on the super rich then you can chuckle. But I really can’t imagine that happening. Can you?
Bill Perdue
Charles, youââŹâ˘re right. Actually the cults do terrible damage which far outweighs their puny spit-in-the-ocean attempts to do good works.
In Africa anglo and roman catholics and muslims oppress and murder GLBT folks and support measures that promote the spread of HIV/AIDS.
For instance a little over a year ago roman cult archbishop Francisco Chimoio said that European produced condoms used to prevent HIV/AIDS had been deliberately infected with HIV. He claimed that condom companies “want to finish with the African people” and “want to colonize” the continent. He refused (because he a lying sack of shit) to name the companies involved and repeated that the best way to fight the spread of AIDS is by fidelity or abstinence.
As a result of Chimono’s approach one in six citizens of Mozambique is HIV-positive. They have no access to the available therapies and theyââŹâ˘ll die. IââŹâ˘ve watched dozens of my friends and a few lovers die from the effects of that virus and itââŹâ˘s awful.
Chimono, Ratziner der Pope, and anglicans like archbishop Akinola are murderers and should be hauled before the world court on charges of mass murder.
chuck
@Bill Perdue:
I hear you, loud and clear, Bill.
Nazi war criminals like Martin Bormann, Karl Donitz, Hermann Goering and Rudolph Hess and other war criminals were sentenced to death at the Nuremburg Trials after the end of WWI.
Here in America, we reward the murders and criminals, hiding under sack cloth and turned around collars, with a tax-free status and “contributions” of taxpayer money by our government to support their ongoing crimes against humanity, as evidenced in the following link.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18524549.html
A Google search will turn up yet more reports of how our taxpayer money is being given to various Churches in America, dspite the vast wealth that these institutions already have amassed.
And we wonder, why we cannot match the financial efforts of the religious right to defend our civil-rights???
Bloviate on, you religious holy-rollers. I am not at all convinced of your “goodliness”.
Any gay person that can defend the despicable actions of the Christian Church against the GLBT community, is no better than a Log Cabin Republican and deserves a good, swift kick in the ass, after the Church and the Republicans have had their turn at it.
KJ
@Bill Perdue:
Again, Bill, you lump all people of faith as some monolithic entity, which is convenient, but not nearly as interesting as individual people. You chose to not investigate, or learn about, what you may have in common with people of faith who are trying to make the world a better place. You discard as “puny” such attempts since you do not approve of the spiritual faith of others (By the way. You would have than in common with the conservative schismatics who are leaving TEC, not only because of gay cooties, but also their disapproval of the Millennium goals I’ve encouraged you to investigate.). I’m reminded of my time in “Evangelical Land” when all were so certain exactly what it meant to be gay. Never mind the facts.
You have become a mirror image of what you rightly detest. The truth, by which I do not mean matters of spiritual faith, is really much more interesting than you’re allowing it to be.
Japhy, thanks for the opportunity for a great discussion!
chuck
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
> “Ha , Cast not your Pearls before SWINE!”
Record that on your iPod and play it back to yourself, over and over and over, until you truly get it.
Because it is the taxpaying citizens who choose not to believe all all the fairy tales that the Church propagates, who are casting their pearls (tax dollars and contributions) at SWINE.
Roland Basque
Enough of these sophmoric outbursts.Sounds to me like a flock of hens cackling in the barnyard.
Jere L Griffin Jr
Mr Mueller
What do you Create?
Let me see you make a blade of grass or a leaf!
How’s Your Psyciatrist? What does s/he think?
Make any Friends today? Were you nice to anyone?
Bill Perdue
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
JLGR – you can bore me and make me want to vomit at the same time. Is that miraculous or what? Hallelujah. Etc.
Jere L Griffin Jr
Mr Perdue
To step down to your level I would haveta step off the ladder! I had skipped you alltogether! If I was so Boring then why did you type? ECT. It’s ok cause If Im wrong i lose nothing! If your wrong you lose everything! GOD Bless You Sir you need it! Merry Christmass LOVE JJ
Charles J. Mueller
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
“What do you create?”
