Intolerance In Action?

Intolerance In Action?

click on image to enlarge

Please don’t be offended by the language because that’s the way people in the real world talk. In fact, it’s a paraphrase of a response that used that very word in this very way! (That’s what inspired the cartoon.)

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.

Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Intolerance In Action?

  1. Join us. Say loudly, “Being black is okay”

    No thanks, guys. Being black is unnatural and harmful to your health.

    Join us. Say loudly, “Being celibate is okay”

    No thanks, guys. Celibacy is unnatural and harmful to your health.

    Join us. Say loudly, “Being christian is okay”

    No thanks, guys. Christianity is unnatural and harmful to your health.

    On what basis other than religiously inspired ignorance and bigotry is there to deny equality under the law to others? You equate justified anger at your unjustified opinion to be the real ‘intolerance’ in action when it’s not; nobody is trying to take away or limit or refuse you equality; they are pissed that you think it’s okay to do that to others.

    NAA, you are part of this ongoing and deadly problem.

    Like

      • I can’t, anymore than NAA can explain how being gay is unnatural.

        That’s the point, ogtracy. Your left ear is different from my left ear; neither is ‘unnatural’ simply on the basis of being different. To prove something is ‘unnatural’, one must show how the selected trait comes about outside of any known probability. In other words, it’s a terrible term upon which to hang one’s bigoted hat.

        Like

    • I always thought that saying being gay is unnatural was just a shorter way of saying two things.

      Firstly, that the biological reason for sex is to produce children and gay couples cannot do that.
      Secondly that the male and female reproductive organs are designed to fit together in a certain way (you get what I’m saying) and that does not happen in homosexual relationships. Does it not follow that nature or whatever it is that made us the way we are did not intend it?

      Like

      • You’re right; the idea of reproduction usually means the person is trying to hide behind a good reason, but this is exposed very quickly when we think of people – including ourselves – who have sex with the intention of NOT reproducing, all the older people who have sex and CANNOT conceive, those who have sex even if they are UNABLE to conceive. Do we hold all these folk – including ourselves – to be actively performing unnatural sex?

        Of course not.

        Expressing our sexuality through consensual and mutually acceptable intimate physical acts is healthy. Performing specific acts that do not include intercourse are are a part of these acts and, again, we do not consider them unnatural. The only time we use this term is to describe acts that make us uncomfortable, and this is why I suggest it is used as a stealth term to mean disapproval. NAA disapproves of homosexual acts because he doesn’t grant others the respect as people with the same rights he enjoys to express their consensual and mutually acceptable acts in the way he expects them to so that he won’t feel uncomfortable. And he isn’t afraid to say so… as long as he can hide behind these kinds of stealth terms and falsely accuse others of intolerance if they dare to point out his own intolerant double standard.

        Because there is compelling evidence that same sex attraction is stable over time and throughout all populations, there is good reason to call this orientation natural. Your assertion that ‘something’ made us predominantly heterosexual is true only so far as it is a dominant biological feature. But that doesn’t make one orientation any more ‘natural’ than it would suggesting that the more common C cup breasts are more natural than DD cup breasts. They’re just different.

        And that really is okay.

        Like

      • Buy an anatomy book, tildeb.

        And it’s disingenuous to compare homosexuality to race. One is a behavior, one is a pre-determined trait. Aside from rape, having sexual intercourse is always a conscious decision on the part of the people involved. And I hope you won’t continue to play ignorant of the dangers of homosexuality and let those involved in it keep on toward self-destruction. It is genuine concern, not hate, that fuels this cartoon. We don’t get angry at cigarette manufacturers or beer companies for telling us the consequences of persistent use of their products. Why does it make you so angry when I do the same with abnormal sexual behavior?

        By the way, I’m a fan of Freddie Mercury and Keith Haring, both gay men who produced extraordinary work. But their lifestyle procured them the HIV that eventually killed them. It’s a fact. (Freddie was notoriously promiscuous, a common practice among gay communities.)

        I provided a link to a short, concise overview of the dangers of homosexuality. Did you look at the link under the cartoon? If no, why not? If yes, let me leave a link for you, although you’ll likely ignore it like the many other links I’ve left for you:

        Health Risks of Gay Sex

        An excerpt from the link above states it very well:

        A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.

