A COUPLE of weeks ago Dan Savage, a columnist and activist perhaps best known for making Rick Santorum hate Google and for trying to comfort bullied gay teens, gave the right a gift. At a high-school journalism convention, he attacked Bible-backed anti-gay bigotry. He pointed out that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality, but it also endorses slavery. "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people," he said, "the same way we learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about masturbation...We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things." During this portion of his speech some students walked out. When he moved on to another topic, he said, "You can tell the Bible guys in the hall to come back now because I'm done beating up the Bible. It's funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back."
Mr Savage was making one valid point and one sloppy one. The former: people who justify anti-gay bigotry by brandishing a Bible but ignore other, less convenient biblical prohibitions (the list might also include mixed fabrics and divorce) are hypocrites. The latter: people quick to condemn ought not to be so quick to take offence. The problem with the latter point is that however true it is in the abstract, it was not necessarily true in the particular. No evidence exists that the students who walked out ever condemned or bullied anyone. However poorly Mr Savage may have been treated in high school, it was not by the students in the audience, and they deserved more from a famous and accomplished journalist than derision. Mr Savage acknowledged as much when he apologised, both for the regrettable and infantile slur "pansy-assed" and for using what the great J. Anthony Lukas called "a barnyard epithet" to refer to the Bible. (He could, of course, have opted to make a broader point: that nobody should be so quick to take offence; that journalists will hear a lot of things over the course of a career that they find offensive and even hurtful, and walking out anytime that happens will result in a short career and a narrow mind; that, however ugly his language Mr Savage was at least advancing arguments, and that surely at least one of those offended souls hoping to make a life out of words could have found a few to hurl back at him rather than just flouncing out in a huff.)
Mr Savage's apology did not stop the outrage machine. Some seem to have taken particular delight in hurling Mr Savage's epithets—bully and basher (of Christians and Christianity, rather than gays)—back at him. The American Thinker harrumphs, "Evidently, bullying is one of those things that is defined by the 'victim'." Well, yes: in fact it is. Bullying is the strong picking on the weak, not the other way around (the other way around is satire). One could make the argument that in the case of Mr Savage's speech, he was the strong one, and the high-school students were "victims", but that would be weak tea indeed. Mr Savage is one person, not a movement, and of course those students whom he gave the vapours were free to leave. Not everyone has such freedom. Gay teens, not Christian teens, kill themselves at higher rates than the general populace. Nobody calls Christianity an abomination. One blogger accused Mr Savage of "Christian-bashing" for pointing out the Bible's position on slavery. A writer for a Focus on the Family site said that "using profanity to deride the Bible...is obviously a form of bullying and name-calling." In fact it is neither: Mr Savage, however intemperate his language, was arguing, not name-calling. That is a crucial distinction, and one that too often eludes the showily devout. If the Bible is in fact the word of God it can survive a few arguments about context and application.
(Photo credit: AP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Unfortunately every legal system is deeply rooted in religion. Most people take an oath to tell the truth by swearing on the Bible. Laws, tend to be regarded as sacrosanct and are therefore difficult to change. The whole tenor of the law, as it is developed, over time, is religious in nature, particularly in respect of relationships between people. This is true for all nations. The principal religious documents are esteemed because they are assumed to emanate from a higher power. Christian nations use the Bible, Muslim nations use the Koran. Even the nations like the Socialist republics have their own preferred texts which form the basis of their laws. One thing that all of these documents have in common is that the statements they contain are arbitrary in nature and have very little backing from either science or reason. They are certainly not repeatedly tested in any significant way.
We suffer from the ignorance of our ancestors. If this were not so, we would see the Bible and the Koran etc. for what they are, arbitrary, unscientific writings with little or no provenance. At best they would be regarded as hearsay, and at worst as simply being untrue.
"Nobody calls Christianity an abomination."
Umm, yes. Yes they do. Let me Google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22christianity+is+an+abomination%22
And rightly so!
Most people seem unable to seperate New Testament from Old Testament, both christian fundamentalists and christian-basher.
The fact is that Jesus considered himself as a reformer or even repealer of jewish law. That's why the jews eventually killed him.
A Christian abide by the teaching and worldview of the Christ and the Gospels, not by the deuteronom or Leviticus.
While that is true, discarding the teachings of the Old Testament still leaves someone who takes the bible literally with a number of problems.
Slavery is the obvious one. The early Christians were people of their time, and simply did not conceive of a world without slavery (and if Christ held a different view, he kept very quiet about it).
This makes sense to an atheist such as myself - morality changes and develops over time, and you cannot judge people two thousand years ago by the standards of today.
It isn't a problem for many Christians; those who see their religion as a journey towards understanding the mind of God (as my Catholic grandmother put it). These people take what you call "teaching and worldview of the Christ and the Gospels" as a lens through which to see the world, not as an end point that must be adhered to in every detail.
It is a problem for those who seek to argue against particular developments in morality by citing the bible. It is logically inconsistent to accept changes in morality on an issue such as slavery, but reject it in the case of homosexuality.
Matthew 5:17 is troubling for your assertion - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
On the other hand, Jesus had only a few valuable years among us, and he made no mention of condemning homosexuality or homosexuals during that time, seems it was not high on his list of priorities.
To slightly expand on that quote...
"18. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Of course, there's not a single shred of proper evidence that Jesus ever existed, so it's all rather irrelevant. Nonetheless, the literary character of Jesus was certainly not a reformer.
Tolof, you correctly point out that most modern Christians disregard the details of OT books such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus entirely. But, a great many still cling to Genesis as a literal truth for the history of the universe. And equally worrying, many consider the tablets in Exodus as being the basis of the US legal system. This selective disregard is one of the problems Savage was trying to point out. If we are going to laugh off some of the Bible's idiosyncrasies, we must at least consider that the work in its entirety is worthy of consistent response.
Matthew 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
or if you prefer a more modern version:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Clearly, Jesus still considered the Levitician laws valid and those who proposed them to be prophets.
