Pages

Friday, December 4, 2009

Bigotry

Now before I start getting into the topic of the post I would like to acknowledge that this doesn't apply to all Christians, and to those who embrace humanist values, I am letting you know we are on the same side.

When I was younger I was as guilty as any of this bigotry, not because anyone taught me to be, but because I read it in the Bible. I was probably still in primary school the first time I read the book of Romans in the new testament, and before I had even finished the first chapter this verse shows up. Romans 1:27 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." This is not taken out of context or from a strange translation of the Bible, it is exactly as you read it from the New International Version. Some other translations put it even more harshly than that. This is not an isolated incident in the Bible of this kind of bigotry, in fact it stems all the way back to the pentateuch, where homosexuality is called an abomination, and by mosaic law homosexuals must be stoned to death.

Were it not for this intolerant hatred contained in the Bible that I read as a child, I probably would have spent my teenage years with a rather different set of moral values. Perhaps I would have adopted a set of values closer to my current ones. Or perhaps I would have been more influenced by the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, with things like 'Let him who goes without sin cast the first stone' and other things like that. I imagine that most of the people of the anti-gay movement would have a similar experience would it not have been for the bigotry taught to them by the Bible. I cannot for the life of me think of any other reason on earth why some people would be so intolerant towards another human being. There certainly aren't any logical, rational reasons for people to hate gays. We live in an overpopulated world, and the fact that two men, or two women cannot reproduce (without modern methods of fertilization) really doesn't matter.

That leads me to my next point, infertility. One of the many appalling arguments against gay marriage commonly used by conservatives is that they cannot reproduce. One must then ask the question about infertile straight people, If gay people aren't allowed to get married purely because they cannot reproduce then the same reasoning must be applied to infertile couples. As you can see this argument falls so short of its intended goal that I feel pity rather than disdain for its supporters.

Every human being has rights, whether Jew, muslim, black, white, gay, straight or anything else. One thing you do not have the right to do though, is to deny others their rights.

24 comments:

  1. Stoned to death! sounds fun!
    Lets all be homos!


    Strachan...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lol not that kinda stoned... haha...

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_same-sex_marriage_debate_g/samesexmarriage.php

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL at that link. "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. That diagram is absolutely golden.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "What's 'non-sequitur?' mean? Do I look it up in the Fag-to-English dictionary?"

    Awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Haha, is there a starting point in that diagram?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Having another look at this blog...

    I don't believe the apostle Paul was condemning homosexuals to death by rocks in Romans 1:27. He certainly used to be all for throwing stones at Christians in his 'Saul' days, so it is unlikely that he would still endorse this activity having encountered Jesus (famous for saying "Anyone here who has never sinned can throw the first stone at her").

    I also don't think Paul is guilty of bigotry. In fact he writes against even the mildest form of bigotry - "So are we Jews better than others? No! We have already said that Jews and those who are not Jews are all guilty of sin." Romans 3:9
    Bigotry requires animosity towards others. Paul's mission in life was to love everyone with the same kind of love that Jesus showed towards him. This kind of love has no room for a stubborn hatred towards someone of different opinion or lifestyle. Paul isn't against homosexuals, only homosexuality :D

    "Thanks, that means a lot to me"

    I hope it does mean a lot to you! Because there's certainly a lot of very intense bigots in the world that hate you as well as your lifestyle and some are crazy enough to try and kill you. Any honest, Romans-reading Christian's obligation is to love other people, regardless of their opinions or lifestyles. Unfortunately, Romans 3:9 is very true -- even Christians can be unforgiving, self-righteous bigots sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thankfully the verses which condemn homosexuals to death are from Leviticus.
    "Lev.20:13
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

    Even though Paul may have taught against divisiveness and bigotry, it is verses like Romans 1:27 which reinforce the barbaric Old Testament intolerance, and is probably a major influence on western societies homophobia. Homophobic intolerance is one of the most unusual forms of bigotry, because homosexuality literally doesn't affect anyone else. It is completely harmless, yet so many people in our culture decide to abandon common reason and decide to opt for 3000 year old values systems that promote hatred against many kinds of people. Fortunately for our society homophobia and bigotry are slowly on the decline, and people are adopting more liberal values systems, where gender equality, race equality and sexual preference equality are treasured ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What is Leviticus 20:13 really condemning? Only homosexual intercourse it seems. There are some 'homosexual' people who do not indulge in sexual acts as it disgusts them. They prefer to just live together and love each other.

    Homosexuality does affect others. It isn't completely harmless. Some families are shamed, disgraced and divided when homosexuality enters their world. I speak from experience here. If a person knows that a particular decision they want to make is going to affect other people in a negative way but decides to follow through with it regardless, then this is an act of selfishness.

    But then, along with gender equality, race equality and sexual preference equality -- selfishness is also becoming a treasured idea it seems.

    Hmmm homosexuality is such an awkward, tender topic! :/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dude... are you high?

