I always find clashes between the law, specifically equality laws, and the Church fun. Â It really hammers home just how out of date and close minded religious leaders are. Â The latest example comes from the UK, where Church groups are running scared or new proposed equality laws that would force them to equally consider sexually active homosexuals (I shouldn’t be surprised that they are particularly concerned about “sexually active” homosexuals rather than all homosexuals given the clear hang ups religious organisations have with sex and sexuality) and transsexuals. Â Simon Sarimento asked in The Guardian:
Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?
Interesting, no? Interesting not because the British Government is looking to clarify these laws (some might say extend), but rather because the exemption for religious organisations in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations Act 2003 existed in the first place.
The best part of this debate is, by some way, the statement issued by three Bishops on the matter for the Church of England. Â The statement, entitled “Churches must not face further restrictions” could be a work of comedy genius, but instead it’s a rambling, contradictory and bigoted response to a law that should do no more than provide equal rights. Â Even the title is telling. Â The Church sees this potential change as “restrictive”, despite the fact that any normal person would be hard pressed to describe the law as anything other than removing extant restrictions imposed by the Church. Â Are they talking about the Church being restricted from imposing their own restrictions? If so, do they have any concept of just how ludicrous that sounds?
As if that wasn’t enough to make you dismiss them out of hand as a group of outdated hypocrites, they also throw in this:
At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
I think that’s pretty clear. Â On the one hand you have those fighting for “the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination” and on the other side you have the Church. Â When that’s the argument you’re trying to make, there must a point where you look in the mirror and wonder why you want to discriminate against fellow human beings for no reason other than a 2,000 year old book tells you to (or is it just because they fear change)?
I have for a long time wondered whether Atheist is the appropriate name for this blog author. His real interest appears to be an apologetic for homosexuality, for which atheism comes as a seemingly necessary corollary. This conclusion is just the first of so many muddles in this article it is hard to know where to begin.
In just the title alone (which bears only a fleeting relation to the content) everything goes belly up after the first six words. If Atheist really thinks that there are exceptions to God’s love that is his/her own private theological position (which is rather odd for an atheist to hold). Similarly the doctrine that God decided that some of his children would be gay is news to me.
The post itself is equally odd. Atheist, despite not being British, again betrays his own preoccupations by not bothering to explain the particularly “fun” clash he is ranting about.
As usual, Atheist has too many irrelevent jibes to offer that have nothing to do with the issue (which I am still not clear about – but to do with non specified new laws proposing more rights for homosexuals). Once you have cleared away personal opinion statements without any accompanying justification (tags with purely emotive taunting like “out-dated hypocrites”, “closed-minded”, “hang-ups”, “no reason other than a 2,000 year old book” and so on).
If the Atheist’s real issue is that groups are allowed to impose their own restrictions in an absolute sense, it is obviously ridiculous. Every group does so. Most employees necessarily impose restrictions (such as privacy clauses, set working hours, workplace, health and safety rules and so on). In addition, some groups rightly make ‘restrictions’ because of the nature of their group. An atheist club, for example, would not be unreasonable to insist that the members of the chairing committee were atheists…. or, a mother’s club for insisting that, well, the members be women who have children…
I suggest that this post is not informative until the Atheist outline exactly what the new law proposes and what the Anglican church is upset about and why, and only then to make conclusions as to whether or not this sounds legitimate. As it stands I do not see any problem with the final italicised quotation in the original post. Not even if the words “churches and religious organisations” were replaced with “homosexual advocacy unions” or some such thing….
Looking forward to more substance…
You’re stating that each group puts up restrictions. That is true, to their own members. What the Church does is apply their rules to everyone, including non-members, which is unethical. And what is the crisis anyway? Letting people marry? What’s the big deal and why should anyone else give a damn over something that doesn’t affect their lives at all? Are they being forced to watch them? And if you bring charity organizations into this, that appeals to giving others equal opportunity. The church is doing the opposite, attempting to take basic rights away from people they don’t like.
Jonathan, The Atheist started off by talking about the
mixing of religion and government which leads to a lot of
legitimate issues. Something I wanted to know from you is whether
you think a Christian should be a patriot?
I agree with Jonathon Baker’s post and find that the whole prospect of restrictions amongst religions, etc. is to seperate us. The morals and beliefs are seperated into different crowds of people. The beliefs between the two crowds may be different, but like our amendments it is freedom of speech. There is a difference between intentional and unneeded hate crimes and simple beliefs. For examply many people are against homosexuality and it is not allowed in their religion. These restrictions seperate us as groups of people and the beliefs, well they can be extreme, however they are merely opinions. Religion, itself, is an opinion. Many religious groups do not have evidence to support that their beliefs stand and occurred, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that there Moses did cross the Red Sea. Like religion, topics similar to homosexuality and positions on that topic are opinions that do not need a factual basis, but are what the person themselves feel comfortable with and fit in their morals.