The thing about the bible, the Koran, and organized religion in general is that they almost universally downplay the importance of lust, portraying it as folly. The homosexual rights movement, on the other hand, puts lust at the top of the pyramid of human priorities. Between the two groups, in a purely scientific analysis, which is in better physical health?
@Dov: You've created a straw man, here, and in doing so, you display just how little you actually understand about human sexuality. Being gay is not at all about "lust", any more so than being straight. Gay relationships are about love and commitment and, in every important and material respect, are just the same as straight relationships.
It is, in fact, the organized religious communities in Christendom, the Muslim world and even in some reaches of Judaism which mistakenly view LGBT people as "lustful deviants" from the "natural path". But this is merely a matter of their own misguided apprehension of human sexuality, as woefully uneducated and misguided as your own. The truth is vastly different than what you present as fact. Accordingly, the choice that you beg is wholly irrelevant.
Our primary disagreement is not about condemnation of people, but about codes of behavior. Religions arise and endure because they promote codes of behavior that create, in each case, distinctive civilizations. One of the longest lasting codes has been one that promotes abstinence until heterosexual monogamy. There have been many rationales for this, including maintaining stable patriarchal lineage across generations and promoting procreation. However, the most relevant one to our times is the minimization of sexually transmitted disease. Not just HIV, which has been tragic and economically disastrous for many families, but also hepatitis and others.
The movement which you defend advocates for the destruction of the morality that has defined most post-Roman civilizations, especially those in the Western world. What I take exception with is the notion that modern science shows us empirically that homosexual sex (oral and anal) is equivalent to heterosexual sex. In fact, it is far more dangerous to the health of those who participate in it. When this comes up, the response from that movement is like that of Mr. McGuire in The Graduate, "I just want to say just one word to you. Just one word. Plastics."
Condoms have been around for decades, but they haven't prevented the epidemics that have stricken the American male homosexual population and, for that matter, any population that indulges in sexual intercourse, vaginal, oral, anal, etc., outside of the monogamous heterosexual paradigm. So, my response to your declaration is also one word: "Why?" Why advocate for lifestyles that revel in promiscuity and forms of intercourse that are inherently dangerous? I'm not advocating against intimate love and friendship, which is always a blessing, but against sexual self-indulgence and its horrifying consequences. Savage blows off enduring wisdom and blasts religion for discouraging destructive behavior. But the empirical evidence shows that he's advocating in favor of folly, in favor of personal destruction. How is Savage not advocating for ignorance and against the wisdom of science and education?
@Dov: You say, as a first premise: “Religions arise and endure because they promote codes of behavior that create, in each case, distinctive civilizations. One of the longest lasting codes has been one that promotes abstinence until heterosexual monogamy.”
Both elements of this premise are verifiably and objectively wrong. Religions arise in REFLECTION of the societies in which they originate and as a conservative force, intended to stabilize any given society and preserve its way of doing things. They do not “create” society, nor do they “promote” any aspect of society but, rather, they retard society’s progress. The problem comes when the economic basis of a given society changes: When hunter gatherers gave up hunting and opted, instead, for settled communities in the area of Syria about 11,000 years ago, they began to change their religious forms, leaving off seeing spirits behind every rock and coming, eventually, to the innovation of monotheism. During this transition, they progressively gave up polygamy and open bisexuality (as is common among chimps and bonobos, for instance, and most every hunting gathering society), in order to emphasize a division of labor based on physical prowess. It’s physically demanding to till fields, after all.
But we are now in a modern, post-industrialized, service-oriented economy, at least, in any advanced part of the world. There is no longer any economic or socio-political need to exalt the male sex, let alone monogamy. Many of the shibboleths created in the Middle East thousands of years ago to justify the Abrahamic religions and the restrictions that they placed on society simply have no further relationship to the reality in which most people now live. They should go; the sooner the better.
The vapidity of the second element of your premise is now manifest. In a modern economy, it is the freedom of the individual and his/her ability to respond to the economic and socio-political pressures placed on him/her which matter most. Such an agile, fruitful response requires maximum personal flexibility in the creation of any interpersonal relationship and, ultimately, in the establishment of any family unit. While studies continue to show that families composed of (at least) two parents are more stable and successful in child-rearing than single-parent families, there is simply no evidence that any family must be composed of one man and one woman, nor that sexual intercourse between the eventual partners need be abolished prior to any formalization of the new family relationship. In fact, there is every reason to believe that potential marital partners should be given free room to explore their ability to relate to each other and to develop those relations without the pressure of comporting themselves to arbitrary and irrelevant societal norms: Marital partners who know themselves well are much more likely to bond effectively, stay together and endure in their marriage than those who are thrust together suddenly and without having ever learned about each other’s proclivities, including their sexual proclivities.
“Abstinence until heterosexual monogamy” is just another Abrahamic shibboleth. Time to let that one drop, too.
Savage's rhetorical tactics are similar to another historical figure. He incites crowds to anger, blames an entire religion and its adherents for victimizing him and his group personally, and passionately promotes a self-serving revisionist history. He reminds me of Hitler.
And Godwin's law holds true again. I don't believe Jewish people ever tried to treat Hitler as a second class citizen, outlaw his sexual choices, or deny his humanity. People on the Christian right have done all of those things. You can take issue with Savage painting all of iwith a broad brush, but don't try to pretend there's anything vaguely Hitler like in it.
It didn't really matter in Hitler's rhetoric how Jewish people had actually treated him, but whether he could persuade others that they had in order to stir up hatred. With 20% of the Western world's homosexual population "living with HIV" and dependent on daily doses of antiviral drugs to stave off the latest version of the black plague. Could it be that those laws were rooted in prudent public health rather than prejudice? Mr. Savage's shirt also shows him to be a member of the vicious (or is it the viscous?) class. He is hardly a Martin Luther King or a Mahatma Ghandi. Much, much closer to Hitler. Why should anyone treat him as if he behaved with class, when in fact he never has?