    How many of these 'live together and love each other, but NO SEX' homosexual couples do you think actually exist? Chances are that if such people were actually disgusted by sexual acts between themselves and the person they are in love with, its actually a mental condition such as a phobia. If they were merely disgusted by homosexual sex acts, they wouldn't be in a gay relationship in the first place. I think you must be confused...

    In regards to families being shamed or divided, this is a terrible argument. They are NOT shamed because of homosexual family members, they are shamed because of BIGOTRY. Which is precisely what KJ was talking about. Why the bigotry occurred is irrelevant, it could be due to sexual preference, life choices, revealing of secrets... The cause of the bigotry is neither here nor there, it is the bigotry itself which is the issue.

    Selfish choice?! Would you consider your choice to wake up and spend your day as you please to be selfish? How about your choice to marry the woman of your dreams? To have a family with her? Probably not. How is it then selfish of another person to want to spend their life with the person they love?

    I'm pretty sure that you have made decisions before that were made with only your interests in mind. We all have, it's only natural. So when it comes down to spending your life with someone you love, if it might upset your family, that is taking it too far? How many STRAIGHT couples do you think upset their families with their relationship?

    Being in a relationship (a successful one anyway) is the ultimate act of non-selfishness. You are committing yourself to not just your happiness, but someone elses as well. If your family is to divide over a persons freaking sexual preference, then THEY are being selfish by denying everyone the chance to be happy.


    Homosexuality is NOT an awkward topic unless you are taking a bigoted stance towards these peoples rights to be in a relationship with whoever the heck they want.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ohhh MisterBlag... sigh.... Firstly I want to apologize as I feel like I've offended you deeply or something from your intense response.

    I do believe I forgot to mention that I am also a selfish bastard. And also that I believe God craves me just as equally as he craves you or any homosexual or heterosexual. And that I am to follow his example.

    Yes I agree selfishness is natural.

    I personally know a few straight couples who have upset their families by sticking together.

    I disagree on the 'ultimate act of non-selfishness'. That would probably be dying in the place of someone who actually deserves to die instead.

    Peace bro, whoever you are behind the Guevara avatar.

    P.S. No I was not high :D

    ReplyDelete
  13. The avatar is not just Che, its actually King Leonidas' (from the movie 300) face on top of Che. I am a cousin of KJ's from Australia in case you were wondering.

    ---

    Why I replied with vitriol is because your post was dripping with closet bigotry. It was the standard crap you hear from people who like to think they aren't bigoted, but really are. I apologise if I offended you, but your attitude offended me and would offend most people who believe in equal rights.

    I'm glad you believe your God has a mission for you and I hope that helps you live your life to its fullest.

    The comment about the straight couples wasn't meant to imply that they cannot upset their families, it was meant to emphasise the point that you were being bigoted by singling out homosexual relationships for causing family issues. Also I think you missed the point about where the problem is in those relationships. It is NOT the fault of the couple, it is the families fault for being intolerant and bigoted.

    Perhaps I was too enthusiastic by referring to a relationship as the ultimate non-selfish act. But I think we can agree that being in a successful relationship is pretty non-selfish. Try being selfish in a relationship and see how that works out.

    The high comment was obviously a rhetorical question. I doubt you would be posting comments on a blog if you were baked.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I had written a response to you Ryan, but I forgot to post it and then turned my computer off and lost it. I find it hard to fathom what you find is inherently wrong with homosexual intercourse. The whole point you made about Leviticus only condemning the act and not the person cuts straight to the core of the issue as Blag mentioned. It is almost like saying "Equality for me, but not for thee". Or it could be like saying "I'm all for gay rights, as long as they don't have the same rights as me!" which is essentially what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ahhh Leonidas, it is too. I crave that movie.

    KJ, here is the best analogy I could come up with: Someone says "Let's stick food up our nostrils instead of in our mouth (which would be normal)" :D This is kind of how I view homosexual intercourse - I don't consider it inherently wrong, just inherently strange.

    Should people have the right to do this? Of course they should! Just like people should feel they have the right to stick food up their nostrils! Hell, I've done some stupid shit with my body before.

    "Equality for me, but not for thee" or "I'm all for gay rights, as long as they don't have the same rights as me!" is so so far from what I am essentially saying. I am all for equal rights. I don't even think there should be a sub-classification titled 'gay rights', that's how equal I wish everyone's rights were.

    Apologies if my comment appeared to portray homosexuality as nothing but a pure "family splitter". It is only capable of causing family issues, just like divorce, adultery, etc. etc.

    It seems to be quite easy to target heterosexual bigots or religious bigots. But what about homosexual bigots? Or atheist bigots?

    P.S. How do I get a cool little picture next to my name? :D

    ReplyDelete
  16. Inanimate objects and food are a bit different to sex.
    So you think that people should have the right to love whomever they want. It's a shame your religion/book/god doesn't feel the same way.