I would love to hear other opinions.
Barbara…you are right, all religious groups do not have evidence to support their beliefs, so they tend to attack any group that challenge them, in a way to make themself relevant.
Why only religious groups? No-one has absolute proof of the truth of their worldview. All groups will claim to have ‘evidence’…even Atheists.
So you are right..we should all be respectful of the views of others because none of us ‘knows that we know’ we all choose to believe….or if you want to get technical non-believe.
We all operate from faith in our own subjective view.
Is this whole blog not attacking Christianity? So I dont think that your statement is true for only religion, but rather for everyone.
First of all the title of this article makes no sense. God does not decide which babies are gay or straight, he gives every person free will in all walks of life. so a person becoming gay is nothing more than a pure moral choice and in no way is influenced by god. If u want to say stuff make sure u got ur facts right smart guy…
WOW, you are so ignorant. Gay people do not choose to be gay. I have been gay since the day I was born. I could not change my sexuality if my life depended on it. There is no way. This is how my brain is wired. I tried, and tried, and tried for years and years and years to not be gay. I prayed and prayed and worshipped and prayed. Nothing changed. I finally decided that there is nothing wrong me, I’m totally normal, I just happend to be attracted to the same sex. I am an honest, morally sound individual who does so much for my fellow man. I am kind, compassionate and yes…gay. If your god doesn’t like it, too bad. There will never stop being gay people. There’s millions of them born every day and there’s nothing you or any fairy tale book can do to stop the way people are born. Ignorance is shameful. Good day.
Gay people are not gay by their choice (in some way).
Same sex attraction is not liked or disliked by GOD? God is beyond this.
Attraction of the same sex is just not natural. You may have tried to change things you did not succeed , i understand but are we slaves of the functioning of the brain? it’s just that you tried to solve the problem with the same level of intelligence you have “created” the problem.
This society is upside down and its by-products created by the human mind will not be all roses. One has to invest much time and energy to overcome one’s problem
Left-handedness is not natural, either. Like homosexuality, it is a free-will choice of the individual who decides to be different from the prevailing values of the group. Both are shameful states.
Don’t take any notice of the scientists who support these abominations by stating that they are determined by genetics and/or the environment in the womb prior to birth. We don’t need scientists in this world because everything we need to know is in the Bible. Scientists shouldn’t study things that might lead them astray to a different idea. We know the Bible is right because it says it is and all Christians know in their heart that it tells the truth about this. /sarcasm
I’m left-handed. Just because most of the world is right handed doesn’t make left handed people unnatural. I didn’t choose to be left-handed, it just how I got things like writing, sport, etc easier done. I didn’t choose to be different from anyone else when I started writing; I just felt it easier at the time to use my left hand. I could however, with a lot of work, start writing properly with my right hand. It’s not impossible.
Furthermore, homosexuality isn’t natural, yes. So if it isn’t natural then we can clearly see that it is NOT MEANT TO BE. Let me not say my comment from a religious point of view but rather from the worlds view – a scientific and natural view, if you like. If you look at the animals, the only way they are going to multiply is through a male and a female. They can’t be homosexual because that will lead to the destruction of their species. With plants, they can’t multiply without pollinating. No ‘female’ part of the plant is going to be able to multiply by the help of another ‘female’ part of the plant, and vice versa with the ‘male parts’. The only way any species of plant and animal is going to survive is through a male and a female. It’s the natural way. The same law applies to Humans. If homosexuality takes over then our species (if I can call it that) will be destroyed by itself.
I cannot tell you why people have homosexual feelings from the worlds view unless I use examples of scenarios – maybe the guy had no other guy friends and so he stuck to the girls and did what they did. Or maybe he has never had a father (either death, or his father was strict and didn’t set a good example) and so he stuck around him mom and sisters more. Or maybe he is just a sensitive guy and the other guys mocked him and so he never got to experience a ‘guy’s life’ but rather a ‘girls life’, and vice versa for girls. I can’t tell you the exact reasons why people are homosexual.
From a religious view it is kind of the same, except the pain, anger, lies and feelings have a source – the devil. I’m not going to get into the religious side though because I don’t want you to judge this comment by the nature it is written and so just disagree without trying to understand where I’m coming from.
