a lot of social conservatives go to great lengths to claim they don't "hate" gays.
Hate is a charged word. But its pretty simple to determine if they have a bias or prejudice against gays.
Homosexuality is a natural condition in the animal world, and in mammals broadly. When you see a social conservative say its "not natural", its pretty clear they are excersing a deep seated personal prejudice against gays; one that is not surpported by science in any way . The other possibility is that, like charlie bass and larry craig, they are secretly terrified of their own closet gay fantasies, and it comes out hatred towards openly gay people. Its self-loathing, a well established concept in psychology.
the other type of soicial conservative will hide behind the bible as a smokescreen to justify their prejudice. The bible hardly says anything about gays; and Jesus never said not one word. But these social conservative obsess about the few and sparse biblical admonitions about homosexuality. You know what? The bible says a LOT of shit is sinful. Shit that nobody pays attention to and ignores. Like stoning adulterers to death, or beating the crap out of an unruly child. There's a lot things the bible claims is sinful, but are roundly ignored by everyone including social conservatives.
Why then, do they pick out one or two passages in the bible about two guys getting it on? Why pick on that one sin, to the exclusion of all the other silly "sins" that are roundly ignored in the bible?
Obviously, its because they use the bible as a smokescreen to justify their own prejudice.
Why not be honest about it? Don't hide behind the bible. We all have biases and prejudices, including myself.
You seem to be saying that having a bias = hate. If that's not what you're saying you went to a lot of trouble to not say it.
No. I use the word bias because “hate” is a completely subjective word. No one will ever fess up to being a hater; even William Joyce, I suspect, will claim he doesn’t “hate” black people. And no one can really tell what’s in another person’s heart.
Bias and prejudice are easily identifiable and objective.
That dude who implied gays were freaks and unnatural, because “animals don’t do homosexuality”, is hiding his prejudice behind sheer ignorance and scientific illiteracy. Homosexuality is present and well-documented in the animal world. So, that dude is quite obviously trying to hide his prejudice behind bogus pseudo science.
The bible thumpers are quite obviously hiding behind the bible to cloak their own personal prejudice against gays. The bible says virtually nothing about homosexuality, and homosexuality must have not even been considered a major sin. Its not in the ten commandments, its not one of the seven deadly sins, and Jesus never said one damn word about it. The fact that many social conservatives make it their personal crusade to obsess about homosexuality says more about them, than it does about the bible. They are quite obviously hiding behind the bible to pursue their own personal prejudice.
It’s you, my friend, who is playing with “bogus pseudo science” and false information.
Just because what appears to be homosexual activity in the animal world may exist doesn’t make it “natural” or “normal”. Your error is two-fold.
First, what appears to be homosexual activity in animals isn’t really the same kind of “lust” experienced by human beings. What it is, is sensorial confusion. Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. The course explanation is that animals will hump just about anything that doesn’t bite them or otherwise rebuff them. This explains the fact that they will hump other animals of their own species and gender, both genders of other species, a shoe, a pillow, a blanket, and any number of other inanimate objects.
Those who assign human emotion or reasoning to animals in this way are merely engaging in wishful thinking.
Second, even if one could reach the conclusion that animals actually experience the same lust as humans do, the fact that an animal engages in homosexual activity doesn’t make it normal or natural. Nor does it make it OK for humans to emulate that activity. Another author, Bodie Hodge, put it this way, “Many animals are also known to rape, murder, steal, and cannibalize their own kind. If it is okay for humans to engage in homosexual acts because some animals do it, then by that same reasoning, it should be okay for humans to rape, murder, steal, and cannibalize.”
So, following your reasoning, it is also normal and natural for humans to do the same thing, a tortured notion at best!
Which brings me to your claim that the Bible doesnÂ’t mention homosexuality. You couldnÂ’t be more wrong.
The New King James version in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 reads:
“9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In many texts, or translations, the term homosexual is translated as “catamite”, which is defined as a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
And, Leviticus 18:22 reads: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17 reads, “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.” In this case the term perverted one translated from the Hebrew term
qadesh, that is, one practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals.
Romans 1:26-27 reads, “26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
There are more. But, the point is made that your claim that the Bible doesnÂ’t mention Homosexuality is simply wrong.
What's the point of asking if homosexuality is natural if natural is irrelevant?
