Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 10

Finally, at long long last we can finish this accursed book of bigotry! Today's post will be the completion of my longest series to-date (and for awhile. I'll be looking at short stuff next, I promise.)

Susan Brinkmann told us at the outset that open homosexuality was threatening the Christian (Catholic) way of life. She intimated there was a conspiracy amongst doctors, therapists, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and shadowy, nefarious "gay activists" to hide the TRUTH about homosexuality - that it is a deviant lifestyle of anal sex with strangers and AIDS and butt cancer. And wanting to adopt children because you're unfit and selfish and only care about yourself, unlike all those straight couples who spend thousands of dollars on in vitro fertilization because they absolutely have to have a kid with their own DNA and couldn't possibly use that money to support children who already are alive and starving to death in dusty countries. See, they can't be selfish because they're not gay. It's obvious!

We learned that the government is secretly pushing through two radically new kinds of families, which will of course bring about the destruction of American life and three separate "classes" of children. And they're doing it even though they know it will do these things (we aren't given their reasons, of course. That's top secret.)

Susan let us know that since two doctors said some things she and NARTH can quote mine, that proves definitively that there is absolutely no genetic cause to homosexuality. Actually, since this one guy Fitzgibbons told her so, she knows that the real reason people act gay is because they aren't following their god-given patriarchal penis-and-vagina roles. Oh, and of course they're all hurt and angry and their parents did a terrible job of raising them. Not as bad as she seems to think gay people would do though. I mean, after all, she found a priest who is neither a husband nor a father to explain why gay people should not get married or have children, because, after all, they are completely selfish people. I mean obviously, that's why they like someone with the same gonads!

Did I miss anything? Oh yes. Being gay will kill you and lesbians don't really exist. Gay people only want one-night stands and you really should just trust her on this and ignore all the gay couples fighting for their right to get married. Finally, Susan had to fill us in on the big "untold secret" about homosexuality - Church teachings. I mean, after all, they got their own section so obviously, Susan thinks these are secret and that we haven't all heard every hateful and bigoted thing ever preached from St. Peter's Square. Yesterday we looked at God's requirement for love - that it be "free, total, faithful, and fruitful."

Okay, time for the hate.

Union with God
But the meaning behind Church teaching on human sexuality goes deeper still.

"Experience attests that even in the most wonderful human relationship, that 'ache' of solitude isn't entirely satisfied," West writes. "We still yearn for 'something more.' If sex really was our ultimate fulfillment, then marriage would be nirvana.' . . . The marital embrace, as beautiful as it is, is only a foreshadowing of what's to come — only a 'sacrament' (sign) of something far greater . . ."

Union with God.

Look, the fact that some of us moan or bellow "oh god" mid-coitous doesn't mean sex is in some way "holy." Oh and as far as marriage being "nirvana" (interestingly Buddhist choice of words) married sex is comically and notoriously not as wild and passionate as single sex, overall.

Who ever said that sex "really was our ultimate fulfillment" and what does this have to do with your vain and desperate attempts to force homosexual people into heterosexual boxes? People aren't gay because they're sex addicts. They aren't gay because they don't know anything about love or fulfillment or connection with another person. Hell, plenty of gay people believe in gods, so it isn't even that they're "worldly." They're just gay. Despite Susan's best efforts to lie and distort the facts, I still don't believe homosexuality is a social ill or any of my fucking business. And when I say it's not my business, I don't mean "so keep it in a closet of shame." I mean, be free to be who you are as long as who you are hurts no one (which is why I encourage open homosexuality instead of open bigotry.)

This is what G. K. Chesterton meant when he wrote, "Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God." Our desire for union with an "other" will never be ultimately satisfied until we are united with our Creator. "God created sexual desires as the power to love as He loves," West writes. "And this is how the first couple experienced it."

That may have been what Chesterton meant, but I'm pretty sure at least some men knocking on the doors of brothels are looking for a quick lay with a piece of strange.

Does the first couple mean Adam and Eve? Because, again Catholics, I thought you accepted evolution. How on earth can you say they are a myth and still expect me to treat them like historical figures simultaneously? At least creationists are consistent.

But remember, original sin robbed us of this ability to love as God loves. This is why we need a Redeemer. Jesus didn't die and rise again just to give us a kind of coping mechanism for sin. As the catechism states, "Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins." (CCC2336) He came to give us what we lost. That's why the Church claims that our longing for union can only be satisfied in Christ.

Okay, so God made us with this desperate need for love, but he also made us with original sin, so we're incapable of giving each other the kind of love we supposedly need. And you want to give Jesus credit for "giving us what we lost" when his Daddy was the one who rigged the game to begin with? Gee, that's swell. But none of this has anything to do with the lives of gay men and lesbians. Not even a little bit. It's just what you guys have decided god says, without, you know, actually proving he's real or anything. Kind of silly, really.