People who evoke Hitler infuriate me. It is not only ridiculous - in history there are no more than 50 people who could rightfully be compared to Hitler - but also offensive to the Jewish people, gays, gypsies, physically handicapped and other groups who were persecuted by Hitler.
LOL. Grow a pair. Are you really focusing on his T-shirt? Is this the best you can come up with? And how do you know that "20% of the Western world's homosexual population "living with HIV" and dependent on daily doses of antiviral drugs to stave off the latest version of the black plague.". Does this mean that every gay has been tested for HIV and that the person's sexual orientation was known? Try pulling the other one. It has bells on.
In our race to take umbrage you are winning.
"A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
You are neatly following Savage's example of civility in your tone and language. If I were a nice little old lady, I'd be shocked into silence.
I think this "homosexuality as unnatural" argument is flawed. And only people with a narrow knowledge of biology, society, culture and history would come up with it.
Many things in society are not "natural", MARRIAGE is not natural, MONOGAMY is not natural, or have somebody ever seen another animal with a ring in their fingers, struggling to remain faithful or at least to hide their infidelities? Sex as recreation is not natural. Romantic love is not natural among other animals and the term didn't even exist among humans until recently.
Among some human societies, polygamy and even pedophily is natural. In the animal world incest is natural. Who or what define what's "natural"? - Social and cultural values, not biology.
So this "biological nature" argument is not convincing, social and cultural values have nothing to do with nature.
Finally, history shows us that social values do change with time, so homosexuality being right or wrong depends solely on judgements based on individual social and cultural values.
WOW, we have very different ideas! Lets see if we can find common ground on which we agree. Now, you already say that you do not think that the biological argument that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature. This seems to be because we do not have a similar understanding of the word nature. Or it might be because your logic is flawed, Or, maybe you are just a relativist who does not believe in anything having a nature.
My understanding of the word nature, and I think the basic understanding on which the the argument is based is that:
Nature is the principle of a that directs it to its end(goal). What I mean by that is that it is almost like a blueprint in the object that lets it act.
What I mean by that can be seen in an example. The nature of a seed(tree seed) is to become a tree. It has the principle and if it is in the proper environment, in the dirt, with water and nutrients, it will grow into a tree, but if it doesn't have the proper supporting elements, it is going to die and not turn into a tree which is the end or the goal of the seed, to become a tree.
Now in some cases the seed will not become a tree. Either because its nature was flawed or because the environment was not the correct environment for growing.
So, just because it doesn't always become a tree does not mean that its nature is flawed or mutated, it could be that the environment did not provide the proper support, or it could even be that there was poison in the dirt.
In a way, I think I understand what you are getting at by saying that cultures determine nature. I would agree that sometimes they do, but not always. But, when society determines what is normal or the end after which we seek, I would use the word "Convention" or agreed upon, instead.
I was trying to say that many cultural/ religious rules doesn't have anything to do with nature, like the Christian rule against polygamy. And that many human activities don't have a natural purpose, like recreational sex or the over-accumulation of wealth.(or do you really think every human activity has it's natural reason to exist?) I don't think that the simple fact that homosexuality doesn't have a natural purpose should be enough to forbid it or to discriminate, persecute or deny gay people the same rights.
Many people, afraid that religion is a weak argument against homosexuality are holding on to the "unnaturallity" argument. Well, anal sex is "unnatural" and have no natural purpose, plus if people start prefering it, the population will gradually decrease and it's the end of civilization. Therefore we should forbid it and stigmatize it the same way homosexuality is stigmatized,right?
C'mon just admit that many people are just afraid of everything different and new, they are the reactionaries, this is also very common in society.
The Netherlands legalized gay marriage ten years ago and homosexuality is widely tolerated, and still I don't see any "social or biological" disgrace resulting from it or any strong influence on demographics. The nations with the smallest population growth are very intolerant to homosexuality: Japan, South Korea.
There is not a strong logical argument against homosexuality as long as the prevalence rate isn't over about 10%, and if some people are happy living with the same sex, there is no reason why we should deny them their rights of pursuing happiness. That's the common sense here and that's why democratic and secular nations in Europe and all the American continent are recognizing homosexual's rights to just exist and live as any of us.
Do you want to know two examples of "unnatural" human activity, that's actually very costly but still are widely practiced and accepted?- Caring for the elder who can't even move and life support.
So, what's the "goal" for humanity of caring for people who won't contribute to anything anymore? Do other species care for their elders, do they keep some of them alive artificially? Do you think this is biological nature? If yes, why, and if no, do you think we should forbid it?
I completely agree with you, there are many unnatural things, but what I would argue is that if it is unnatural, not just not natural but contrary to nature and bad for you.
I would totally agree with you that anal sex is unnatural andI would say bad. It is an abuse of the person. (Tangent--Maybe if people were just bodies and didn't have intellects and souls these things would be ok because they are only for pleasure, I haven't thought about it, but my inclination is that I would still think it unnatural--)I would also say that there can be more than one end, for instance, eating is for nourishing, but it is fine for food to give pleasure. I would say that being bulimic is unnatural--contrary to nature ( I would also say wrong but you don't need to agree to that).
Just because society encourages some behavior does not make it natural. Think about the Romans and bulimia. The Romans feasted until they were full, made themselves throw-up, and started eating again. This gave them pleasure, but it is very unhealthy and not good for them. Any doctor would agree.
You say that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality or polygamy. Would you mind explaining that in light of the brushed aside fact that HIV/AIDS is most prevalent in homosexuals and that there are so many STDs? Is that coincidence? Or is it nature revolting against the revolution from nature? Science knows that both behaviors are unhealthy--why else would the Red Cross ask the sex questions before anyone gives blood? Because they are trying to minimize the chance that the blood they are receiving is dangerous to sick people.
This is not the unnatural argument, but rather an illustration to point out that it is true.
