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

And just when you thought the Catholic Church couldn’t out-crazy itself

Timothy Kincaid

January 9th, 2012

Meeting in Spain under the motto “Christian Family: the hope of Europe”, Catholic leadership revealed some startling discoveries. Startlingly stupid, that is.

From El Pias (and no, this doesn’t appear to be a spoof)

The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. “The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Richard Rush
January 9th, 2012 | LINK

Well, I don’t know if I would seek “to make half the world population homosexual,” but if I were a responsible god who cared for my creation, I would try to reduce the unsustainable reckless irresponsible heterosexual breeding – by increasing the percentage of, and acceptance of, homosexuals. And interestingly, that is exactly what the current Judeo-Christian god seems to be doing. I came out in the summer of Stonewall, and with a few fender-benders notwithstanding, we’ve been traveling on a one-way street ever since – and our speed is accelerating! And surely, those with Gay Obsession Disorder are praying incessantly, and yet we are the one’s winning! This sure is an exciting time to be livin’ and lovin’ the homosexual lifestyle.

Ben in Oakland
January 9th, 2012 | LINK

And these people claim:

To have intellectual authority about the nature of homosexuality.

Moral authority in the matter of homosexuality.

Any kind of morality– let alone moral authority in any matter whatsoever. Appaently, All you need to do is self proclaim it, molest some kids– I mean “take comfort with children”– , cover up the crimes because they might create a “scandal for the church– ignore the teachings of your founder…

And hey, presto! You’re good to go.

Ben in Oakland
January 9th, 2012 | LINK

Richard, love the Gay Obsession Disorder. Mind if I borrow it?

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism– Oscar levant

Richard Rush
January 9th, 2012 | LINK

Ben,

Richard, love the Gay Obsession Disorder. Mind if I borrow it?

Not at all. Please do.

But you need to be aware that there are three closely related disorders that virtually always occur in the patient simultaneously. It’s almost unheard of for a person to suffer from only one of them. They three disorders are:

Gay Obsession Disorder
Gender Obsession Disorder
God Obsession Disorder

Sacerdotus
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

The real “crazy” idea is thinking Homosexuality is equal to Heterosexuality. Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.

May I suggest:
http://beyondgay.com/

Ben in Oakland
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

No, the real crazy idea is thinking that heterosexual human beings are better than, superior to, and deserving of blessings that homosexual human wings, who must be denied those blessings lest the tiny heads and hearts of bigoted heterosexuals explode.

Aeval
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

“Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.”

Oh that was so pathetic… you talk about what doesn’t make sense biologically, and then you link to a religious site, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Tobias
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Now THIS is indeed crazy!

CPT_Doom
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Wow, thanks Sacerdotus! In my nearly 45 years on this earth I’d never heard that argument before – in fact I’d never heard that being gay was wrong. That message must have gotten lost in or sodomite-controlled media. But now I know and I am instantly cured. Now I want to find a great woman to marry and then promptly desert her every weekend to play golf. Heterosexuality is great!

Richard Rush
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus,

The real “crazy” idea is thinking Homosexuality is equal to Heterosexuality. Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.

7 does not equal 5, but that doesn’t mean 5 is superior to 7. They are just different.

And if two males (or two females) “just does not make sense” for you, it would probably make sense to try a three-way.

Whenever you step into a magnificent cathedral for a tour, I’m guessing that your first request is, “show me the plumbing so I can be sure it makes sense.”

Blake
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

And now the Pope… ugh.

Sean
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

And here I thought it was the aliens that had abducted me when I was a kid that made me gay. Geez, it is our own governments that are making us gay, I would have never thought that since they all have fought tooth and nail to keep us from getting any equal rights, but I guess we don’t need to have any rights to help stop the population boom that is going on. They just need us not to reproduce.

It all just makes so much sense to me know. I feel at peace because of this wise and inspirational priest.

If you believe any of that horseSh*t that they or I am spewing, then I have some land in FL for you, I have a 15 inch d*ck, and I have a ticket for you on the next space shuttle to the moon.

F*cking religious morons!

Timothy Kincaid
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Keep thinking that way Richard and you’re going to turn from an atheist to an agnostic.

;)

(just teasing ya)

Timothy Kincaid
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Two males and two females makes a four-way. While its not my cup of tea, I hear that some heterosexuals are really fond of it.

William
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus:

“Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.”

Biologically speaking, a meaningless statement.

JohnAGJ
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.

For purposes of procreation I would agree. Yet there is much in life that “does not make sense” to us, some of which we discover reasons for while a lot remains a mystery (for now at least). So what. That’s life. I fail to see why you think that presenting a religious site dedicated to self-imposed celibacy for gays makes any more sense. Has Morrison’s decision to remain celibate given any more “sense” to this? Perhaps for his own life, but not that I can see in general for everyone. Perhaps you could elaborate, or are meaningless drive-by postings your specialty?

Regan DuCasse
January 10th, 2012 | LINK

I recall some studies done of married couples who chose not to have children. The sampling was actually pretty large. Thousands reporting from all over the country. They made comparisons of such couples who were city dwellers as opposed to rural. They broke down age ranges and health status to rule out involuntary infertility or the elderly.

Then they compared parent couples to non parent couples and the findings were that in this comparison, non parent couples were MUCH happier than parent couples.
Less familial tension. More time to pursue interests or professions. More disposable income, that sort of thing.

Considering how many children end up abandoned to welfare, single parenthood and foster care: I’d say that non parent married folks study would be hard to dispute. And this was something that came out over two decades ago.
Wonder if that same result would hold steady now?