@Follower of Jesus
You have been misinformed by your religious leaders who have vested interests in pretending that homosexuality is “unnaturalâ€. They choose to believe this because it gives them moral permission to blame homosexuals for their orientation and absolves their version of god from unjust discrimination.
Contrary to these preferred beliefs, there is ample scientific evidence that homosexuality is a normal sexual variation and that it confers some benefit on the reproductive and parenting abilities of heterosexuals. Modern studies provide support for the conclusions that homosexuality is innate, detectable very early in life, resistant to change and beneficial to heterosexuals and to societies which permit its expression.
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom. Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. In domesticated sheep about 10% of the males refuse to mate with female sheep but readily and exclusively mate with male sheep. Japanese scientists demonstrated the genetic basis of this behavior when they discovered how a particular gene in the fruit fly is switched on, causing a change in the sexual orientation of the fly.
Zietsch and colleagues (2008 & 2009) concluded that there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced. While the genes that cause homosexuality in humans mean that the resulting individual is less likely to reproduce, they have advantages for the heterosexuals who carry them. They found evidence that women who produce homosexual men are more fertile than usual.
According to the scientists, both left-handers and homosexuals have brains that are wired differently from birth. There is hard evidence of this. It is in dispute.
Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2010) discovered that gender identity and sexual orientation are programed into the brain structures while the developing baby is still in the womb. If the mother’s womb secretes testosterone at a critical point the developing nerve cells will orientate in the male direction; if this hormone is absent at this time, the fetal brain structures will develop in the female direction. The authors state that there is no indication that social environment after birth has any significant effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
“Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.”
Peer reviewers have noted that the conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change.
Statements such as this have been made by most of the reputable researchers in this area and by every major professional body of mental health providers.
Nevertheless, religiously motivated associations, such as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) insist on providing “therapy†that is claimed to change the orientation of homosexuals to heterosexual. They market their approach by providing anecdotal pen pictures of clients who they state have successfully changed their sexual orientation and are now leading happy and fulfilling lives. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted as valid evidence by either scientists or courts of law. You should not accept it as valid either. It is aimed to appeal to the emotions, not the intellect.
More reliable evidence supports the conclusion that sexual reorientation programs rarely work as stated and that most of its victims end up with serious mental health problems that they are forced to deny and disguise out of fear of losing their social support network. A significant number end up in doctor’s offices with serious depressive disorders or, worse, commit suicide.
No major mental health professional organization has endorsed efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.
Both the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
You are, of course, free to believe the misinformation put about by your religious group but you must now do so in the light of the knowledge that it is not supported by reputable science or by any internationally respected professional body of people working to improve the mental health and well-being of all human beings.
You should also be aware that there are many people who also identify themselves as “Followers of Jesus” who accept the scientific version of this topic: that homosexual orientation is rarely, if ever, a choice and that forcing people with this orientation to remain celibate is cruel and contrary to the social health and acceptable moral stance of the community as a whole.
If you wish to follow the highest moral path then you should consider changing your ignorance-based viewpoint to one that conforms to the evidence. If you want to be extremely moral then you could try persuading your religious friends to do the same. Good luck this that!
Typo corrections:
It is NOT in dispute that homosexuals have brains that are wired differently from birth. (BTW, they are wired differently from both the average male and the average female.)
The last line should be:
Good luck with that.
(That is, trying to persuade Christians of your particular brand to educate themselves and overcome their unfounded prejudices towards those who are sexually orientated towards their own gender. I actually doubt that you will have much luck as the real scientific facts undermine a religious point of view that believes every part of the biblical record is equally divinely inspired and equally relevant to modern society. You will have to “reinterpret” a lot of Old Testament scripture to make your god look like a good guy instead of a poorly educated homophobe.)
YOU WILL BE BURNED IN HELL BY ALLWAYS FOLLOWING YOUR LUSTS!!!!
By a sadist god who made sure that there are huge individual differences between people’s ability to refrain from experiencing “lust”. For some people it is really easy while for others it is very difficult. Some people have much more “free will” than others.
The god of your personal preference is a monster. I wonder how much of these sentiments come from your own barely controlled hatred for people who are not yourself. If there were not laws to prevent it, would you torture others you didn’t approve of for as long as you could contain them and keep them conscious? Or is this prime example of your god’s definition of “justice” something that you could not stomach emulating? If so, doesn’t this make you more moral than the monster you choose to excuse and worship?
“Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…. You hypocrite, first take the plank our of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matt 7:1-2 + 5)
Dude, please calm down and show love… How can you call yourself a Christian if you yourself dont show love?