The good news is that through genuine conversion of heart to the message of life found in Jesus Christ, we can all be liberated from what John Paul II calls the "domination of lust." His grace can accomplish all that we cannot.

Gee, through the power of Jesus I can pretend I'll wait till I get married, and instead just wait an extra 18 months and then not use a condom? I mean, that's what happens to teenagers who take purity pledges at least. Jesus doesn't really seem to help them with their "domination of lust" and he certainly doesn't help pedophiles in the Catholic clergy. So why demand of gay men and women what you would never demand of heterosexuals - abstinence for life, with no calling, and no permission even if they do feel called to serve in the church? Because you are bigoted. Yes, Susan, it really is that simple. There is no vast secretive gay conspiracy and the gay agenda is just to be treated as well as straight people. Your hatred holds no place in that agenda. Your hatred is archaic and unwelcome and it is losing traction.

John Paul II said, "If we live according to the truth of our sexuality we fulfill the very meaning of life." God's plan for human sexuality is the answer. With it we can destroy the culture of death and bring a glorious new springtime to the face of the earth.

The truth of sexuality for homosexuals is that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex (you know, they're gay.) So, if they live according to that truth, maybe they will fulfill their own lives, and damn your meanings all to that hell your so fond of telling me I'm headed to.

Never trust the Vatican on a culture of death when they're the ones keeping AIDS strong in sub-Saharan Africa. When they say they want a culture of life, they want a culture of no prophylactics, no birth control, and no abortion. No thank you!

We will have a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell signed into law (if not yet enacted) this year. We will continue to see more straight Americans stand up for the rights of their queer neighbors. We will grow as a society and accept these civil rights and we will be better for out. Our children and grandchildren will be astonished at the hatred we see today, like we are astonished at the treatment of African-Americans prior to and during the fight for their civil rights.

The best I can say is that Susan and her ilk are among the dinosaurs of thought, and their breed will grow endangered and hopefully one day extinct. Open racism like that displayed by members of the KKK is no longer socially acceptable, and I hope that one day very very soon open homophobia like the Catholic Church's is treated with just as much horror and disgust.

And, as I'd surely be remiss if I didn't include this

Contact Susan Brinkmann at fiat723@aol.com or (215) 965-4615

Peace to all and to all gay rights!

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 7

You're jumping in late, if you're just starting now. So, I'll summarize for ya! We're taking a thorough look at Susan Brinkmann's ebook for CatholicEducation.org "Homosexuality: The Untold Story." First, Susan taught us how acceptance of homosexuality hurts the freedoms of Christians who want to discriminate against gay people, and that homosexuality is a choice. Then, we found out that men are gay because they suck at sports and we ignored lesbians. Susan and her favorite quack Dr. Fitzgibbons also said profound selfishness is the cause of homosexuality, and that being gay will kill you. Oh, and they also let us know that if those queers would just let go of their anger, why then they'd be straight! Obviously, statements like these require mocking (and factual debunking), and I am only too glad to do my part. Let's pick up where we left off yesterday.

Prevention of same-sex attraction disorder remains largely with parents because the roots of this condition are laid early in life. Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage, a support group for people with same-sex attraction who are striving to live chaste lives, published a new book especially for parents entitled, Same-Sex Attraction: A Parents Guide.

So a priest runs a group for guilt-ridden Catholic homosexuals, and wrote a book on how to blame parents for making you gay. Excellent. And what exactly is Harvey's expertise in this matter? He's not a psychiatrist. He's not an out homosexual, as far as I can tell from my research. He's just a man without a sex life (presumably.)

First, he explains what Church teaching is — and what it isn't. "One must carefully distinguish between the condition of homosexuality and homosexual acts. The condition of same-sex attraction is not a sin, but it is an objective disorder in the adolescent or adult person. If one gives into the desire for same-sex acts, one always sins."

This careful distinguishing between being gay and anal sex certainly has been lacking throughout Susan's writings. Indeed, you might think lesbians didn't exist at all, from the way she presents her "evidence." Now I must state clearly here: Homosexuality is not a "disorder." It may be less common. It may not result in children (as some heterosexual couplings will not result in children.) It may not be your personal orientation, but none of those make homosexuality WRONG. And you can guess what I think of the Catholic Church's opinions on sin.

The Church takes no position on whether or not a person with same-sex attraction should attempt to change their sexual orientation. Her concern is chiefly with the soul of the individual, which is why She insists that unmarried persons, whether they have same-sex or opposite sex attraction, live chastely.