        You can argue with me and say whatever bad things you’d like about me all you want, but how about engaging the facts and research on the issue? Don’t try to make it a religious issue. (That was one of the themes woven into the cartoon.)

        And notice the caption is a question. You automatically assume I was saying that this side — the side that stands against homosexuality on mental / physical health grounds — was accusing the other side of intolerance. I want readers to see the two sides engaged and then decide by themselves who is being intolerant.

        Like

    • My original point was not that people who have sex and cannot reproduce are doing something unnatural, but that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction. So long as everything is in order, the human body works in such a way as to produce children from the act.

      People who have sex with the intention of not reproducing have to use certain methods to ensure that conception does not occur. People who cannot conceive are that way as a result of some sort of defect (clearly, something is not as it should be). Old people eventually stop feeling the desire for sex (I believe). My second point was not that something made us predominantly heterosexual, but that our bodies are adapted for heterosexual acts, not homosexual ones. Come on, I suspect you know more about sex than I do. You get what I’m saying. People can be attracted to the other gender but their bodies do not change to facilitate those actions.

      Note that when I say something is unnatural, I mean that if everything were working the way it should, it should not be. Given the fact that the purpose of sex is reproduction, as fertility wanes, so does the desire. People who do not want children have to actively prevent it because so long as their bodies work correctly, sex has a good probability of producing children. That’s my uninformed opinion.

      Also, you can’t assume you know what NAA is thinking and feeling. Unless you’re omniscient.

      Any more writing and I’ll start confusing myself. Also, tildeb, perhaps you should do some research on the health risks of homosexuality. I haven’t read much about it myself, but I’ve heard some stuff.

      Like

  2. You may have the oft repeated phrase, ‘Correlation does not mean causation.’ It can be a difficult concept to grasp and an very typical mistake to substitute the former for the latter. This is what has been done to interpret evidence of rates of risk in the link you provided:

    “Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.”

    It is clear that your conclusion – homosexuality is harmful to your health – links these harmful effects to be caused by homosexual acts. So my question is, is that true? What the link actually points out is that rates of many detrimental effects are higher for people in the homosexual community when compared to the general population. Is this a fair comparison?

    Well, if you have an agenda like a catholic organization dedicated to vilifying homosexuality, I am highly sceptical that its research findings will be fair and impartial. Have they established, for example, that rates of adverse health effects like STDs are higher for homosexuals than from heterosexual populations of equivalent promiscuity? No. Have they compared rates of adverse effects from anal sex with a population of heterosexual couples that perform anal sex? No.

    What the research here shows across the board is confirmation bias.

    In spite of overwhelming evidence that condoms, for example, dramatically reduce transmission rates of STDs, do we see the Catholic Education Resource Center Research Institute suggesting that ill effects from unprotected sex can be dramatically mitigated by safer sex? No. Why not? Because it doesn’t fit with the Center’s agenda to support catholic doctrine vilifying homosexuality. Do we see the Center calling for wider sex education to educate young people how to protect themselves from the dangers of these ill effects? Of course not. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with the Center’s agenda to support catholic doctrine to vilify homosexuality. Do we see homosexual monogamy through marriage being favoured by the Center? Nope. Why not if rates of these ill effects can be largely mitigated by ‘healthy’ monogamy and less promiscuity? Again, the Center’s aim is not to educate but to promote catholic doctrine to vilify homosexuality.

    When we compare health effects between populations, we’re arbitrarily selecting what constitutes our populations. In this case it is promiscuous, ill educated, unattached, socially marginalized and highly bullied homosexual people with the general population. We should expect to find rates of ill health effects to be higher given the negative social atmosphere and we do. There is no surprise here. The mistake is to attribute the cause to be homosexuality itself rather than exercising homosexuality in a negative social atmosphere. And we can’t know that until we isolate the variable – homosexuality – alone. And when we do that, we find there are no greater risks to health. What is even more apparent is the scope and extent of heterosexism, a charge which is amply demonstrated in your cartoon that assumes homosexuality to be a deviant behaviour.