By unnatural you mean against the culture? I think I agree with you. ANd the culture it is going against is the self-ish culture where the only person who matters is me. I only care about people in so far as they can give me pleasure and make me comfortable. To me, it seems that the goal of caring for poeple who won't contribute anymore is one of honor where you give honor to them as a person. You don't throw people out of your life as soon as they are no longer useful to you. And, in the end, you will probably have to suffer and realize that we are not gods.
If we were animals, perhaps I would agree with you. Why not kill people who require aid? Why not measure whether a person is a person by how much work they can do? The thing is, that I do think that humans are different from animals. I say this is because of our immortal soul, I don't know if you believe in souls or not. So, in answer to your question about whether it is biological, I would say, in a way yes and in a way no. No because it is because of the soul, but yes because the soul is supposed to be with a body and was made for the body. Both body and immortal soul are essential to the human being.
I would say that the goal is love. The goal is human perfection. Seeing that we need others, and seeing that others need us. Accepting suffering as something that is good for us because it makes us have to learn and die to our pride.
By unnatural you mean against the culture? I think I agree with you. ANd the culture it is going against is the self-ish culture where the only person who matters is me. I only care about people in so far as they can give me pleasure and make me comfortable. To me, it seems that the goal of caring for poeple who won't contribute anymore is one of honor where you give honor to them as a person. You don't throw people out of your life as soon as they are no longer useful to you. And, in the end, you will probably have to suffer and realize that we are not gods.
If we were animals, perhaps I would agree with you. Why not kill people who require aid? Why not measure whether a person is a person by how much work they can do? The thing is, that I do think that humans are different from animals. I say this is because of our immortal soul, I don't know if you believe in souls or not. So, in answer to your question about whether it is biological, I would say, in a way yes and in a way no. No because it is because of the soul, but yes because the soul is supposed to be with a body and was made for the body. Both body and immortal soul are essential to the human being.
I would say that the goal is love. The goal is human perfection. Seeing that we need others, and seeing that others need us. Accepting suffering as something that is good for us because it makes us have to learn and die to our pride.
Yes! You got to the point I was trying to make. I never said homosexuality was natural, polygamy is, actually there is no "marriage" in the natural world to start with.
My point is that the "biological nature" argument was flawed because society and culture aren't based only on nature. Somo human activitirs are not natural, like your example of bulimia.
You spoke of honor, yes, that's a cultural thing. Therefore what I was trying to say is that "naturality is not a valid argument, homosexuality and gay marriage discussions should be based on social and cultural values ( religion is included in culture). I'll lleave the judgement of right or wrong to each one's values, I'm not trying to impose mine.
About the AIDS thing, yes I see a flaw in your comment, actually the global prevalence of AIDS in homosexuals is not much higher than in heterosexuals because the concentration is in southern Africa and most of the sick there are heterosexuals. So the prevalence among heterosexuals is actually higher. This proves that it's more a matter of carelessness and lack of information and education than homosexuality. Plus, you say "homosexuals", well you simply ignore that "homosexuals" include lesbians too, and the prevalence of AIDS among lesbians is negligible, and the majorityof the HIV positive lesbians or bisexual women got it from a man.
You have a point if you say that the prevalence of AIDS in the West is much higher among gay men, but it has to do with carelessness, lack of information and over-promiscuity of some, but it's not a gay-only thing. Any careless, misinformed and over promiscuous heterosexual man has a high risk of getting AIDS too. On the other hand, you must not ignore that there are many serious, careful gays with only one partner who want a safe and committed relationship, actually the AIDS rate among educated young gay men who was born after the epidemic og the 80's is very low.
You spoke about "immortal soul", well, sorry but that's not nature. There is no proof that immortal souls exist, this is a religious concept, you'll never hear a natural scientist or biologist talking about souls.
Like I've said before, some religious people like to relate religion to nature, because nature is supreme and universal.
Like some here like to say: " religious rules reflects the "goals" of nature, so it should be obeyed", well, that's the religious people's wishful thinking. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with science or biological nature, some religious zealots want to link the two things so as to justify and advocate a strong influence of religion in human life. They want to "borrow" the power and supremacy of nature.
To most of us, intelectual scholars, religion and spirituality are human superstitions, aspects of culture and psychology. It is not "nature's spokesperson".
I think you may have missed my point...I wasn't using the bulimia example as the argument but as an illustration of it being unhealthy and therefore likely unnatural, as in against nature, even if it is socially acceptable. Any doctor will agree that it is unhealthy for a person to throw-up their food. It is bad for that person's health---nature doesn't care what society and cultures say.
About AIDS, I don't remember if the rate for Homosexual males(agreeing with your clarification which I was intenting) is higher than that for Heterosexuals. But, I do know for sure, that it started to greatly increase as the homosexual male movement increased. Also, with polygamous and bisexual relationships it would not surprise me if the rates are becoming more similar. You seem to agree with me that male homosexuality is a huge(primary?)cause of HIV/AIDS when you pointed out that lesbians and bisexual women got it from men.
I am not saying that the spread is only caused by homosexual males, but that they start it. At least that is what science seems to say and what the Red Cross seems to be agreeing with by not allowing anyone who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man give blood. Again, it is a health thing.
You say that I am not right in regards to Western gay men. Do you think that is because westerners are above all other people or because of condoms? I assume it is because of condoms. Which just again shows that it isn't natural. They need to have "Protected sex" protected against what I ask you? It isn't against having kids, so isn't it against getting disease?(I also think using condoms for sex is unnatural---and the general name "contraception" "against creation" agrees with me--but we don't need to argue that--I just wanted to clarify in case you thought I was inconsistent with my views.)
PS: You say that you are not going to judge whether the values are right or wrong? Is that a judgement on my values of saying that there is right and wrong? PPS: Because I know that you don't agree with right and wrong I have been keeping that out of my arguments because I know it is useless as you will simply reject it.