I always forget the church is a She to Catholics, but it should be obvious, what with all the men wearing dresses. Tell me, how can you be chiefly concerned with the part of a person which has never been shown to exist? What a waste - to devalue every other (real) part of a person and focus all your energy on their mythological soul.

In the Catechism, the Church expresses the belief that people with same-sex attraction do not choose that condition. " . . . For most of them, it is a trial." (CCC2358) For this reason, she insists that they be treated with respect, compassion and especially sensitivity. "Every sign of unjust discrimination . . . should be avoided. These persons are called to . . . unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (CCC2358) The struggle to live chastely is one in which all unmarried Christians share, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

Even if it is a struggle they all share, only the homosexual persons are given no reprieve in Catholic doctrine. And all this martyrdom of uniting with "the sacrifice of the Lord's cross" is a great way to make oneself miserable. It's not a great way to live a rich and fulfilling life, though. I'm glad discrimination is called out, but of course, everything the Catholic Church does regarding gay people IS discrimination - from saying gay men can't serve as clergy (of course women NEVER can,) to opposing same-sex marriage. Whether or not you treat a person "compassionately" while discriminating against them does not change the fact that what you do is wrong.

Parents should make themselves fully aware of Church teaching in order to properly guide their children. Father Harvey also suggests that "Parents need to talk to their children, give their child thorough instruction on the purpose and meaning of human sexuality, and the beauty of marriage as a union of a man and woman. . . . You can't talk to your kids about homosexuality alone — it needs a background. First you have to talk to them about theology and God's plan for the human person, then heterosexuality, then homosexuality."

Of course you can talk about homosexuality without talking about theology or God. It's what secular people (both believers and non) do every day. We deal with the world at hand, and not the scribblings of goat herders millenia ago. If my son is gay, I want him to have every right and opportunity he will have if he is straight. I want him to be able to find love, marriage, family, community, and hope. And I do not want the Catholic church or any other church getting in the way of that future happiness.

He highly recommends the writings of Christopher West on Pope John Paul II's "theology of the body" for this purpose.

Remember kiddies, you can't stick it in your bum OR use a condom OR any birth control. It's better to get an STI which will punish you for not being a virgin, or have lots of children you can't provide for - no matter what the physical risks to you - as punishment for being a slut. (This is never a problem for priests because they are "celibate" or else having sex with virgins. And even if they do get pregnant, in these cases abortion is apparently okay.)

Children should learn how to relate well to both parents and should see them expressing affection for one another. "Youngsters need to see their father and mother embrace regularly. Often, children with same-sex attractions come from a home where they don't see their parents embrace. If a child comes from a home with no sign of affection between parents or siblings, it's difficult for a child with same-sex attractions to rightly order his affection and attractions.

This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Where is the evidence that children raised by gay parents don't see affection in the home? They don't see heterosexual affection, but they may still see affection. Now let's look at the underlying assumption here: that kids raised by straight parents are automatically raised in happy, loving environments. Obviously, there is no such thing as spousal abuse, sexless marriage, or incest in heterosexual families. After all - they aren't "objectively disordered."

Because a major cause of same-sex attraction can be an absent or distant father relationship, Father Harvey strongly recommends that single parents find a relative who can serve as a good same-sex role model for a child. "A single mother needs to find an uncle or someone in the family to relate to her son, and vice versa with a single father and his daughter."

Now remember - there's no evidence that growing up in a single-parent home makes you gay. Susan hasn't even tried to present any; she's just had Fitzgibbon's make the claim, and now Harvey. Even if homosexuality was caused by life events and environment, rather than genetics and prenatal hormone exposure, "because church doctrine says it's bad" does not actually constitute a good enough reason to condemn someone to a life of involuntary celibacy. If your child is gay, so be it.

Part five of the series will address the complex issue of homosexual marriage from both a sociological and theological point of view.

To read more about the information contained in this article, visit the Courage Web site at http://couragerc.net or the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality http://www.narth.com

I'm gonna leave this links to you, Anteaters, or for another time. Tomorrow we'll talk about gay marriage. Bring your bouquets and cummerbunds!

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 5

Oh homophobia, you are so deeply seated it will take me even more posts to address you properly. So far, we 'velearned how Christians are being persecuted by not being allowed to marginalize fellow employees who are gay, that there is no gay gene and it's all a conspiracy anyway, and that you're gay because you don't conform to gender roles, or it's just because you're a narcissist. Yeah, so let's see what CatholicEducation.org and Susan have for us today.

Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle part 3 of 6

"As a nurse, I watched 100 of my friends and acquaintances die of AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. After that, I stopped counting."