    But these research findings that do not find homosexuality itself to be a causal factor simply don’t fit with many religion’s determination to vilify homosexuality and so we find no references to them from such biased research. All we find is confirmation of what far too many of us want to hear.

    Like

    • Excellent, intelligent response, tildeb! I knew you had it in you.

      The idea of monogamy in homosexual relationships is interesting. What do the statistics say about the rate of monogamous relationships among homosexual couples?

      I think you made a very good and important point when you asked “Have they established, for example, that rates of adverse health effects like STDs are higher for homosexuals than from heterosexual populations of equivalent promiscuity?” That is working more toward the point that my position is established on: any abnormal sexual behavior is a danger to one’s mental and physical health. I would define “abnormal” as anything that is not one woman, one man in a monogamous marriage, which would include promiscuous, unmarried heterosexuals, too. And the exclusivity that limits it to two people of the opposite sex and marriage comes from three facts: 1) the design of the human body; 2) heterosexual people committed to a marriage are usually best prepared to handle the potential consequences of sexual intercourse; 3) generally speaking, heterosexual people who are married live longer (if for no other reason than that they are less likely to do stupid, life-endangering things). A short article from 2007 about this for reference: Married couples are healthier and live longer – and so do their children

      You said that ill health may have something to do with a negative social atmosphere. But look at statistics from countries that don’t have such a social atmosphere, like the Netherlands and Belgium. What do the statistics say?

      Quick note: While I did link to an article on a Catholic Web site, it wasn’t an endorsement of any Catholic doctrine or stance on this-or-that issue apart from the current topic.

      Like

  3. This entire exchange seems to be a genuine demonstration (especially given the content of the cartoon) of Poe’s Law in action. It sometimes seems that one can’t have a disinterested, calm and civil exchange about gay people without histrionic rhetoric immediately creeping into the conversation, from one side or the other. Sad, really.

    Like

    • I think there’s some truth in what you say. “Disinterested” is an interesting word to use to talk about this subject. Do you think it’s possible for anyone on either side to be “disinterested” (not engaging their minds and feelings)?

      Those of us who have absolutely no interest in promoting or accepting homosexual behavior (NOTE: I didn’t say people) are sometimes approached by gay “civil rights” promoters.* When we refuse to actively promote a lifestyle that we object to on scientific (impossible for two men or women to procreate) and health grounds (some parts of the body are exit-only, to put it bluntly; ignore those at your own risk), the sometimes violent character assaults start. For example, this cartoon was inspired by an interaction I read by two people, one gay, the other not. The non-gay poster said, short and simply, “Homosexuality is a sin” to which the gay poster responded at length, culminating in calling the other person an “asshole” amongst an assortment of other adjectives they people usually refrain from saying in face-to-face meetings. So much for disinterestedness!

      Gay people are free to do what they want in the privacy of their home; I don’t encourage a bedroom police. However, when recruiting starts and moves are made to legitimize it and make it an acceptable alternative lifestyle publicly (despite the mental, emotional, and health risks that have been documented), that’s when we who don’t accept it reserve the right to give a calm, civil defense of why we don’t.

      Now, I don’t know your position on it — whether pro-or-con — but the idea that I wanted to highlight is to force readers to answer the question about who was being intolerant in the cartoon. What do you think?

      *NOTE: I in no way equate homosexuality with skin color or gender. Those last two are predetermined genetic traits, while sex, aside from the case of rape, is always a conscious decision.

      Like

  4. A disinterested, calm, civil exchange would happen if it were okay to be gay. The religiously promoted arguments that inspire ongoing discrimination is the problem and worth condemnation bought and paid by the lifeblood of young gays.

    Like

  5. When one defines legal equality to be promotion, one will continue to support legal discrimination for the wrong reasons. The arguments in favour of legal discrimination against gays are based not on good evidence and sound reasons (sometimes legal discrimination is justifiable on this basis, a case thoroughly rejected by the courts) but on bias alone. The root of this bias is faith-based belief that gay behaviour is morally wrong that justifies legal sanctioning. This is an empty claim.

    It is right and proper for me to police MY own behaviour in ways that do no harm to others. I have that authority in law after age of majority like any other autonomous individual.