I might agree that you won't hear secular scientists(especially atheists) talk about immortal souls, even so, have they ever disproved it? No. Also, I am pretty sure you will hear them talk about souls, even if they do not use that word. If there is no soul what is the difference between a corpse and a body ( I don't just mean humans, I mean all animals and even plants). There is a difference between a person or and animal and a rock. Things are more than just their materials. You can easily see that with isomers(isn't that the name for the chemicals that have the same atoms but different structures?). Again, there is a difference between a pile of rocks and a house, one has a form that makes it something different than the other. The soul is the form of things that gives it life.
You say that it isn't proved. But has it been proved that it doesn't exist? You seem to be rather quick to say that it doesn't exist...why have you stopped being scientific? Why are you so quick to judge it? I thought you didn't like judging and condemning people's values? Also, I thought you thought that cultures determine nature? Why this sudden change of heart? Could it be because this is an unproved held belief you have and not a scientific statement? You seem to be pretty quick to trash psychology too.
About one thing you say I see your argument. You say that religion is not nature's spokesperson. As I said above, I believe in the immortal soul and I wasn't sure whether you did or not. I was expressing my belief, not forming an argument at that point, though, I do think that an argument can be made, I just didn't make one.
You know, I think you are the one rejecting nature, not me. You are the one that thinks that nature is determined by cultures. I do believe in God and I hold that completely. That is from my religion, however, I think that nature leads the way to God. Religion is a useful guide that allows the less smart of us or more lazy of us understand nature, but we can do it even just by reason----it is just WAY harder and longer. That again is a belief. I doubt you will agree with it. But, I did want to let know how I think Faith and Reason are in agreement.
And yes, I do think that God gives everything a purpose, and it is only with that understanding that all nature will truly make sense.
I noticed that this article belongs to the most commented but the whole discussion stems from mistaking artificial notions for a reality.
Church takes "homosexuality" as a synonym for "libertinism" which is something Church quite understandably hates because it is in the direct opposition to the conservative model of traditional family where obedience to church plays a significant role (notice that I don't speak about religion but church as institutions with all their rituals; I also don't judge which of the models of living is better but only state reality).
It has nothing to do with sexuality as such. Human sexuality is very individual for each human being (along with larger context of human feelings and behaviour). Notice, for example, that a so-called hetero/homo-sexual person would not feel happy to have ANY kind of intimate relationship with 99.99...% of people even of the opposite/the same sex or that human sexual fantasies are not always related only to one sex.
Thus it is wrong to divide all people into a couple of classes of equivalence (hetero/homo/bi/a-sexuals) and presume that they represent a single class of qualities that can be addressed as a single group.
It is just this artificial labeling (not only related to sexuality) that stresses young people most and leads to the sad suicides of teenagers. But so called "gay-rights activists" are guilty of the situation too because they accept the game that they represent interests of a specific group and thus contribute to anchoring the artificial prejudices in the collective mind of the society.
I totally agree with you!
@Tom: Your denial of the existence of sexual orientation seeks to reduce the struggle of the LGBT community to an absurdity. For the sake of sophism, you attempt to invalidate every intelligent discussion of human sexuality by saying, essentially, that there is no distinguishable difference between those who only ever have same-sex relations and those who only ever have opposite-sex relations. Fortunately for the rest of us, your sophistry is transparently defeated by objective scientific fact. (Why not begin with Alfred Kinsey's work and move forward from there?)
The facts are not at all what you present, nor certainly what the Christian Church has been arguing for centuries. While human sexual responsiveness most certainly exists along a spectrum from the homosexual to the heterosexual, and quite many people would not characterise themselves as being uniquely gay or straight, this in no way serves to vitiate the fact that there are many people who do, indeed, and very justifiably characterise themselves as gay, straight, bi, tran and even "intersexed".
The problem for those who would wish to reduce the broad spectrum of human sexuality to the crass, needlessly limited and "traditional" formalism of the heterosexual dyad (otherwise known as a "Christian marriage"), is that the real world doesn't fit this model, not at all. They are left trying to fit their square peg to the very round hole presented by the natural world in which they live, and they simply come up wanting, time after time.
The Church didn't always proceed, thusly. It took over 1,200 years after Christ for it to fall into this funk. They can get out of it, again. But they'll have to admit fallibility, especially from the Throne of St. Peter, as well as elsewhere. And they'll have to return to their roots in the teachings of Christ, rather than persevere in Aquinas's wooly-headed and mindless homophobia.
@NdiliMfumu
My point was that all these flame-wars stem from terminological confusion and lack of empathy between the opposite "camps" as both see only their truth.
Sexuality is biologically-determined individual characteristic that forms unique personality and that is too variable to be easily described by strict definitions of sexual behaviour: see for example homosexual behaviour of otherwise heterosexual prisoners or specific sexual behaviour affected by what was viewed appropriate in each cultural environment (e.g. wide-spread bisexual behaviour, in particular pederasty, in ancient Greece and Rome).
USA and EU have founded their societies around freedoms and respect to human rights and individuality of every human being as long as they do not threaten others. At the same time, both state and respected opinion-making institutions like Church have full rights to positively promote models of society (including living or sexual behavior) that they consider suitable but not by condemning or ostracizing people that do not follow them.
And this is in full compliance with my pragmatic view: Countries of the “Western World” have serious issues with aging and natality decline of their native population and thus it is necessary to give some motivation (e.g. tax incentives) to institutions where children can be conceived and properly raised which is something that the model of traditional (“heterosexual”) family allows. Thus I find it OK if the Church promotes this model. But at the same time, the state should also give full rights to citizens who do not want to follow this model but live the way that makes them happy, by providing sufficient institutions that allow it, e.g. the registered partnership (so that the partners could share medical information, etc.). Simply, these two institutions are not in any practical conflicts or contradictions.