This statement was made by Greg Quinlan, a former member of the homosexual community, who testified before the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act in November, 2003. Quinlan claimed that the physical and mental devastation caused by homosexual behavior, and the cumulative effect of that behavior "is incalculable."

Not to downplay the serious health condition AIDS is, but I have to wonder if he also stopped counting the number of patients who died of car accidents and related injuries, or else cancer and related treatments. Since Quinlan is being sourced, let's go look him up, shall we?

According to Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan was an ex-gay activist, and spent a lot of time trying to stop hate crimes laws, anti-bullying laws, and of course, marriage equality. Here's a post about him quote-mining Francis Collins. He hasn't been on the scene much since his "ex-lesbian" wife left him in 2008.

The American public has been left largely in the dark about the extent of the medical problems associated with homosexual activity because of the influence of pro-homosexual political agendas. Some even believe they are being "compassionate" by not disclosing vital health information for fear of offending homosexuals.

Boy that's some loaded snarky language. (I would know.) Susan's claiming a conspiracy theory. Oh goody!

For those health professionals like Greg Quinlan who minister to the dying, compassion is the last word they would use to describe the deliberate withholding of potentially life-saving information from active homosexuals.

Who exactly is proposing withholding life-saving information? It's not Equality Now or the Human Rights Campaign. Oh yeah, it's Oklahoma (where now a doctor can't be sued from withholding important information from a woman about her pregnancy or the viability of her fetus!) Oh, and Quinlan quit his volunteer nursing as part of his attempt to turn straight. Yeah, so he stopped ministering the dying and started campaigning against gay rights.

The following is a brief review of what is currently known to medical science about the health risks associated with homosexual activity.

Bring. It. On.

HIV/AIDS
Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus.

A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50 percent chance of getting HIV by middle age. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (Late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, p.1)

Okay, so here's the article in question. It's about a fringe group called Sex Panic! that wants to promote sexual liberation and promiscuity, and how that group was received by other gay-rights activists concerned about the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are most at risk of spreading and contracting HIV. Condom usage is tantamount to preventing this, particularly for men who have anal sex (with other men or with women), as anal intercourse is the most reliable method of transmission for the virus. The article focuses on the problem of "bareback" (condom-free) sex within the gay community, and with the exception of SexPanic, that's what all the gay-rights activists promote. So, this is a question of safe sex, more than it is a question of sexual orientation. If a men is homosexual but has very few partners in his life and always uses protection, he has less risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual woman who practices unsafe sex.

While anal intercourse may be the highest risk form of sex in terms of HIV transmission, it's not like never taking it up the bum guarantees a person won't contract the disease. Not only are MSM more likely to contract HIV than men who sleep with women, African-American women are more likely to contract HIV than white women. Should we start "converting" all the black women now, because they're at greater risk for HIV? (No.) In both cases, consistent condom usage, abstinence, and faithfulness greatly reduce the risks, as those things do for all of us.

As of 1998, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) nearly 90 percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, June, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10 (1)).

Again, what does this have to do with turning gay people straight?

Even more alarming, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported in 1998 that an estimated half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under 25. Among 13-to 24-year-olds, 52 percent of all AIDS cases reported among males in 1997 were among young men who have sex with men. (CDC Fact Sheet: "Young People at Risk," Center for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, July 24, 1998.)

According to the CDC's website, that first statistic isn't exactly reliable. See, in 2007 for example, the three populations with the highest numbers of new AIDS cases ages 35-39, 40-44, and 45-49. Huh, that's not exactly allowing for more than half of cases to be among people under 25 now does it? As for 52 percent of the AIDS cases being among men who have sex with men, that means 48% of the cases were among men who do NOT have sex with men. Yet I don't see huge warnings about the dangers of the heterosexual lifestyle all over conservative hate groups websites.

Researchers at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men. Lead by R.S. Hogg, et al and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (vol. 27, no. 3, 1997, pp 657-661) they reached an alarming conclusion.

"In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

It definitely sounds like something needs to be done to improve quality of life and longevity for gay men, assuming those findings are valid. People with Cystic Fibrosis don't have a great life expectancy either; in 2008 the median survival rate went up to 37.4 years. While it is impossible to cure someone of CF (it's genetic) newer treatments for health complications can improve quality of life and delay onset of death. Woo-hoo! (Since finding out I'm a carrier for CF, I've followed the treatments and research on the condition.)

Also - you notice how they say homosexuality is dangerous, when in reality it's anal intercourse that's risky? Yeah, because lesbians who do not have sex with men are just not that likely to contract HIV. But Susan wouldn't want to mention that, as it doesn't fit with her agenda.