    Comparing homosexuality to divorce and adultery is a bit rich considering you just said you were all for equal rights in the previous sentence. Imagine if you were talking about some other trait of a person, for example the size of their ears. "Ear size is only capable of causing family issues, just like divorce, adultery, etc." Do you realise how stupid it sounds now? What if it was someone else that was a preference? "Driving automatic cars is only capable of causing family issues, just like divorce, adultery etc."
    As Blag pointed out, it is the bigotry that splits families not the relationship.

    Sure, I'm intolerant too. I'm intolerant of bigots. I'm also intolerant of indoctrination, and spreading lies.

    You get a cool picture by your name from creating a blogger account and uploading an image as your profile pic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bigotry in any form is despicable.

    There is no allowance given to minorities, or at least there shouldn't be. If someone is a bigot - or just plain ole intolerant - then they deserve to be called out as a bigot, regardless of what demographic they may fit into, or what they believe.

    Bigotry is one of the major things holding mankind back. Well, technically speaking it has helped us get this far since WW1 and WW2 were largely responsible for our technological advances we enjoy today. But now that we have come this far, the majority has agreed that we cannot allow intolerance. Once the rest of the world catches up, we will start to move on.

    When it comes down to it, the only reason people find talking about topics such as homosexuals difficult, is because they are afraid of offending someone. That fear builds from a culture of bigotry and intolerance towards the target demographic. People usually fear what they also hate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh yeah... the gay rights bit.

    The reason it is referred to as that is merely because homosexuals has ZERO rights in most cultures. So to call attention to this, they called for rights for their demographic, and it ended up becoming the defacto terminology when referencing equal rights for homosexuals.

    Ideally we will evolve beyond the need for such a terminology, but I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hahaha :D I dunno KJ, the gap between inanimate objects/food and sex has been closed for quite some time. Just search for some crazy, fetish porn online ;)

    *sigh* I wasn't trying to be spiteful by comparing homosexuality to divorce or adultery. They were just a few other examples I immediately thought of that are also capable of splitting up families. Domestic violence and incest (I'll come back to this) I would add to that list as well.

    Bit rich? I fail to see how simply observing a comparison regarding homosexuality can be linked to my stance on the equality of human rights.

    Anyway... just because you do not endorse something does not make you a bigot. As I said way up the page, bigotry requires animosity (as far as I know). Animosity is active hatred, not passive disapproval. I, for one, do not exercise animosity towards homosexuals. Therefore I don't consider myself to be a bigot.

    Ahhh yes, now coming back to incest. Any thoughts on that one? May be worthy of a brand new blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just to aid your imagination a bit... Think of wee Jimmy and good ol' Grandpa Earl. Mmmmmm sensssationallll!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mate you may not be a bigot, but the way you were talking in that earlier post sure as heck sounded like it.

    Try going back and reading it again while trying to distance yourself from your own opinions. The way you worded the concepts you were talking about had a decided anti-homosexual spin to it.

    Anyway, in regards to what you were saying about animosity... Bigotry doesn't necessarily require active animosity. You can be a 'closet bigot' like I mentioned earlier, where on the surface (and in public) you appear to be an average easy going individual. But these people are thinking angry thoughts. Just because a person isn't actively projecting animosity doesn't mean they are free from bigoted thoughts. Sure, they may only be thoughts, but enough people think the same terrible thing and you can get some seriously bad stuff happening.

    KKK anyone?

    p.s. Not implying you are a bigot with this, just offering a counter-argument.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I had another read. You make a fair call.

    I guess when I think bigot, I immediately think Hitler or someone similar. If we're including the odd bigoted thought though, then I'd pick that we'll all guilty of a little bigotry from time to time.

    Yeah, what disturbs me most about the KKK is that they are affiliated with Protestant Christianity. That is literally the same category I fall under! It's crazy what can happen when different Christian sects stray slightly and fall off of Jesus' proposed "narrow road that leads to true life."

    Also, I'm positive that isn't 'Blair' behind the above comment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The occasional vaguely bigoted thought from time to time isn't the problem (certain things leap into your mind at times whether you really want them to or not), it is when those thoughts come freely whenever you consider the topic of gays, or blacks, or anyone who is different to you. This is what causes issues. A closet-bigot is problematic only because they don't realise they are bigoted. They think they are being fair, and level headed... but then they get themselves into a pickle when someone takes offense.

    But the real problem is when the bigot thought process becomes so common place that actions start to reflect that. That's the dangerous part.


    The KKK are just an extremist group which all religions have unfortunately. Even though I don't think religion is necessary, I have nothing against 99% of religious PEOPLE. People are generally good and in the majority of cases tolerant. It is unfortunate though that a side effect of religion is the tendency to breed extremist splinter groups usually consisting of super conservatives with bizarre belief systems. Just one more reason I am against religion as a strict concept. Go ahead people, believe whatever you want, but when you introduce guidelines about how you are supposed to believe... well, that's where these issues spring from unfortunately. Disagreements over the details can lead to all manner of atrocities. :(

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXV1kDeorWo

    - Ryan

    ReplyDelete