Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Gays Are Evil

Jim Burroway

October 3rd, 2011

So says National Organization for Marriage’s new honcho John Eastman:

Those fighting for traditional marriage can feel beaten down by the culture at large. Do you feel that victory for traditional marriage is possible?

Evil will be with us always, and it requires constant vigilance to defeat. I look at it as a litigator and an educator. There will always be threats to institutions grounded in human nature by those who think human nature doesn’t define limits. We need to be involved in the immediate defense of threats against marriage, but also take a long-range view by educating the next generation about the importance of the issues we’re confronting.

And so does Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton:

All sexual sin is wrong because it fails to mirror the Trinitarian image, but homosexuality does more than fail. It’s a particularly evil lie of Satan because he knows that it overthrows the very image of the Trinitarian God in creation, revealed in the union of male and female.

And yet Focus On the Family’s Tim Daly complained to CNN that it’s unfair to say Focus hates gay people:

But do we, as Webster’s defines “hate,” feel “intense hostility and aversion” to gays and lesbians? Do we regard them with “extreme dislike or antipathy”? Unequivocally not.

Uh huh.

[via Good As You]

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Hyhybt
October 3rd, 2011 | LINK

But finding workarounds for nature’s limits IS human nature :)

Christopher
October 3rd, 2011 | LINK

Nature’s limits would include gravity, atmosphere, arctic and antarctic climate, deep water…

also surgery, antibiotics, orthodontics, propecia, viagra…

Roa
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Why must we keep going down these religious roads? Why can politicians who swore to uphold the Constitution continue to use their religious beliefs to justify themselves when they vote contrary to the Constitution? Why do we continue to allow tax exemptions from political organizations simply because they have a religious affiliation? And lastly, when do I get the chance to vote on hetro marriage? They act like they own the institution.

Gregory Peterson
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

I didn’t know that Christianity was a fertility cult, but who can argue with Focus on the Family about that?

Glenn T. Stanton is no expert
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/01/glenn-t.html

homer
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

I guess putting mango chunks on my cereal was just the start of my Evil Radical Homosexual Agenda for today.

Richard Rush
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Wait! . . . Isn’t it religion that relentlessly denies natures limits? After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything supernatural exists. While religion is continually unable to produce compelling evidence for gods, santans, demons, angels, heavens, or hells, science is continually producing new compelling evidence that expands our knowledge of nature. And then, while religion is busy using ignorance to produce bigotry that degrades human lives, science/technology is busy using knowledge to produce tangible results that usually benefit human lives.

While homosexuality is well within the limits of documented nature, most foundational religious beliefs are not.

mikenolo
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Google Trinitarian image.

it is the father son and holy ghost.

which means he supports gay male three-way marriage with invisible aliens.

Timothy Kincaid
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

All sexual sin is wrong because it fails to mirror the Trinitarian image..

I’ve no clue what the heck he’s talking about. Usually the church as bride of Christ is discussed but the Trinity is (hello, trinity) literally the theology that incorporates the three entities of the godhead into one.

I just don’t see how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit mirror the kind of marriage that Stanton supports.

Some Christian sects thought of the Holy Spirit as female but conventional theology follows the bodiless spirit concept, as also are the Father and Son – of whom Jesus was a male human manifestation. (This also raises the irony of some who insist that one’s gender is defined by the presence or absence of a penis – while they insist that the penisless (bodyless) Deity is male.)

But I can’t come up with any configuration of trinity that works in even the most abstract representative sense.

Timothy Kincaid
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Richard,

After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything supernatural exists.

Yes, by definition. Once something is physically evident, it is no long supernatural.

But does that mean that the supernatural of the past is not evident (and natural) today.

Take, for example, a sudden change in a person who experienced radically different behavior that was damaging to them and others and was out of character. An ancient might declare that they had been possessed of a demon, a supernatural action. We might, on the other hand, see a virus that had infected the victim and was causing the problem.

But who is wrong? If you were to try and explain a virus to someone living 2500 years ago, you’d have a tough time of it. It’s a living organism that is invisible that takes over a part of its host’s nervous system and… oh hell, it’s a demon.

I agree that science is continually producing new compelling evidence that expands our knowledge of nature. And religion tries to provide answers for what science cannot tell. And if you keep an open mind about it, you can see that quite often religion gets it pretty close considering the language and concept limitations.

The biggest conflict, in my opinion, between religion and science is when folks on both sides insist that religion is literal in the same way that a science text is literal – exact, observable, and directed at a sophisticated, educated, public with a strong grounding in the sciences.

But see one as literal and sophisticated and the other as lyrical and story telling to an audience with only minimal understanding of science and its startling how close they come. Personally, when I sat down and actually read, with an open mind, the Creation Story in the Bible, I found it to be shockingly similar to the Evolution explanation.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep…”

to a people without any concept of space or planets.

JFE
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

As I posted on Good as You, Webster apparently disagrees with Focus on the Family on the ONLY definition of marriage:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

chiMaxx
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

We’ve known that Glenn Stanton likes to make authoritative-sounding statements about things he doesn’t really understand ever since his debate here at BTB with Patrick Chapman.

Priya Lynn
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Richard said “After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything supernatural exists.”.

Timothy said “Yes, by definition. Once something is physically evident, it is no long supernatural.”.

*rolls eyes*…No, it never was supernatural in the first place. Let me phrase it a little differently:

After thousands of years there is still no compelling evidence that anything has required a god to bring it about.

Timothy said “I agree that science is continually producing new compelling evidence that expands our knowledge of nature. And religion tries to provide answers for what science cannot tell.”… and fails miserably.

Timothy said “And if you keep an open mind about it, you can see that quite often religion gets it pretty close considering the language and concept limitations.”.

Oh, please…give us an example, and not something pathetic like “in the beginning there was nothing” = big bang theory.

Priya Lynn
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy said “Personally, when I sat down and actually read, with an open mind, the Creation Story in the Bible, I found it to be shockingly similar to the Evolution explanation.”.

I love it when religious people grasp wildely at straws. The creation story suggests nothing about the central feature of evolution – the gradual change over time of one species into something else.

Timothy Kincaid
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Priya Lynn, I’m quite certain that you know this, but for clarity’s sake I’ll reiterate: You are, as always, welcome to your own opinion.

Jim Burroway
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

“You are, of course, entitled to your opinion”. I love that phrase! I hope it becomes something of a catch phrase around here, because in the end, nothing could be more true about much of what we say here.

However, not everyone is entitled to hijack a thread to change the subject to their favorite (a)theological viewpoint. The is not a(n a)theology blog, or even a(n a)theology thread.

Erin
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

Yeah, it’s always a way out when she gets ya. With all due respect, the Creation story is nothing the theory of Evolution. It’s fine to live by the principles of Jesus’ lessons, but a lot of Biblical followers don’t actually take many of the stories literally.

Erin
October 4th, 2011 | LINK

And yes, it’s off-topic. But wouldn’t it be nice if all these myths didn’t negatively affect the lives of LGBT people so much.

Hyhybt
October 5th, 2011 | LINK

Turning this into a fight against religion as a whole, rather than its natural state of being a fight against those who say “Gays are Evil,” whether religious or not, if nothing else needlessly sets more people in the enemy camp than need be. Those of us who are gay Christians (and etc.) are stuck either way, but more of the straight ones than you would suspect are allies… and those who are on the fence are put off by your calling their beliefs on other matters false.

Whether they are or not.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.