Physical Health Risks
In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Again, anal intercourse is the high risk factor, not sexual orientation. And you know, 4000 percent is an awfully huge number. That would mean people engaging in (presumably receptive) anal sex, male or female, are 40 times as likely to develop anal cancer as us "Exit Only" types. According to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, it's not so much 40 times as it is 7. And this isn't so much because doing it up the butt automatically gives you cancer; it's because anal intercourse facilitates the transmission of HPV (which also causes ovarian cancer among women.) It's a cancer-causing sexually transmitted disease and that's pretty damn scary, so go on and get your vaccines please. Homosexuality - sexual orientation towards members of the same sex - does not give you cancer. HPV does.

Other maladies include chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.

Those are risks of sex. They are all available to all of us. Safe sex is important, so please remember your condoms, kiddies.

Emotional/Mental Health Risks
Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.

Because calling someone "fag" can make their life fucking miserable.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

Citations? References? Sources? Also, correlation is NOT causation. Even if these statistics are 100% true and not exaggerated or misused as so many of Susan's other "factoids", she has done nothing to show that homosexuality is the cause of any of these concerns.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.

Which of these studies are most extensive? What studies? Do I know that homosexuality is widely accepted in New Zealand, or I'm just taking your questionable word, Susan?

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."

I think I've done a pretty thorough job of casting doubts on Fitzgibbon's professional credibility, so I'll just ask, What the hell does "homosexual contact" mean? Oh yeah, and I'll be asking for sources, too.

He concluded by saying, "Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

It's funny how these gay people, with their profound mistrust and their inability to make commitments keep wanting to get married. Those kooky queers - don't they know they're promiscuous?

Physical Abuse
A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39 percent of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other homosexual men.A study by Susan Turrell entitled "A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.

Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.

Okay, let's compare statistics, shall we? According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 34 percent of survey respondents had witnessed a man beating his wife or girlfriend. Up to 33% of women and 22% of men showing up at the ER are there because of domestic violence. In all, women (including gay women) are victims of intimate partner violence at a rate five times higher than men (including gay men.) Obviously, domestic violence is a serious problem in America. But heterosexuality is by no means a guarantee of safety from violence, especially for women.

As outrageous as it might sound, "Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks," said Joseph Nicolosi, President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. "Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science."

Because NARTH is such a bastion of science, right? I'd like to point out here that no one is promoting a "homosexual lifestyle." What medical groups have realized is that attempts to change someone's orientation are fruitless, and detrimental to mental health (which you were all concerned about a minute ago.)

Church Teaching
The same forces are also attempting to stifle authentic Church teaching on this subject by labeling it as "homophobic" and "hate speech." However, once one is made fully aware of the medical facts, it's much easier to understand why the Church teaches that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law." (CCC2357)

Um, isn't this chapter supposed to be on Health Risks of homosexual lifestyle? So how come church teaching is in here? I don't get how you can possibly claim this is a risk to the individual. Oh wait, this isn't about gay people - it's about Catholic doctrine. Now I get it! Well, let us absolutely take our moral example from the legion of pedophiles. No, wait - that sounds like a terrible idea.

Oh yeah, and authentic church teaching is homophobic. Calling someone an abomination or disordered simply because they don't share your sexual orientation is quite hateful. And hang on! For a minute I forgot this was Catholocism we were dealing with. You remember up above, all that concern about the gay lifestyle giving people STIs? Well, as I mentioned, the ABCs are what works best at preventing those: A-Abstience, B-Be Faithful, and C-Consistent Condom Usage. So if the Catholic Church is so concerned about the physical health of people, why do they actively discourage condom usage, and lie about how HIV/AIDS is spread? Surely that is 1,000 times more evil than loving your fellow man could ever be (and how on earth can love be evil?)

Unfortunately, the word 'disordered' steals all the attention and leaves much of Church teaching drowned out by angry invectives. Father John Harvey, founder of Courage, a support group for people with same sex attraction who are seeking to live a chaste life, laments the fact that far too many people, including Catholics themselves, are left with the impression of ". . .an authoritarian Church that makes decisions arbitrarily, without considering the nature of things. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Um, that actually does sound a lot like the Vatican. And yeah, "disordered" is offensive. You don't get to call people names, and then cry "Persecution!" when they stand up for themselves, and call you the hateful liars that you are.

Even from an immunological point of view, the body itself considers homosexual acts to be disordered. For instance, there are substances in seminal fluid called "immuno-regulatory macromolecules" that send out "signals" that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the "two in one flesh" intimacy required for human reproduction. When deposited elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. ("Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer", Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183))

The "purpose" of our species may very well be simple propogation, but that is not the entirety of who or what people are. Despite the Catholic Church's obsession with large families, regions with higher societal health also have smaller family sizes (and better access to contraception.)