    It is not right and proper for me to police YOUR behaviour in ways that harm your legal equality as an autonomous individual after the age of majority. This is bigotry. This is legal discrimination on the basis of bias. It’s not okay.

    When bigots continue to call for the legalization of their bigotry to reduce the rights of others, they undermine the 14th Amendment for all of us. This is not just stupid and dangerous but unconstitutional and needs to be treated with intolerance.

    Like

    • Harmless? Why are you avoiding the science, statistics, and research on the matter, tildeb?

      For example, the Center for Disease Control for 2009 showed that homosexual men composed 61% of new HIV infections, and that white homosexual men were the largest group of new HIV infections. HIV patients, tragically, die after accumulating large (6 digits even!) hospital bills that then result in someone else’s burden or the burden of higher taxes or higher insurance. (Add this to health complications brought on by other diseases that result from a promiscious homosexual lifestyle and their required care. By the way, AIDS funding is huge, but would that money that could be better spent fighting diseases that affect a larger group of people?)

      Additional questions:

      Why is the average age of a practicing homosexual much lower than their married, heterosexual equivalent (up to 20 years according to some measurements)? Why is the gay community ravaged by STDs? Why are homosexual men notoriously promiscuous? Why are homosexual relationships extremely short? Why do problems happen when sperm goes where it shouldn’t? The fragility of intestinal lining? What does physiology say?

      You insist on turning this into a religious argument. Address the science and research that shows homosexual behavior is harmful.

      Like

    • Previously, I wrote It is clear that your conclusion – homosexuality is harmful to your health – links these harmful effects to be caused by homosexual acts. So my question is, is that true? What the link actually points out is that rates of many detrimental effects are higher for people in the homosexual community when compared to the general population. Is this a fair comparison?

      Once again, you effortlessly dive back into association correlation with causation, that these rate are based on homosexuality itself rather than how it is practiced. I agree that making the ‘how’ safer requires more work (which is incredibly difficult when the practice is considered unnatural and moral reprehensible and a sign of mental illness) but I stop short of jumping to the conclusion that the ‘why’ is the problem.

      Look how easily you associate race to be a physical trait over which one has no control (where EXACTLY does a specific ‘trait’ describe one race from another? You don’t know and you don’t care… understandably so because nobody does… but you would care greatly if your legal rights were DETERMINED by such nebulous racial criteria in the same way your legal rights are DETERMINED by your sexual orientation!) with homosexuality that you arbitrarily determine are behavioural practices that supposedly can be controlled! How easy for you to assert and impossible it is for you to prove. So I dare you or anyone to prove this distinction first with excellent and compelling evidence BEFORE assigning legal rights to the assumed conclusion. What we have now are statements assumed to be valid, assumed to be true, from those who assume their faith position on the morality of homosexual behaviour are sufficient to justify codifying this discriminatory faith into law PRIOR to coming up with compelling evidence.

      I turn this into a religious argument because the regiments manning the barricades to stop legal equality for gays are the religious. That’s why it was easy for you to find data mined to present what appears to be a statistical basis for the religious arguments by religiously motivated organizations and religiously motivated people to bolster their a priori arguments. Remove the religious element and install equal legal rights and these statistical trends disappear! This is what Judge Walker found out in the Prop 8 reasons used by the religious organizations dedicated to discriminating against gay marriage. When the reasons themselves were examined, no causal evidence could be found to back them up. The judge had no choice but to rule that the proposition discriminated on moral grounds alone and that this faith was insufficient to deny legal equality to another. Look at the major players dedicated to fighting this particular equality in the various US states that have tried to implement gay bans and you find catholic, evangelical, and mormon churches behind them. This is not a coincidence. Whereas reasonable people will decide they have no strong position to interfere in the rights of others they themselves enjoy, the religious seem particularly susceptible to thinking that everybody should operate under the authority of their favoured divinity and err on the side of submission to bigotry and misogyny and legal discriminations such notions promote.

      Like

      • Now, correct me if I’m wrong (and I apologize in advance if I am), but let me guess that you are gay. (I see no reason for you to take up this argument so passionately otherwise.) If you are, it will at least let us understand your bias.

        Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand the difference between skin color and sexual behavior. Skin color is determined by genes. Determining it is beyond the control of the individual affected. Sexual behavior is always a conscious choice. Expressing it is in the control of the individual. It’s dangerous territory to assert otherwise.

        Do you see any danger in your position, tildeb? If you want to take a no-holds-barred approach to sexual behavior (that it can’t be controlled), you are not only acting irresponsibly, but you’re making it possible for everyone to have a great excuse for indulgence. The pedophilia community loves that sort of I-have-no-control-over-my-sexual-behavior rhetoric, as would promiscuous heterosexuals, too. In fact, B4U-Act, a group committed to removing the stigma to pedophilia, wants to extend it to include their own sexual behavior under the umbrella of “normal”. You and I would hopefully agree that it’s not and that it is evil, but then the question I would pose to you is: Why? (If you want to lean on “age of majority” or “age of consent” arguments, I would wonder what magical power a number has in determining a person’s ability to make informed, responsible decisions.) Could they not then accuse you of being bigoted for judging them over behavior that they say they have no control over? (Just so I don’t get accused of it: I’m not saying all homosexuals are pedophiles or that there is any necessary direct or indirect correlation between the two.)

        And this is a blog that is not attached to protests. In our discussion, you’re making this a religious issue here, not me. I haven’t mentioned any specific religious books, verses, or teachings. I could, sure, but then that would just split the discussion. And the purpose of the cartoon was showing that I don’t do protests, but when I’m approached by recruiters to join a cause that I don’t share in, I reserve the right as a human being to calmly and honestly state reasons for my objections. You can continue your name calling and labeling. As an old Quaker saying goes, “I wouldn’t harm you for the world, but you’re standing where I’m about to shoot.”

        One more thing: How do you explain that homosexual men develop certain cancers that don’t affect any other group?

        So, in the end, it’s your belief that homosexuality is not wrong, not unnatural, and not abnormal. Got it.

        Like

  6. You hold fast to the notion that being gay is not okay, which justifies in your mind imposing and/or maintaining legal inequities. This – not the icky-ness factor/health related stats – is the central point. You are either FOR legal equality or you are AGAINST legal equality on the basis of sexual orientation. Because you are against legal equality for homosexuals, you are confronted on THIS issue. But you warp this confrontation about legal equality to be about PROMOTING homosexual behaviour. You are wrong to do so. Those who disagree with your support for legal inequality you libel as ‘recruiters’ – presumably to this fairy tale of the gay agenda or gay lifestyle. Note that this is the identical reasoning used by Kenyan authorities to make any homosexual behaviour a crime with a minimum mandatory 14 year sentence and a maximum sentence of death… all in the name of ‘protecting’ society – and especially children, of course – from this imaginary evil. When the names and addresses of these men charged as gay ‘promoters’ and ‘recruiters’ for their private sexual activities with consenting adults are displayed in newspapers, these men are usually killed by mobs long before any trial can occur and with the complicity of the police. My point is that your opinion about homosexual behaviour does not justify legal discrimination. It doesn’t justify the vilification of people who are different from you. It does not justify the bullying of young gays and it does not help in any way to address the very real problem of shocking rates of suicides by these tortured youth. In fact and deed, your opinion that being gay is not okay remains a central part of this problem. You need to be criticized roundly, soundly, and loudly for your support of this ongoing legal discrimination.

    In this contrary stance to supporting legal equality for gays, you are wrong. In this stance you are not the calm voice of reason; you are part of a wider segment of the population who supports continued legal discrimination. You have no justified basis at all to deny to others rights you yourself enjoy regardless of your opinion about homosexual behaviour that you might find icky. Well, too bad. Don’t behave that way. You have that right. And that’s okay because I respect that you have the right to decide how to behave in all kinds of personal manners that I may find icky. But unlike you, I am not willing to step over the equality line and support legal discrimination against you. If I were to do that, I am undermining our collective right to equality under the law. This is neither reasonable nor legitimate. It is bigotry in action.

    Like

    • tildeb, I see you avoided my question on gay-specific cancer(s) (which could be expanded to include other gay-specific diseases) and my direct question about your own sexuality. (Perhaps you’ll dodge that one, too, claiming it is irrelevant to the topic. But whether or not you are gay certainly has some bearing on your perception of its perceived rightness or wrongness.)