I create my own reality without the need for a sky-daddy to watch over me like a little kid. I take full responsibility for my life and the events that I bring about as the result of my actions.
“Let me see you make a blade of grass or a leaf”
A rhetorical question that you yourself could not answer. Your point, please?
“How’s your psychiatrist?” (You might like to make a note of the correct spelling) “What does s/he think?”
I have no idea. I have not visited him since I was 30 years old. I’m 72, so he’s probably not even alive anymore, so I have absolutely no idea what s/he is thinking wherever he is.
“Made any friends today?”
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I did. I met someone very nice online today, who unlike yourself, is polite, refined, intelligent, well informed informed, easy to get along with, knows how to spell and is not in my face about Christianity…or peddling any other dogma, for that matter.
“Were you nice to anyone?”
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I was. As you probably noted from another blog (as did Joe Moag), I took a friend, oops…Joe caught my ruse…it was my mother, actually (he must have a extremely powerful periscope in the sea of bullshit he navigates in) to dinner at Boston Market this evening and Latte/dessert/conversation at Barnes and Noble afterward.
I would have liked to have seen the new movie MILK, but for reasons I have yet to fathom, it is not playing anywhere in the state of Florida except Miami. Perhaps the same Christian rednecs who passed Proposition 2 here in Florida, were successful in getting the film banned in all other parts of Florida?
Any other stupid questions you’d like to ask of me? Obviously, you are easily amused.
Charles J. Mueller
Mistype: rednecs should be rednecks. The “k” key on my keyboard seems to be sticking. probably the result of pounding on angrily it when I am replying to religious idiots like you.
Jere L Griffin Jr
Polite ,Stupid , idiot , spelling ,angry , in my face ,?
Scroll up to my Original post.?
The Artical is about the Episcapal split. Not! a debate on religion!
So Mr intelegents . where do you go when you die?
What does he do this man You seek?
He Covets ! How do we begin to covet? We covet what we see every day !
Here is one ; the opposite of LOVE is?
Good Luck Mr Nice guy perhaps you can Google it!
LOVE JJ
Charles J. Mueller
My, my, my. You are a veritable cornucopia of grammatical errors. It’s sadly apparent that you’ve never picked up a copy of English For Dummies.
Stupid, when used in the middle of a sentence is never capitalized.
Original, when used in the middle of a sentence, is never capitalized.
A period, followed by a question mark, both in your first and second sentence, is redundant.
Artical, when used in the middle of a sentence, is never capitalized and is correctly spelled as article.
Episcapal is correctly spelled as Episcopal.
Intelegents is correctly spelled as intelligence.
So Mr. Intelegents is not a self-standing sentence and should have been followed by a comma, not a period.
You, when used in the middle of a sentence, is never capitalized.
Covets, when used in the middle of a sentence is never capitalized.
Luck, when used in the middle of a sentence is never capitalized.
I would consider accepting Mr. Nice guy, since you used it as a title of respect, had you been consistent and capitalized guy as well.
Of course, you have already stated that “As far as spelling goes . The sequence of the letters is not important , It is the understanding of the words and the Meaning there in. You might look into it!”
I won’t waste my time pointing out the errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation in that mouthful. They speak for themselves.
Obviously, in your estimation, the onus is on the reader, not the writer, to try to figure out just what the hell you are talking about, much less be able to decipher it. Kinda like your Bible, come to think of it, huh?
Your Minister, Priest, Reverend, Pastor, Bible-Banger, whatever, must be exceedingly proud of you. You possess all the necessary attributes of a Christian Church goer…ignorance, stupidity, lack of education, prejudice, arrogance, insolence and a lack of respect for your elders.
Your mamma and your papa done real good! The apples does not fall far from the tree.
Just between you, me and the fence post, I would be thoroughly ashamed, lest I be known by the company I keep, bringing home a troll like you to meet my family for the holidays.
You’re a social embarrassment.
As as for your LOVE, you can Google that too…when you are not busy scratching it, that is.
By the way, have you given any consideration to a night-school, crash-course in English?
Being able to express yourself accurately and coherently, might lend a little more credibility to your obviously lacking ability to communicate with enlightened, educated and intelligent human being who are not busy lecturing from the choir loft and saying Amen, over and over and over.