Clearly, Church teaching on human sexuality is not founded upon pious patriarchal prudery, but is soundly based in science, biology and anthropology — all of which is illumined by the added gift of faith.

*Retch* It is ridiculous to claim the Church's long-standing Biblically-justified hatred of homosexuals is founded in biology. And it's a LIE.

More soon!

Read more!

Why is there Evil? pt. 2

Once again, my heathen horde, we're tackling the Problem of Evil as excused by EveryStudent.com. (You can read Part 1 here.)

We've all tried to make life work without God. Why do we do that? Probably because we've all bought the notion that there's something more valuable, more important, than God. For different people it's different things, but the mindset is the same: God isn't what's most important in life. In fact, I'd just as soon do it without him altogether.

Once again, the author is trying to make independence into a value judgment - that something is more important than God. (And since the God of the Bible is a jerk, even if such a being did exist, I'd tend to agree.) But when I was a Christian and perhaps, oh I don't know, studied for a test, rather than relying on prayer to get me an A in class, that wasn't because I'd analyzed the situation and decided that studying was more important than God - it was more that prayer didn't tend to yield the same grades as studying. Perhaps the real reason so many believers don't "cast their cares on Him" is because doing so often leaves someone in a precarious and undesirable situation. (Y'know, like having a two year old die because God doesn't magically remove yellow jacket venom.) If prayer actually worked, I'm sure Christians would rely on it more to this author's liking.

What is God's response to that? He allows it. Many people experience the painful results of others' or their own choices that run contrary to God's ways...murder, sexual abuse, greed, lying/fraud, slander, adultery, kidnapping, etc. All of these can be explained by people who have refused to give God access and influence over their lives. They are going about their lives as they see fit, and they and others suffer.

I'm with you on the idea that much of human suffering is caused by other humans (although I do have to wonder how opposed to God's will this list of actions is, when you consider King David was called "a man after God's own heart" and did, um, ALL of them.) However, God's not really off the hook for allowing these things - He is, after all, supposed to be ALL powerful and ALL loving. surely whether or not somone "allowed" God to have access into their lives wouldn't have such an impact?

Tell me, how DO Protestant Christians deal reconcile such a God with the Catholic pedophilia and cover-up scandal? I mean, they can obviously claim Catholics aren't "real" Christians, but that doesn't absolve God of his guilt, his complicity. If He exists, God is an accomplice to every rape, theft, kidnapping, and murder (and not just the ones He ordered in the Bible.) And please, don't give me that nonsense about "free will." The free will of a victim is violated in the instance of every rape; if God is okay with that person's free will being suborned, why not the rapist's? What kind of God cares more about the free will of a repeat offender priest raping children than about the free will of the children who do not wish to be raped? (An evil god, or an imaginary one.)

What's God view on all of this? He's not smug. In fact, God could rightly be viewed as leaning forward, compassionate, hoping we will turn to him so that he can bring real life to us. Jesus said, "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." But not all are willing to go to him. Jesus commented on this when he said: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Not all who turn to Jesus, weary and heavy-laden, GET the promised rest. In fact, I usually felt despair, loneliness, guilt, persecution, and rejection from God when I believed in such a megalomaniacal being. And again, the situation is being turned to humanity's unwillingness, as if what we were willing to do or not do ever had anything to do withe capabilities of an ALL powerful god. It also blames the victim and ignores child victims. I was a completely devoted Christian at age 7 when that dirty septuagenarian man first took off my panties and licked between my prepubescent lips. Where was God then? Was it my "unwillingness" to turn to Jesus that allowed me to be so harmed? No. I turned to Jesus in all I did, but he was fictional and unable to help me, no more useful than any other imaginary friend a child of that age may have.

Again, Jesus brings the issue back to our relationship with him. "I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Again, following Jesus did not keep me in any kind of light - my life was in shambles from the time I was born into an intensely religious and highly dysfunctional family till I was homeless at 25, the month before I became an atheist. My entire career following Jesus is marked by pain, abandonment, and lack of protection; it's only been as an atheist, as I've learned to protect, heal, and care for myself that my life has improved and I've come out of the darkness Christianity kept me trapped in.

But what about when life is unfair? What about those horrible circumstances that hit us in life, caused by someone other than ourselves? When we are feeling victimized, it's useful to realize that God himself endured horrendous treatment from others. God more than understands what you are going through.