      By the way, I didn’t use the term “icky”. You did. I said it was “unnatural” and “unhealthy”. You’re trying to replace words which have distinct, concrete means of being measured with a word related to some fickle, personal preference. Not working.

      You can attempt to wax eloquent about this issue. But your worldview — that of atheism — prevents you from having any real genuine basis or authority to accuse those of us who oppose homosexuality on scientific and health grounds. You can’t say we’re wrong. After all, in your view, we’re merely following the dictates of our biology. You can’t say we’re bigoted because, again, we’re merely following the dictates of our biology. You can’t say that people who kill someone because of their sexual orientation is wrong because, well, once again they are merely following the dictates of their biology / brain chemistry. Morality is merely the by-product of biology / brain chemistry in human beings, in your view, so whatever is wherever it is just is, neither better nor worse, merely different.

      What if I were to sit back and claim I have no control over my tendencies and behavior? Wouldn’t tha make discussing them with anyone meaningless?

      The irony of you making this a religious argument is that it’s you who points to a non-material “entity” to support your views on homosexual behavior — a belief that it is OK. We who oppose the behavior have a much more reasonable and rational defense that homosexual behavior is not OK, as I’ve tried to stress multiple times. Nature. You can’t fight the laws of nature and expect victory. (If you’re a practicing homosexual, I would beg you to consider the long-term consequences of your actions.)

      People hardly need an excuse these days to kill people, sexual preference being just one of the many reasons. But I’d be interested to know why you’re complaining, as if killing someone was wrong in an atheist / materialist mindset where everyone and everything is merely molecules in motion. When you assign yourself to a materialistic view of the world, you effectively remove your right to complain, in my opinion.

      Like

      • NAA, I realize you don’t like the behaviour. I realize you are trying to explain why your dislike is based on what you consider CAUSAL evidence for adverse health effects. I get it. I really do.

        What I DON’T get is how you think this justifies legal discrimination.

        Like

  7. A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a park on Lake Minnetonka watching two male Mallards swimming around in one of the few areas of open water on the otherwise frozen lake. They never parted more than two feet from each other. They walked on the beach together, swam together, and searched for food together. I began to wonder if they were partners… Sure enough, after watching them for some time, they started a mating dance, and one tried to mount the other.

    I thought it was rather sweet, but folks who think homosexuality is wrong would probably be horrified.

    Here’s the thing, contrary to what conservative people might think, homosexuality is quite natural. It has been documented in many species. I suppose you could chalk this all up to “living in a fallen world”, but those of us who accept love between consenting adults as beautiful, regardless of the genital combinations, think that your take on the matter is quite sad.

    And no, I’m not straight. So, you can dismiss this as a bunch of deluded, self-serving rationalizations. I’m just thankful that my own spirituality doesn’t lead me into such close-minded ways of seeing people.

    Like

    • Why certainly we should pattern our behavior after animals! In fact, why not pattern all of our behavior after what we observe in the animal kingdom, not just those they give us a reason to justify the unnatural ones? This way, mindless killing, mauling, promiscuity, unfaithfulness, incest, and infanticide will be just as morally defensible. How wonderful our world will then be!

      NOTE: I’m not sure what to think of a “spirituality” that will stay silent why people march themselves to an early, preventable grave. You can continue to pretend to be open-minded and right in thinking that there’s nothing wrong with fighting natural law. But the consequences will catch up to you. I’m just warning you because unlike those who would rather stay silent and let well enough I alone, I don’t want them to suffer the same sad fate as two gay artists whose work I’ve enjoyed for years (Freddie Mercury and Keith Haring). Had someone warned them of the danger that was ahead, they’d still be alive producing work today…

      Like

  8. Actually, I don’t see animals killing each other over in droves over religions and economic systems. I don’t see animals gunning each other down in the street because of the color of one’s fur. I don’t see animals killing, raping, and ostracizing other animals because of the sex of their last romantic/sexual partner. I don’t see animals imprisoning huge numbers of those with a particular type of fur. Nor do I see animals filling their environment with toxins that could destroy not only themselves, but so many others.

