Of all the arguments against homosexuality its supposed unnaturality is the most idiotic. Who is to say what is “natural”? If it can be done, it has to be natural. That is the definition of “natural.” Why is it that when homophobes want to put gays down, they call being gay “unnatural,” yet they insist that gays can “change” since being gay is a matter solely of nurture? The only possible answer is that the homophobes excuse their fear by reference to scripture. Nothing's right or wrong but thinking makes it so. God condemns homosexuality in Leviticus but has no problem with Lot impregnating his own daughters after the destruction of the Cities on the Plain.

Views: 209

Replies to This Discussion

Does that mean that a woman who doesn't like sucking cock is likely a lesbian? I kind of doubt it.
I have cut and pasted this to my PC. It will come in very handy when I blog on the topic. Thanks for posting this!
This is so true...even just being enraged about gays seems like arousal to me...they just can't stop thinking about gay guys together and it makes their blood boil and their pulse race...but that's just because it's so disgusting! Sure.
Unnatural, is creating invisible, silent, Gods that must be obeyed by mindless drones because clerics say so.

What gets me is the fact that these right wing-nuts hide behind Leviticus when it suits their bigotry but not when it doesn't. How many of the people don't eat pork or shellfish? How many of these people stone their disobedient children? How many of these right-wing women go for purification after thier menstrual periods?

These right-wing nuts are nothing but hypocrites.

Well, I see YOU honor Leviticus: you don't shave your beard.  :-))))
No I just like beards and have very sensitive skin. I like beards better than blood.

That's fine, William, but do you also disdain the eating of pork, proscribed in the O.T. only because some desert warlord tribal leader couldn't cure trichinosis.  When you are trying to wean your flock off some practice that has been shown to be bad for them, you tell the gullible "God" told him all this because, if one is only bringing to fruition the wishes of the "Almighty" everybody's gonna go along with it, right?  This was Mosheh's genius. 

 

This was the genius of the author(s) of Leviticus.  It's just amusing to read off the list of do's and dont's in that book and ask Booble-thumping superstitious boobs like Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins try to explain why he cafeteria shops from the list, using it to condemn queer people and yet say nothing of the beardless heathen among us.  To Perkins, whose Family Research Council helped pass Prop 8 in California, don't you think it is a little hypocritical?

I don't disdain the eating of pork, shellfish etc. because I don't agree with the Book of Leviticus. Obviously its hypocritical. From what i have seen of Fundies, they follow the Bible when it fits their ideas and rationalize it when It doesn't.
Of course you are correct in that conclusion.  I hope you challenge the literalists when the opportunity arises.  The proscription against homosexuality in Leviticus is the most obvious example of cafeteria Christianity, and as you know there are many others.  It's a good thing to arm oneself with many other "laws" found in that book so that one can "cross-examine" the bigots when they wag their fingers and utter a thou shalt or thou shalt not.  Make the speaker look like a fool because he cherry picks his or her admonitions.  Remember the statistic that came out recently showing that atheists know their Booble better than most Xians?  Well, the apt homily is, "Familiarity breeds contempt."  When door to door proselytes appear, I get rid of them by saying things like, "If the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, the Booble must condone father-daughter incest: after Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, Lot impregnated his own daughters. Why do you condemn homosexuality and condone incest?  You can't have it both ways, you know...."  But, then, all is in vain: anybody gullible enough to believe that the Booble is the literal word of "God" will only shrug and reply, "God moves in mysterious ways."
The "booble" is new to me.  Love it!
Thanks dr kellie.  It is a borrowing from the old 1950s term, "boob," referring not to breasts but to the sort of person who, in rhyme, we used to call "rubes" (from Ruben, generally thought of as a country hick name); some famous wit (was it Mencken?) wrote a good deal about "boobs" or "rubes" or both.  It goes along with my alternate terms for the prophet, including Reb Yeshua and Jebus Crust.  (The latter has special cachet in that people keep seeing images of the "Lord" in such things as bread crusts and such.  They call it a miracle and put the object up for sale on eBay, leading one to wonder, if it is such a miracle, why are they so willing to sell it?)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service