PS. This scripture doesnt tell us we arent allowed to judge – it tells us that before we can help anyone with their sin we should first make sure that we arent struggling with sin ourselves.
@Follower of Jesus
I don’t suppose it has occurred to you that you are judging homosexuals, and judging them negatively, whenever you insist that they have a choice about how they react sexually to others.
When you do this you are not expressing “loving” behavior towards them at all. What you express is prejudice, condescension and social cruelty born of ignorance. If you want to express true love, then educate yourself about the real facts rather than blindly and uncritically accept whatever your equally misinformed religious “experts” tell you to believe.
I’m sorry, but people aren’t born gay. It’s something that happened when you were a kid (experiences) that made you change.
It’s funny how people fuss over how horrible homosexuality is that we forget that God said that NO SIN IS GREATER THAN THE OTHER. This means that every sin, whether it is lying, stealing, homosexuality, etc, is the same under heaven. This doesn’t mean, however, that all sin is equally easy to get out of. Lying, for example, can be quite easy to get out of and stop completely, whereas homosexuality will take a longer time to get out of. Sin isn’t natural – It is human nature (2 different things). The mistake many atheist and theists make, is condemning homosexuals and excluding them from everything when they should actually be showing love to their neighbours, and their enemies alike.
There are 4 homosexuals in my youth group. They know that it is a sin just like any other sin. They know that it is difficult to get out of homosexuality, but at least they are trying. I can tell you that I would trust my life with those 4. Their faith in God is amazing and you can see how they want to get out of it. It has brought them nothing but pain and rejection from people… Then they found God and God-fearing people, and now their faces are lit up and they are happier than ever because they have experienced love like never before.
You can tell me that God doesn’t exist and I can tell you that it is your opinion. The arguments between theists and atheists will continue forever. But if you see how God-fearing people love those society would outcast, you would be amazed. Jesus himself was a friend to the scum of society. He showed love to the swindlers, homosexuals, prostitutes, blind, lame, deaf and dumb. He taught that we should love our enemies and we should love our neighbours. Love fulfils the law, doesn’t it? If we have love we wouldn’t think of opposing the law.
Anyways, the point I’m trying to make is that if you are homosexual then I am ok with that. But then go speak to someone about it. You can’t do things on your own. Let someone help you if you are willing to be helped.
God Bless
Again, I find myself disagreeing with you.
When I read the bible, I looked beyond the text, and took it as a piece of work from a particular context.
Now, from a Christian perspective, one would say that homosexuality is a sin. However, this is under the belief that you concider the text was written for all contexts, not just the one it was written for.
Now that leads to two main arguments.
The first, is that the context has changed. For example, we no longer observe the sabath and keep it holy, and it is no longer a sin for women to wear particular types of clothes (genisis 22-ish), ect We have come to understand that things that were issues then don’t necessaryly translate over.
The second argument is that homosexuality was a contemporary issue then, but only because it hindered the greeks from hearing the world of God. Therefore, so that they would listen, the curch made it a sin. Jesus hung out with the scum of society (or so someone said before), the whores, the homeless, and the homosexuals. He accepted everyone as they were, and through his acceptance, transformed them.
So, if in a current context, homosexuality doesn’t hinder ones ability to hear or accept the word of god, is it an issue?
I think not.
Care to make a counterpoint? I’m very interested on this point being challenged, because it makes up part of the fundemental interpretation I have of the Bible.
“Jesus hung out with the scum of society (or so someone said before), the whores, the homeless, and the homosexuals. He accepted everyone as they were, and through his acceptance, transformed them.
So, if in a current context, homosexuality doesn’t hinder ones ability to hear or accept the word of god, is it an issue? I think not” – I said it. Lol. I dont think homosexuality is an issue. I also said, that I would treat homosexuality the same as I (and society) would treat lying, stealing, rape, etc. And I agree with you completely on the point that I quoated.
I believe in love. And I believe that ultimately, God is love. And I am sure you can agree that every atheist and theist should show love, even to the scum of society, just like Jesus did. If you don’t want to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He came to save the world then that is your choice, but you would be a fool not to think that the example he lead as a person of love for his enemies and his friends (all people around him)was amazing and is something we all should be.
You have been misinformed. Science does not support your claims. See my other comment.
Keep in mind that not all science supports science- thats why it changes sometime. Just because something is unsupported at the moment doesn’t make it invalid 🙂
I know its a little hard to keep an open mind when talking to them, but be patient and they’ll see the logic
@Follower of Jesus
You are equating homosexuals with “the scum of the earth”. And you think that labelling them like this makes you “loving” provided that you are prepared to “hang out” with them.
