« Gambian President Can Cure "HIV" | Main | Sweat or Swim? »

05 February 2007

Comments

akaison

Actually, there was a Southern Baptist who wrote in USA Today, I think, recently on the subject of nuture versus nature. He admits that the evidence is coming in favor of, at the very least, there being some kind of strong biological component to sexual orientation. He also admits that like when the Southern apologists used the Bible to justify slavery (the story of Ham (I believe that's the story)) the church will one day have to eat crow on the subject of homosexuality.

Of course, the response was to have a lot of illogical arguments put out by the Christianists who argued that gays couldn't possibly biological, and that the very idea of that being true necessarily meant this preacher was liberal.

And, of course, there always the fall back- well yes, it's biological, but you should still resisted because God gave you this "disease" to challenge your faith. A rather perverse, and hateful definition of God, but one that's being floated nevertheless. I even saw in the LA TImes one guy conceding that it's biological, adding that yes it's true that in nature there are multiple species with a variety of sexual orientations that don't conform to the Christian ethos, but nevertheless, human's aren't animals, and we should 'resist' our urges. Nevermind the fact human's are biologically animal, reading that and others like him, one can only conclude that ever proving something biological won't change the mind of the homophobe.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends


  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches

    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0


    Categories

    Media

    Netroots

    Blog powered by Typepad