So, since God designed a plan where He'd be crucified (or, y'know, His son who is also Him) that means He understands what it's like to be molested as a little girl in a religious culture that treats female virginity as purity? He knows what it's like to lose a child to crib death, or cancer, or a fatal car accident (one who will not rise again in three two days time?) He knows what it's like to live a life in constant pain, like a person with Tay Sachs disease, or what it's like to have your heart broken by an unfaithful lover, or what a lifelong disability feels like? Because I doubt it.

There is nothing in life that could be more painful than what Jesus endured on our behalf, when he was deserted by his friends, ridiculed by those who would not believe in him, beaten and tortured before his crucifixion, then nailed to a cross, in shameful public display, dying of slow suffocation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, passion of the Christ, crucifixion is bad, yadda yadda - freaking Holy Week! We get it. But it is categorically false and absolutely ridiculous to say "There is nothing in life that could be more painful" than that. Besides all the things I listed above, there's Cystic Fibrosis - a lifetime of slow suffocation. There's debilitating mental illness, like schizophrenia. There's post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis. And of course, there's God's preferred method of execution - stoning. (WARNING: That link takes you to a graphic and painful video of a woman being stoned to death. If you're more merciful than God, it will probably tear you up to watch it. Yet He, supposedly, continually sits idly by - when He's not ordering it Himself, that is.) Apologist, please, the crucifixion just wasn't that big of a sacrifice and on some level, you know it as well as I do.

He created us, yet allowed humanity the freedom to do this, to fulfill Scripture and to set us free from our sin. This was no surprise to Jesus. He was aware of what was coming, foreknowing all the details, all the pain, all the humiliation. "And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day."

Of course, the author glosses over the idea that Jesus knew this would happen because it was His/daddy's idea and not merely because he was psychic. Those Scriptures He wanted fulfilled? Yeah, He was supposedly behind them. Sounds more like a masochist than a martyr to me.

Imagine knowing something that awful was going to happen to you. Jesus understands emotional and psychological anguish. The night that Jesus knew they would arrest him, he went to pray, but took some friends with him. "And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here and watch [keep awake] with me. And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wills." Though Jesus confided in his three friends, they didn't understand the depth of his torment, and when Jesus returned from prayer he found them asleep. Jesus understands what it's like going through pain and extreme sadness alone.

Expectant mothers can make it through the torments of labor and childbirth, because they know it's coming and they know something good will come as a result of it. Anyone who has ever made a sacrifice to a cause did so because they believed some good would come of it. Chemo patients withstand that particular hell because, again, they *hope* something good will come of it. Your Jesus was not the only one to ever suffer knowingly, and He had the benefit of knowing He'd be god afterwards, worshipped forever, and that His "sacrifice" would have the power to save millions of souls for eternity.

Again, where's your point in all this? Oh, it's by ignoring the very real suffering of very real people and focusing on the single bad day of a deity. Huh, what a crappy way to make a point! As for Jesus going through all this alone, was Jesus ever really alone? I mean, He was god right? Or God's son, or gee, it's so hard to keep straight. Regardless, He was a man constantly surrounded by followers and disciples, and while he may have suffered a bout of loneliness, it just doesn't compare to the lifetimes of it some people endure.

Here it is summarized, as John describes in his gospel: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Oh Christian, I know you love John 3:16, but why oh why don't you apologists EVER include John 3:18? Ahem, *throat clearing* He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Ah, so loving! Why do I bring this up? As a reminder that your god is not loving nor merciful; He cares only for belief - for praise. He doesn't seem to care one way or another if someone is moral, merciful, helpful, or good - only if they pay him the proper lip service.

There is no question that there is pain and intense suffering in this world. Some of it is explained by selfish, hateful actions on the part of others. Some of it defies an explanation in this life.

Defies explanation - is that how you're gonna brush aside natural disasters, disease, and global poverty? You know, those questions you used to open this passage up?

But God offers us himself. God gives us the knowledge that he has endured also, and is aware of our pain and needs. Jesus said to his disciples, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid."

My friend had two daughters born with a rare form of brain cancer; one has already passed away (she was four at the time.) Go ask my friend (a Christian woman) if she'd rather have "peace" about her daughter's death, or have her daughter alive, and she will tear you a new one, or else start crying. Peace through suffering is not what people desire, and is often the least we can do; alleviating suffering, working to make life more fair than it is, trying to prevent suffering - this is far kinder and vastly superior.

There is ample reason to be afraid, troubled, but God can give us his peace, which is greater than the problem before us. He is after all, God, the Creator. The one who has always existed. The one who created a universe on the backstroke.

The one who created a universe, but isn't moved to stop crib death.