Jesus of Nazareth was an illiterate carpenter who hung out with illiterate fisherman whom he had persuaded to abandon their families and their responsibilities to them. He had only brief contact with people who you consider to be “scum”. OTOH, the people whom he considered to be scum were the religious leaders of his day and the rich people. I suspect that you would disagree with that assessment when it is related to your own community.
I said ‘scum of the earth’ because in the times of Jesus, people like that were known as the scum of the earth and Jesus was known as the friend to the scum of the earth.
I am tired of the constant debate between us. We are both strong in what we believe (whether it is theism or atheism) and the debate can go on forever. Each one of us is too hard headed to understand the others point and so we are sooner or later going to start attacking each other. I have said what I’ve wanted to say and I am going to leave it exactly at that.
If you have points against me then go and read my other comments on this blog, but dont expect a reply..
Goodbye! 🙂 Hope you have a good life.
PS. It seems we spend to much time in front of our computers. Lets go outside, breath in the fresh air and live life with or without God (your choice).
God Bless 🙂
@Follower of Jesus
Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. It is you who believe it to be sinful; it was not something that he thought worth mentioning.
As I showed you, your beliefs are contrary to the actual facts backed up by valid evidence.
Now that you know the real truth, you cannot honestly continue to socially torture homosexuals by pretending that they have deliberately chosen a sinful lifestyle. That would you deliberately immoral.
You can no longer claim to be ignorant; you can only choose to ignore the truth because it does not suit your indoctrinated religious beliefs or the beliefs that make you feel comfortable in your chosen social group. That is intellectual dishonesty.
Does that give anyone here a reason to respect your opinions or the religious beliefs that inform them? I think not. You have shown that people who hold such beliefs are bigots who will reject any facts that take away their ability to blame, belittle, condescend to and socially and mentally harm those that nature has modified away from the average.
Remember that several centuries ago Christians would have treated you in the same manner for being left-handed. Back then it was considered to be a sign that someone was possessed by the devil. You would have been punished out of “loving kindness” for your wickedness in maintaining this evil habit. The reasoning of Christians of that era is really no different, and no less disgraceful, than the reasoning you are using to justify treating those who have been born with same gender sexual orientations like the scum of the earth.
In another few centuries people like you will be condemned for their vicious immorality, just like those who punished left-handers out of “christian love” several centuries ago, and like the Christians who supported slavery in the not so distant past.
It didn’t take this person long to get “tired” of the “constant debate” once the evidence-based facts were set out.
Their quick retreat seems like the usual dishonest face save tactic from those who can do no more than argue by unproven assertion from a basis of factual ignorance.
Let us continue to allow our moral beliefs and behavior to be guided by what is currently scientifically supported, and not by the self-elevating proclamations of those who refuse to allow facts to interfere with the selfish demonstration of their ability to wield immense social power over others.
Wow, mate, you just got smacked down by the hand of god xD
Seriously though, Gay people do not choose to be gay. Tickle Me is right, and kudos TM for that epic post.
It’s funny how God chooses and changes what his believers want him to… just an observation.
The bible says God made man, and that God gave us free will. I must have missed the part where it says ‘It isn’t Gods fault for making people gay’.
Besides, apparently we are all children of God. Treat others as you treat them, and you’ll be a better person for it.
BRAVO..clap clap clap BRAVO!!!
I’m not going to tell someone who they are or are not,
however I have concluded in my life that sexuality is a willful
conviction and not a genetic order. This is my opinion based on
evidence in my own life. I choose to express my sexual desire with
a woman, but I control this desire as I do all other desires. So in
my view this is a choice and so I apply the same philosophy to this
choice as I do all other choices. Examine your heart/ logic and
then live your own life according to the conclusion you draw.
However, do not persecute others for choosing differently. We can
not demand free will for ourselves while trying to take it away
from someone else. Also, if our beliefs are so great then we will
lead people to them by simply being a light on the hill. I’m sorry
to all those who have been persecuted in Gods name.
Wow! You know more than the scientists who have studied this condition under carefully controlled circumstances! In their uneducated ignorance they have concluded that sexual preference is only a “choice” if you happen to be wired up as a bi-sexual – provided, of course, that you are able to suppress the automatic arousal elicted by someone of the same gender as you.
Clearly they lack the “personal experience” and emotional drive that you are lucky enough to have in such copious amounts. They also lack your keen ability to sense that everyone reacts in exactly the same way that you do. Why should anyone be wired differently from you?