@Tom: Once again, you try to have your cake and eat it too by engaging, now, in a more delicate form of sophistry: You give up denying that being gay is a distinguishable sexual orientation and, instead, you propose that it simply doesn’t matter, that “marriage” and all its incidents constitute an institution for procreation which, you believe, the West must rely on in order to maintain itself. Anything that the State may do to promote the procreation of its citizens within “traditional heterosexual” marriages is appropriate, including denying the right to “marry”, along with the appellation “marriage” to those who are not heterosexual and/or those who do not wish to engage in monogamy.
However, your argument is simply fatuous: By attempting to exalt heterosexual monogamy, you again make the opposite point: That there really is something to this distinction between heterosexuals and everyone else (i.e., the LGBT community). But the distinction is not what you pretend it to be. Again, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that straight couples make better parents than gay couples or lesbian couples, and no evidence, whatsoever, that permitting gays and lesbians to form families recognized broadly as “marriages” does anything at all to impair the ability or desire of straights to marry heterosexually. Furthermore, the State has no interest, generally, in promoting the fecundity of its citizens. If anything, humans are much too prolific and are already placing too much stress on the environment. If anything, the State has an interest in REDUCING the fecundity of its citizens. (China is already well-along in this task.)
Rather, your argument is again a crass cover for your own homophobia. A very over-intellectualized defense against having to recognize that homophobia means fear of BEING homosexual, not fear OF homosexuals. All the imperatives that you pronounce as to why the LGBT community should be resisted, repressed, put into its “proper place” and denied their natural right to marry with the name “marriage” merely serve to raise the point that YOU believe, your own homosexuality should stay buried deep within you and never see the light of day.
Time to visit a therapist.
I could pull out lot of textual evidence, but I do not have a lot of time. The author stated "surely at least one of those offended souls hoping to make a life out of words could have found a few to hurl back at him rather than just flouncing out in a huff," It quite comical to see one attempt to rationalize something so terrible. If those kids had chose to cast aspersions back at Mr. Savage they simply would be stooping to his low level by playing his vicious game. It is ironic that the bigger and more mature people here were the kids, and it is also ironic (and very hypocritical) that Savage was promotes an Anti-Bullying campaign and acts like quite the bully himself. Henry David Thoreau would not be proud.
If it had been the other way around and a Christian was addressing a bunch of gay activists we can be sure the audience would have shouted the speaker down, rushed the stage and physically threatened him. There is a reason conservative speakers need body guards when they speak and leftists do not.
Never mind the religious or non-religious zealotry....I'm surprised he did this during a somewhat professional presentation about his field in front of students. I would think a professional would show a little more decorum.
"The devil, that proude spirit, cannot bear to be mocked" - Sir Thomas More
>>>> However poorly Mr Savage may have been treated in high school,
>>>> it was not by the students in the audience, and they deserved
>>>> more from a famous and accomplished journalist than derision.
That is possibly the stupidest argument I've heard this week. I'd say this year, but rightwingnuts say stupid things on a daily basis (e.g. Rand Paul's most recent promised "policy").
So what if the christians who cowered and ran from Savage's words weren't the ones who harassed him? They ARE harassing gay teens today. Or are people only allowed to speak out against discrimination that the speaker experiences personally?
"J.F."'s argument is as stupid as saying that a black man shouldn't criticized teen KKK members because they weren't the ones who tried to lynch him. Everyone has an obligation to speak out against hate. Those who remain silent are condoning it.
Because the Christian church lynches gays, and prevents them from getting an education and attempts to disenfranchise them?, perhaps you have now won the prize for stupidest argument of the week. The harassment of homosexual teenagers by other teenagers is not being encouraged by any church that I know of and Christian teens don't meet after their service on Sunday to plot how to make their gay classmates miserable the following week, where as racism is a pretty established belief in the KKK. Seems like somebody forgot that the Christian church had a huge role in the civil rights movement,it was The Reverend Martin Luther King after all.
Apparently you have never been in a Church. The last time I was in mass the Catholic priest said that gays and drug addicts deserved aids because they were sinners. And Dr King is dead because he was murdered by another Christian, other Christians told him now was not the time for Civil Rights, thus the letter from a Birmingham jail starts with, "We have heard the word wait." Try again.
Where do I begin? You can't judge an institution by taking a few of its members and expanding their views to cover the views of the majority, By that same logic all Muslims hate america and because one stray imam might have proclaimed death to america in a mosque, not all of the congregation become terrorists, If your priest went against the teachings of the Vatican and his church by saying something offensive and inappropriate not all Catholics in his church and all the Catholics in the world think gays deserve to die of AIDS, by your own logic you should think that Gays should die of AIDS because you were sitting in the pews that Sunday, The person that killed MLK defied church teaching by violating the fifth commandment and committing murder, that disqualifies him from acting on behalf of the church as a whole, perhaps the homosexual rights movement should recruit some sophists to make their arguments for them, because they don't seem fit to do so on their own.
You can blather on endlessly about a reality that doesn't exist. A few? Considering the number of states banning equal access to the government based on sexual orientation, they are not a "few" by any sense of reality. There is nothing logical about religion, so don't pretend to use it to justify an organization that has twisted a message of love and charity into a message of hate.
God bless you my brother. The nay-sayers have nothing to contribute except more hatred. Let them show us anyone of their "heroes" that made great moral strides throughout history without a reliance on a spiritual or moral perspective.
"So what if the christians who cowered and ran from Savage's words weren't the ones who harassed him? They ARE harassing gay teens today."
How do you know that? How do you know whether they have harassed anybody? How do you know that those students are somehow condoning hate?
Savage was wrong because he was insulting a bunch of strangers who he knew nothing about. This is not like confronting the KKK about racism; this is like walking into a random room of strangers and insulting their religion. I wouldn't walk into a room full of Muslims and insult the Koran and denigrate devout Muslims for being terrorists or misogynists, and I think it is inappropriate for Savage to have give a speech to students (all of whom presumably are there voluntarily to listen to him speak because they are sympathetic to his message) and then gratituously (and unnecessarily) insult their religion.