Yet even in his power, he's also the one who knows us intimately, even the smallest, insignificant details. And if we will trust him with our lives, relying on him, though we encounter difficulties, he will hold us securely. Jesus said, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

If he's overcome it, why let us continue to suffer in it? Oh that's right, because we "asked for it." (Just like rape victims, eh?)

He went through our ultimate threat -- death -- and overcame it. He can take us through the difficult circumstances of this life, and then bring us into eternal life, if we will trust him.

Death isn't even in my Top Ten list of fears or threats I worry about - suffering is. And not by any means just my own suffering; I am moved to tears by the suffering of others - victims of human trafficking, rape, and medical neglect, or simply children who are not adequately loved by their parents. The difference between me and God (other than the fact that I am verifiably real) is that I am moved by this pain in others to do something about it. Yes, to help people through their pain, but also to prevent future pain.

We raised over $1,200 together towards building a well in the developing world, during a time of pretty serious financial distress for many of us, yet God - infinite in knowledge and love and ability - won't provide all the people of the world with clean water. He's either imaginary or he's a douche.

We can either go through this life with God or without him. Jesus prayed, "O righteous Father, although the world has not known you, yet I have known you; and these have known that you sent me; and I have made your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."

The kind of love that watches from the sidelines as children are raped, cut up for witchcraft sacrifices, belittled, lied to, and told they are sinful, dirty creatures? The kind of love that does nothing to stop the rampant spousal abuse within the evangelical community, supported by His supposed Word? The kind of love that sends his son/self to go through crucifixion? Yeah, I think I'll pass. That sounds too much like hate to me.

Read more!

Holy Blowjob, Popeman!`

Image by Toban Black via Flickr

Ah, the Vatican is in the news again - how many children were raped or beaten this time?

The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Jeezy Creezy, the Pope will fire someone for getting a male prostituted, but not for raping kids or hiding that rape, or exposing those rapists to more children, or abusing kids on almost every country on the planet? Okay, Mr. Benedict - you've got your priorities out of order.

Personally, I'm for the legalization and taxation of both prostitutes and marijuana (gotta admit, I feel differently about, say crack cocaine/powder cocaine than I do about weed, but that's a different conversation.) You know what I'm not for? The legalization of child rape. And no one would be, right?

Let's see... What's the age of consent in Vatican City, anyway? Big bunch of judgmental virgins, surely they must have a very high age, like thirty or something, right? Right? Wrong. It's 12 (making it the lowest on the globe.) Wow, so okay - sex with 12 year olds is fine by the Vatican's standards, but not with grown men engaging in sex work professionally. Where's the logic in this?

The Guardian story goes on to explain more of the details, including why a wiretap was in place to begin with. The sacked gentleman in question Angelo Belducci, an usher in the Papal household and senior Italian official, is under investigation for allegedly awarding public works contracts "toward favored bidders". It was during this investigation that the hiring of prostitutes was discovered (along with details about the kind of men he desired, how they should look, etc.) One of the men he contracted with was studying for the priesthood. And yet,

While Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality outright, its teaching is that homosexual acts "are intrinsically disordered". The Catechism of the Catholic church states unequivocally: "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

How on earth can the Vatican, Pope, and Catholic church have such rigid standards for homosexuality, yet none for the *RAPE* of children? I cannot undersatnd how anyone still views the Vatican as a source of morality, or how anyone continues to tithe to this horrid institution.

Go worship your god all day if you please; pray to a million saints. But please, stop letting these monsters pretend they have moral authority. Stop funding the legal defense of pedophiles. Stop giving them money which they will use to crush people, inhibit rights, and hire prostitues. (Bet you didn't think *that's* where your tithe money was going, huh?)

I cannot stomach this hypocrisy. Two adults engaging in sexual intercourse is "disordered" but grown men taking advantage of children and raping them - this is merely something which needs more prayer and faith? From Secularism.org

In a statement, the Vatican said the Pope had told the bishops the sexual abuse of children and young people was not only a heinous crime, but also a “grave sin that offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image”.

The Vatican created another storm by announcing that the Pope had also told bishops that the “weakening of faith” was a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors.

What. the. catechism. I have no faith at all - my faith is as weak and atrophied as it can be less than two years out from true belief. *And I am not raping children and I never ever will.* Frankly, I doubt I'd ever hire a prostitute either, although the thought doesn't absolutely disgust and horrify me the way pedophilia does. I don't think "all sin is equal" and I don't think hiring an adult prostitute (whatever their sex, gender, or orientation) is on par with or worse than the rape of children. Clearly, the Vatican does. After all, both the pedophiles and the bishops who shuffled them from parish to parish are still employed, yet the man who hired (adult) male prostitutes has been fired.

Fuck the Pope.

Read more!