Eric in Oakland
January 11th, 2012 | LINK

“The real “crazy” idea is thinking Homosexuality is equal to Heterosexuality.”

Why is the word, crazy, in quotation marks? It is really funny how extremists love to put random words in quotes. It is also very telling that they speak about homosexuality instead of homosexuals or gays. That is an attempt to dehumanize us. They aren’t opposing equality for homosexuality, they are opposing equality for homosexual people.

“Two males and two females just does not make sense biologically speaking.”

And celibacy does? I can never understand how anyone can be so illogical as to condemn homosexual relationships for being infertile while insisting on celibacy as an alternative.

Richard Rush
January 11th, 2012 | LINK

Timothy,

Keep thinking that way Richard and you’re going to turn from an atheist to an agnostic.

;)

It’s funny you should say that. Actually I don’t feel completely comfortable with either identity, but if I’m forced to choose, I’d go with agnostic.

‘Atheist’ seems to imply a higher level of certainty than I feel comfortable with. And while I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that the Bible’s Judeo-Christian God (for example) exists, I’m comfortable with believing there are still V-A-S-T areas of unknowns in the universe, and that brings me closer to ‘agnostic.’ I’m perfectly comfortable saying, “I don’t know” about a multitude of issues.

To the credit of atheists, they are generally eager to increase their knowledge of the universe, while those with religious certainty seem content to settle for “God did it.”

Absolute religious certainty must be really boring. Maybe that’s a factor in why so many of the religiously-certain are busybodies. And apparently, maintaining certainty depends, to some extent, upon controlling the behavior and beliefs of others, and that has to be really frustrating. So there you have it: Boring. Frustrating. And you just know they are constantly walking on eggshells out of fear that their loving God may say “no soup heaven for you.” No wonder they always seem so miserable.

Timothy Kincaid
January 11th, 2012 | LINK

Richard,

I kinda almost agree with you but I draw the lines differently. I’ve experienced atheists who were full of certainty and a good many religious people who were ever seeking to challenge and expand their understanding.

But as for the “certain”, it has long been my contention that the opposite of faith isn’t doubt, but certainty. Faith believes enough to allow itself to be challenged and grow. Certainty is a frightened place that plugs its ears and says lalalalala lest it be confronted with anything that might call for change.

In my interactions with religious folk I’ve ran into both people of faith and people of certainty – sometimes who have the exact same beliefs. The difference was that one listened and looked to see how your experiences fit in their framework (and if your experiences didn’t fit well, they spent time later thinking about it). The other just dismissed anything that didn’t align with their preconceived notions.

Perhaps you are right that the very “certain” are boring and frustrated. But I think that above all the are very frightened. Not that they won’t get soup (or heaven). That’s a mistake that many assume. But what they really fear is that they might be wrong and that their whole universe is unstable. If their god/doctrine/dogma is challenged, then they have no security at all. And hence the desperate need to be absolutely right and absolutely certain.

Ben In Oakland
January 12th, 2012 | LINK

Richard–

the best way to deal with the issue of atheist v. agnostic is to become what I am– an It-Doesn’t-Matter-ist.

Jesus himself hinted at this (Matt. 10:29) when he said: “Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s permission.”

IDM’s– and most of my atheist friends are in this camp– look at it this way. Let us suppose for a moment that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent (but not the thoroughly unpleasant, bad-tempered, and amoral) being that religionists imagine him to be.

Precisely what would be different in the world? Absolutely nothing. With or without God’s permission, the sparrow still falls.

If our notion of god is not correct– he is not omni-everything and/or he is not the only one– then he is merely an immensely powerful being, not a god at all, much like Q is Star Trek, but without the sense of play and humour.

Epicurus came pretty much to the same conclusion in his discussion of god as the source of morality and/or goodness.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Sacerdotus
May 17th, 2012 | LINK

The LGBT lifestyle is a social construct. It cannot be defended logically nor biologically speaking. I invite anyone here to provide proof of its existence in genetics or the brain, if not, then save your ignorant comments.

William
May 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus, every lifestyle is a social construct. I invite you to provide proof of the existence of the heterosexual LIFESTYLE in genetics or the brain. If you can’t, then save your ignorant comments.

Richard Rush
May 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus, I looked at your blog. You will make a great priest! You’ve swallowed all the Catholic Church’s indoctrination, you’re unqualified to lecture others about sexuality, and you’re nasty. If you can just manage to keep your hands off children, you’ll do fine.

Timothy Kincaid
May 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus,

We are in agreement that “the LGBT lifestyle” is a social construct. Which is why gay people never use the term.

But I do find it amusing that individuals who actively seek the civilly mandated mistreatment of gay people (often at the bidding of your religious leader) are so constricted in language, so bound by linguistic dictates, that they are forced to say nonsensical statements like the one you arrogantly presented.

You have been instructed not to speak of gay people but to always and without exception use “lifestyle”. But the only consequence is that you use it as a replacement for when you want to say homosexuality or gay. For those who use the word “lifestyle” only when they mean lifestyle, your shackled language reveals a shackled mind.

Priya Lynn
May 17th, 2012 | LINK

Sacerdotus the morality of livining in accordance with being LGBT is easily defended. The essence of morality is “Do whatever you want, but harm no one.”. Living in accordance with being LGBT harms no one and is thus moral, your attempts to destroy those relationships harms LGBT and is by definition immoral. Whether being LGBT is rooted in genetics or the brain is irrelevant so save your ignorant comments.

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.