The harassment of homosexuals IS being actively encouraged by a number of "churches" in the US. Quotation marks because many of these so-called "churches" are nothing more than fronts to rake in piles of cash for their founders while spewing nonsensical bigotry loosely based on a poorly understood Bible.
ODE TO GAYISM
how i wish my dad and mom
the dad and mom of the author of this article
the dads and moms of all the commentators
were gays
this article, none of us
would have existed
how I wish the ancestors
of all the 7billion of us
5000+ years ago were gays
the world would have being
rid of you and I
how I wish that any child
born from now onwards
will be gay
what a nice place the world
would be
couples will use the labs to
reproduce
we will not need parents
anymore
how will the lab babies be
breastfeed?
what will a home be like
2 men or 2 women
imagine growing up
under 2 men or 2 women
for the first 16 years of your life
where will you learn how
2 treat a woman or
2 treat a man?
You know what? if all the
founders of religions had gay parents
only christianity would exist today
because only Jesús was born
without sex
how I wish adam and eve were gays
all this mess will not be!
Your poem sucks as much as your logic.
If the whole human race originated from Adam and Eve, we have far worse things to worry about than homosexuality. Oh dear, some people have been totally brain washed (and I'm using brain in a very loose sense) by religion. They don't question things and just follow everything that has been taught to them blindly.
I think he was making a point, not stipulating that he beliefs that we are all actually descendants of Adam and Eve.
his point is reprehensible, his poem lacks style and he should be chastised for such beliefs.
How can anyone pay attention to the words on a book compiled over 2.ooo years ago, by unknown authors, editors and publishers. Further the Bible as we know it today was submitted to a final editing session in the first council of Nicaea chaired by Emperor Constantine and a slew of catholic bishops. Those folks pretty much decided what to include, what to exclude, how to categorize the saints, prophets, Jesus, gods, semi-gods and define Christianity in general. A far cry from a god inspired text!
There are still many christians in this world look at the number of people defending the bible.
His comments are nothing but petty revenge for the injustices that may have been committed against him, as was the Santorum definition that he fabricated. It is unfortunate that he was bullied for his choice to become a homosexual but it doesn't justify his uninformed diatribes against Christianity. the Old Testament cannot be read out of context, slavery was very much a widespread practice and the bible far from condoning slavery, introduced laws to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, ensure their freedom after 7 years, etc. So Mr. Savage is just as wrong as the bigots on the right claiming homosexuals around the world have a common agenda and all homosexuals are promiscuous hedonists. If he wants to increase his chances of dying of cancer or contracting an STD, and willingly give up the opportunity to have his own children with a wife in the context of stable family so be it, us conservative Christians don't have the obligation to discourage him. I'd love to see him refer to portions of the Quran as bullshit, oh the scandal he would have caused then, and I doubt the Economist would put his comments on their website without condemning them, what a hypocritical society we live in.
Hey Fernandez you want to be my slave for 7 years. I'm christian so you should be fine, not to worry... what you say?
Hey guys, do you both want to be slaves of mine? I just do not know what law to apply as I am ex-Christian.. But I was with your political party for long 30 years! So maybe we could trick God somehow, what do you think? One of interesting things about church is that it is always just matter of price. If the price is right, the monotheistic clergy gladly manages to negotiate with their boss a n y t h i n g .
its the same thing with the american constitution, the founding fathers knew that slavery was impossible to eliminate at the time so they implemented steps to scale back slavery and to eventually eliminate it, as it was 80 years later, albeit with a war. Still you don't hear members of the black community referring to any part of the constitution as bullshit even though they might be justified in doing so. If you want to be pedantic and miss the entire point.
The point is that the blacks should and have right to be pedantic and go all the way requesting the changes in the Constitution. The USA is very lucky that they are not pedantic, not wanting justice at any cost and are tolerant. Perhaps they are still consciously or unconsciously scared of the whites. No wonder after what the white christians have done to them..
You really think being gay increases your chances of cancer?
Ps: why should Savage forego a stable family? You are keeping him from it, buddy. Allow them to marry whoever they like and see how soon they are going to be a cornerstone of Peoria...
Here we start again the whole discussios about gay rights. Why don't we leave Christians, gays, and Muslims alone?
As long as they don't try to walk over people that believe in different things, whether it be different God or different sexual orientation!
Would you want me to come over to your house and tell you how to run your life? Why would one have any right to do it to someone else? Christian or gays should stay away from each other. They are obviously very different in their beliefs, so why even try to interfere? Gays should not try to change Christians and vice versa.
Of course, the State should also remain agnostic and not favor any of the sides, I wish to add. The State is for the people, no matter what their religion or sexual orientation is.
OK Rodney Gotnophobia King, let's all get along! Unfortunately religion compels some ppl to go to the extreme to antagonize others all in the name of their master. How can one reconcile with sentiments festering in ppl like the ones that crashed against the twin towers, or Hitler lovers (different kind of religion see), should I have befriended Osama Bin Laden and read him bed time stories?!
And more interestingly (as it always gets when it comes to church) Hitler was a good old friend with Vatican. The pope and annexed clergy blessed nazism, Hitler and his weapons. Vatican never condemned Hitler, nor nazism, nor those atrocities!
I think the problem is exactly this way of thinking in categories that supposedly exclude one another rather than viewing everyone as a human being.
You can be gay and a Christian. And you can be a Christian and not hate gay people. Which is Dan Savage's point, really.
To suggest two other options to the absurd idea that "they should stay away from each other". How exactly? And what do you do if you're both? Or a gay teen enrolled at a homophobic Christian high school? Or a gay Muslim in a country where both homosexuality and apostasy are capital offenses?
Are you that ignorant or that dishonest? This is not about "gay rights", it is about human rights.
Religious bigots aren't worried about gay marriage. They're worried that ALL people will be granted the same rights, the same protections under the law.