Charles J. Mueller
Pardonner moi. Typo errors.
Apples should have been singular.
Being should have been plural.
The use of the sentence “done real good”, was purposeful, however.
Other errors and omissions will be graciously and gratefully acknowledged.
I’m an old man with failing eyesight and declining motility.
What’s JLG’s excuse, I wonder?
Jere L Griffin Jr
There is no point in conversing with the Ignorant Swine! You both have made up your minds as little as they are to be combative , argumentative and down right ROTTEN! Your Babble and disrespect are flagrant and utrocious. You are a credit to your biological heratage! and a disgrace to the Human Race! I am sure your lives are Misreable and nonrewarding ! Your Mothers have given birth to Swine! And that is disrespectfull to Pigs as they are very smart! Your mother must be very Proud of the Bile she has produced! And Yet God LOVES You Anyway! Hard to Imagin! ?!*&! Your venomn and Poision and Hate and RUDE ness are appalling You both are Less than Human more like a Plauge the Black Plauge! I feel sorry for you both! Because you are as evil as I have ever encounted! As Open minded as the cell doors on DEATH row and that is what your life must be like! Honestly that is where you Belong! Locked away to rot in your own misery to be seperated from real people and to be shut out of the world which you dispise! I am so glad you are limited to this medium for your useless existance and Babble! May GOD have mercy on your souls if infact you have them! yeah Hi five between eachother ! but in the end you will be totally alone to dwell in your own Misery and for ever be seperated from God! Remember my Words It was Your own Choice!
In JESUS name I pray for your souls LOVE JJ
chuck
@Jere L Griffin Jr:
> “There is no point in conversing with the Ignorant Swine!”
Good. Then we won’t be hearing anything more from you.
How sweet it is!
Jere L Griffin Jr
Yall aint got no Intrest in the truth!
Yall are old angry loathsome bigits!
Yallaint worth chit! and if I never heard from yall agin it would be too soon!
Yall might wana find a more lucrative passtime than berateing your fellow man!
The gist of the artical was about the Episcable split over gays! But no You have to turn it into a debate over The fact of a CREATOR! Or Jehova! I pity you all Because if I am Right you LOSE everything If I am Wrong I lose nothing ! Enjoy your CHOZEN Miserable existance! MERRY CHRIST MASS
and HAPY NEW yaer! LOVE JJ
Rob Moore
@Jere L Griffin Jr: Darlin’, I’ve been called worse. Most of the personal misery I observe in others stems from fear. Whether it is fear of death requiring a fantasy of an afterlife or fear of being wrong. Because we don’t know everything is no more reason to believe in a divine being than Santa Claus requires a belief in Christmas. I read your posts with increasing interest because your frustration appears to stem from your inability to back up your claims about god.
If the article was just about the split of the Episcopal church, why did you become so emotionally invested in the rest of the discussion. There is no rule that states, we can discuss only the literal text of an article. If that article causes people to think along other pathways, it is perfectly alright.
As I tried to teach my children, patience and a calm demeanor, is much more effective than excited blathering and screaming.
chuck
@Rob Moore:
But you’re missing the point, Rob. Blathering and screaming is exactly what JLG likes to do. He’s like a little kid throwing a hissy snit fit to get attention. lol
Notice how he keeps baiting everyone to come back at him.
Typical troll. Not worth feeding. đ
burton21
Oh MAN this thread got ugly quickly. Reading this was better than anything I’ve seen on television for awhile. This Moag/Mueller/Perdue/people with J’s in their names bitchfight is GREAT. Why offer my own opinion when this is going on… I don’t want to distract from the main event! Keep it coming guys, dig those claws in, rip those weaves out, and goddamnit spew that intelligent discourse!
chuck
@burton21:
Actually, we think it’s the best script we’ve seen in a long time too. We gathered the best talent available and worked long and hard on it.
You must admit, we’ve had a long run. 181 comments including this one. That has to be some sort of record on Queerty. Don’t you think?
We could see 200 before the end of the year which would qualify us for a rerun next season.
Thanks for the positive input and encouragement. It’s readers like you who make our success possible.