    I do see these kinds of behaviors coming from humans, though. Our technology, beliefs, and lust for control lead to great acts of destruction. Unlike other animals, we seem not to know how to live in balance with others. That great big brain that we have has its advantages and disadvantages, no?

    As for diseases, I don’t see a disease that kills off lesbians, but I see a lot of hateful rhetoric directed at us as well. Why is that?

    If a virus evolved that specifically targeted PIV sex (heterosexual sex) and straight people started to die in large numbers, would people use that misfortune to condemn straight people? Or would they simply advocate for finding a cure, choosing one’s romantic partners with greater care, and being more careful in using protection during intercourse?

    Do you think that gay people would use this new disease as an excuse to deny straight people the right to marry, adopt, hold a job, run for office, or be accepted in their place of worship? Would there be politicians and preachers opposing school districts’ attempts to protect straight children from being bullied?

    No, none of these things would come to pass, because the bottom line is that straight people use the social power of their numbers to hurt, demean, and destroy those in a lesser position of power. This is what human beings who hold a greater positions of social power tend to to. We send minorities to the gas chamber, we deny their right to vote, we deny them economic resources, we bully their children, we burn their houses of worship, we drop bombs on their countries, we steal their land from them, and we exploit their labor in factories and farm fields.

    We also use the texts of our religious books as excuses to enslave, kill, and marginalize them.

    You are right, we are superior to animals in every way.

    Like

    • It’s great that you noticed that people kill people, harm each other, and care very little for other humans. It’s pretty obvious these days, isn’t it? It seems we would both also agree that killing is wrong. But why is killing wrong in your opinion? What makes it wrong? Who says it’s wrong?

      You mentioned pollution. Now, is pollution wrong whether or not a person thinks it’s wrong? On what grounds? What evidence would you bring forward to show that it’s wrong? And if it’s wrong, would you just sit by silently and embrace those who continue to pollute, never mentioning the elephant in the room?

      People hardly need any reasons to justify killing each other these days. To attribute oppression to heterosexuality is a bit of a stretch. As a person who has family from China and lives in the Far East, I could be easily offended about the inference that religion, Christianity specifically, is the cause of massive killings. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope it’s just an over-simplification employed to support your perspective.

      And, please, let’s get one thing straight: I don’t hate anyone. Often others automatically assume that because I’m against homosexual behavior that I hate homosexual people. But they would be wrong. And this is one of the points of the cartoon. I found that rarely do those who would take your side ask why horrible, heartless people like me don’t encourage, promote, embrace homosexual behavior. Have you ever asked anyone?

      I appreciate the honesty you show in your posts. I welcome it. I just feel confused why those who disagree with you can’t be as equally honest without being called bigots, homophobic, and an assortment of names (I know you didn’t do it directly, but look at previous posts by previous visitors). It appears as if the opposing side will not be satisfied until those of us who see homosexuality as unnatural and unhealthy start to either stop caring or start saying it’s OK.

      As for diseases “killing off lesbians”, well, in my experience, no amount of statistics or other related information is going to be considered evidence of the harmfulness of homosexual behavior (you can see previous comments in this thread and the link under the cartoon for examples). People will simply find ways to explain the unusual cancers, widespread mental illness and other elements apart from the behavior.

      Your April 5th, 2012 blog post was great, by the way.

      Like

  9. One more thing. Until I met Christians who truly accepted LGBT people, I thought your religion was capable of little more than generating prejudice and abuse. It was Quakers, the United Church of Christ, and various people from the mainline denominations that helped me see Christianity in a different light. Voices such as yours twist the beauty that Christianity offers into something that is sad, manipulative, and empty.

    Your approach to Christianity is not the only version in existence. There are many Christians who have turned from the idols of fear and prejudice and have embraced love. I hope that some day, you find it in your heart to join them.

    Like

  10. I’m sure timberwraith completely misses the irony that s/he feels it’s worthwhile leaving comments on your post Intolerance in Action to express a challenging critique only to moderate and reject my comments on his/her site that does the same.

    Some people’s kids never learn.

    Like

  11. In other words, timberwraith, and in case the point is too subtle to comprehend from my previous comment, you and your actions are part of the problem and not part of the solution about reducing intolerance.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s