The religious bigots will not be able to harass, assault, arrest, imprison, exile or kill people. You can only rationalize bigotry when you can label others as untermenschen. When gays are labelled as HUMAN, such violence is impossible.
Confused...according to you homosexuality and religion are mutually exclusive.. That does sound right!!
This is so unreal its ridiculous. I'm a devout Christian. a trainee Pastor for that matter. I'm not trying to take away anyone's rights. God loves Gay people, he just doesn't love their sin. I love Gay people as I love all people. I just dont love their sin. I want them to come to Christianity, but I've never forced anyone in my life, and there is no way I would even consider it. What is faith if it is forced? Every points at me like I'm evil, I'm just passionate about what I believe in. Doesn't the American public applaud when a Gay person stands up and is proud of themselves? Well then I demand an applause and encouragement when I share my passion for my beliefs!
Perhaps if you'd just drop the idea that homosexuality is a sin and realize that people are born with this orientation, people would stop calling you evil. Why would anyone choose to be this way, for all the hatred and suffering that they have put up with for hundreds of years? God created gays, so why should that be considered sinful?
I was born with a natural tendency to be a fornicator, idolater and liar, but I'm still held responsible for those sins. Its the sin nature inside of people, thats what scripture says. but there is no excuse for all the haters, all I've done is spread the love of Christ. I have never been racist, sexist, or homophobic, yet I get consistently bashed like I am. This is not right. true Christians are the ones that are sharing the gospel.
I was born with a natural tendency to be a fornicator, idolater and liar, but I'm still held responsible for those sins. Its the sin nature inside of people, thats what scripture says. but there is no excuse for all the haters, all I've done is spread the love of Christ. I have never been racist, sexist, or homophobic, yet I get consistently bashed like I am. This is not right. true Christians are the ones that are sharing the gospel.
"Vatican never condemned Hitler, nor nazism, nor those atrocities!"
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1185958
Because it was seen as a pagan creed (a threat to the Roman Catholic's strong hold on religion), not because of atrocities committed by Nazi Germany.
So you still believe people with dark skin bear the mark of Cain, even though they didn't have any choice in the matter?
I think you get bashed because you continue to condemn homosexual behavior as sinful and don't seem to understand that the idea that this is sinful is not a universally held belief. Some Christians don't agree that homosexuality is a sin. Some churches feel that it is more important to love, rather than to judge and condemn (which I thought was God's job anyways). I think it is the individual who should decide whether he feels something is sinful or not, and apply it only to themselves. And secular law should not be enforcing religious beliefs.
That's fine, hey if you dont believe in my religion, and you dont think homosexuality is wrong, thats fine. but dont turn around and tell me what my religion says. My religion says its a sin, so people need to stop arguing with me that its not a sin according to my Bible. As far as the whole mark of Cain thing. Thats a Catholic theology debunked centuries ago. besides all of Cains descendants were wiped out in the flood because Noah was in the direct line of Seth.
How are these "outraged" Christians in American media any different from those Muslims protesting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons that they probably jeered at a couple of years ago?
Oh, wait. The American religious fanatics are taken seriously on CNN, and have established organizations that make millions of dollars in donations just by disseminating their bigotry towards gays.
I don't really care about the plight of homosexuals. They are overrepresented in the media and discrimination against them doesn't seem to stop many of them from becoming successful, financially and otherwise.
But the arguments over this issue are manifestations of a much larger and more important question:
Do we want the USA to a religiously conservative society like the Muslim middle east? Or do we want the USA to be a secular and pluralistic society like all of the other developed countries in Europe and East Asia?
My vote is certainly for secular pluralism.
I thought USA was already a pluralistic society. Where else in this world can you get the amount of freedom you get in USA? Facebook is blocked in China, you can´t have more than one kid also, europe´s emision standards are certainly unbearable, USA has the most pluralistic mix of beliefs, every dick and harry is there, catholics, anglicans, mormons, muslims, pentecostals, etc. etc. satanism too, the country with the highest porn business on earth. Which other form of pluralism do we want?
You think the ultimate achievement of a society is measured by its freedom? Even if that freedom has negative externality effects on other individuals?
Should I have the freedom to burn plastic in my back yard all day?
And your testimony that you have so many different beliefs just shows the lack of decent education in the US.
I find it amusing that you should feel compelled to defend Mr. Savage. It must be that he is a journalist and, of course, such a person could never be wrong. The simple truth is that Mr. Savage is just as much a bigot as the people he so viciously attacked. There's nothing argumentative about his remarks. And The Economist just lost a whole lot of respect in my eyes--not really worth reading any longer.
Don't go! You are so important, that The Economist would hardly survive without you. I might as well stop reading it because you left!
Translation: "The Economist dared to tell the truth about something I happen to believe in, so rather than stay and have a mature discussion, or explain why I think they are wrong, I'm gonna take my ball and go home and tell my MOMMY!"
Does it not seem to you that you have just proven at least one of his points? As a generalization, many Christians cannot bear to hear an opposing opinion.
So pointing out hypocrisy is bigotry?
Savage is especially hippo critical as he doesn't speak out about Islam and sharia law persecution of gays in the present...at least "Christians" keep it in the abstract, that is, what awaits you in the "hereafter"!
I agree, Dan Savage's criticism of hippos is scathing.
you know that's just the true lack of real "intelligence" in the so-called "artificial intelligence" that's programmed into ipads the their ilk, in the lack of ability to be intuitive...
Can't help wondering, is that supposedly due to the basic decency of Christians or is that more to do with the laws of the country?
Historically, the church, and those calling themselves "Christians" has been involved an atrocities against non believers, and even against believers who dare to disagree on a single point.
The inquisitions, crusades, persecution of the faithful who dare to disagree on even one point of dogma, including burning at the stake.
Yep, that IS better than what Christianity has done in the past and many Christians today would support, if it weren't for the larger body of common sense and multiculturalism in western countries.