Sweet Jeebus, the Christianists are wierd. But give 'em credit: They know how to work from delusional assumptions to an utterly crazed conclusion. AP:
[The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr.], president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.
Well, I'm glad that matter has been given prayerful consideration, and settled.
I guess The God of Albert's Choice is telling him, and us, that "mistakes were made"?
Maybe even right in OfAlbert's womb?
And winger billionaire Tom Monaghan's Catholic shill agrees:
Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press,
Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. publisher."Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said.
Well, a Catholic priest should know.
"If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
Come on people, let's quit with the hysteria. Shouldn't we be eliminating the untermenschen as soon as we possibly can? What better way?
NOTE We note, in passing, the animal-obsessed authoritarian preoccupation with how sheep fuck. What is it with these guys? Did they all grow up on the farm? Or is the Nature Channel the only form of pr0n they permit themselves?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
it speaks of a deep self hatred, and the longing for
a magical "cure." there's a great sci-fi story about this, damn if i can remember the name, but i've long predicted that this sort of thing will be the ultimate tack the wingers take to get rid of us.
everyone should imagine a world without gays. no george bush, yes, but think of all the art and science and music we'd also lose.
this is what happens when bigots do biology
Although propagation requires an egg and a sperm and a host mother in our species, species survival emphatically requires a lot more.
For example, if emotional and physical attraction and attachment occur between both genders and among themselves it greatly increases the chance of survival of the young. Heterosexuality is no more natural a social arrangement than homosexuality, especially among a diverse and adaptable species. If all interaction was strictly one or the other it might lead to extinction of a very gregarious socially oriented animal.
Such is certainly not the case among humans. We display strong social bonds among very different individuals, which increases our survival potential on a constantly changing planet orbiting a variable star.
But look at the beasts that bring up the question in the first place. Are genetic Christianists really human?
Does anyone have a gom jabbar we can test them with?
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
At least they are admitting
At least they are admitting there is a biological aspect to homosexuality--that's quite a change for these wingnuts. They have always insisted on nurture over nature. But it is frightening nontheless. It reminds me of Dr. Menegele. Oh and Chicago Dyke, I think that movie you were talking about is "Twilight of the Golds" from 1997 (and starring Jennifer Beals.)
From IMDB:
"When Suzanne Stein has a genetic analysis done on her unborn child, she discovers that although she has a healthy baby, the child will most likely be born gay, like her brother, David. She must decide whether to keep the child, or to have an abortion. Her family enters a crisis about love and acceptance as she makes this difficult choice."
Now who is trying to play God?
The thing is, from a medical viewpoint, altering genes to reduce the likeliness of downs syndrome or something similar has a genuine medical benefit to the individual & society. Altering genes to suit a religious worldview does not objective good, only from the context of that particular worldview.
The obvious conclusion would be that depending on the fashionable worldview of the day, many factors about people could be altered.
On a base logic level, if God hates gay people, God wouldn't make gay people. If God does hate gay people, and being gay is biological and not choice based, then we have a cruel & petty God indeed.
So, is Mohlner suggesting his God is cruel & petty or that he advocates going against God's will?
=my2c
BC