So What if it’s Just Religious?

On Lothar’s blog, he quotes an article where a Priest says this:

All the time I hear fundamentalists telling me that some people might have a pedophilic nature but this gives them no excuse for acting according to it.

This is obviously true, but they forget the main difference: it has never been proven that committed lifelong homosexual relationships are harmful in any way.

Okay, let’s pretend that homosexual marriage really won’t have any negative repercussions for society, but evangelicals still believe that romantic homosexual relationships are sinful. There is nothing bigoted about that.

It’s merely a prohibition against certain sex acts and a specific type of marriage. Religions have those types of prohibitions all the time. Having them apply to gay people doesn’t actually change that.

Not going to Church on Sundays isn’t hurting anybody, but it is required by their religion. Even if a prohibition against homosexual marriage/sex is only a religious requirement, deciding that it shouldn’t be because homosexual romantic relationships don’t harm anybody simply doesn’t follow.

Let’s even apply it to sex. Sex before marriage, when used with protection, hurts nobody. But nobody I know thinks having a religious prohibition against it is necessarily crazy. And with Catholics, it is Church teaching that if certain things aren’t understood before a marriage takes place – for example, being open to having children – then the marriage is not really valid. But nobody thinks that this is unfair discrimination towards people who don’t want children.

The logic of “it doesn’t harm anybody so religions shouldn’t oppose it” simply does not work.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to So What if it’s Just Religious?

  1. Crude says:

    Let’s even apply it to sex. Sex before marriage, when used with protection, hurts nobody.

    This one I actually take issue with. I think this only works when we use a sense of ‘harm’ that’s unreflective. On the Aristotilean perspective, I think desire for certain sexual acts, etc, IS harm. It is a kind of damage we have, a disorder. And I say ‘we’ because this applies beyond bounds of orientation. Desire adultery? Congratulations – you’re dealing with harm.

  2. Res says:

    Religion = hedonism. It’s already bad enough to judge people for their acts, now you want to judge them for their ends? Etc. Really, though, it’s a convenient way of looking at things, because so far as they’re concerned it’s only reasonable to oppose things because they stand against pleasure, ‘harm people,’ etc., – and everybody shares this basic moral belief – and so anything which is actually religious, or above natural human ends generally speaking, therefore appears arbitrary and hence bigoted. Likewise, one could hypothetically define the two forces of life as fishing and death, and then anything which attempts to go beyond this is against life and therefore a manifestation of a desire for death. You wonder if modern pharisaism isn’t people going, ‘I’m sinful, and everybody is like me!’ and then killing Jesus for disturbing this ego-trip.

  3. The Deuce says:

    This is obviously true, but they forget the main difference: it has never been proven that committed lifelong homosexual relationships are harmful in any way.

    I realize this isn’t the topic you were addressing, but that’s simply not the case. Or rather, it’s no more the case than it is with pedophilia.

    It’s pretty well-known that the gay lifestyle is strongly associated with all sorts of unpleasantry, from drug abuse to depression to various other psychological dysfunction to domestic violence to suicide. Gays have low lifespans and very high incidence of disease, and their relationships are notoriously unstable, and in the case of males especially likely to involve 3rd parties on the action even where married.

    Ah, but the priest specified “committed lifelong” relationships. So, if we only count those relationships that aren’t provably harmful, it turns out that homosexual relationships aren’t provably harmful! And, of course, all the problems with the harmful relationships are explained away as society’s fault for its “lack of acceptance.”

    But two can (and do) play at that game. NAMBLA, for example, likes to trot out examples of men who say they had a “committed” and “consentual” and “mutually loving” sexual relationship with their fathers or other grown figure as children, that it was a great experience that made them better people, that the only thing making their relationships unpleasant is society forcing men who love children and the children who love them into the shadows, making them desperate and causing their romances to become ugly and psychologically scarring because of society’s lack of acceptance for their forbidden luuuuuurve. etc.

    The only thing making one supposedly “proven” and the other “not proven” is that the commissars of the Left (with the American Psychological Association always in tow) have not yet decided to amend the latest collective left-wing narrative to state that “committed lifelong pedophile relationships” are “not proven to be harmful in any way,” and to shift blame for all the obvious harm out there to the “bigots.”

  4. Ilíon says:

    … committed lifelong homosexual relationships …

    There is no such thing as a “committed homosexual relationship”, much less a “committed lifelong homosexual relationship”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s