Wes #fundie #homophobia

Wes #fundie #homophobia psychologytoday.com

When I read your article about bonobos, I of course, thought of Owen. He would love them. But, I had to ask the question, "Am I comfortable with him learning about bonobos and their behaviors?" It's a good question for me to ask myself. If I'm honest, I would say my first reaction was to shield him from these animals because of their behavior. This wouldn't be uncharacteristic for us, since there are lots of animal behaviors that are difficult for a four-year old to understand (i.e. mating, violence, etc...). However, what's different about this particular behavior is that in an orthodox biblical position, homosexuality is a sin... but animals don't sin. We don't typically place animals in a moral category. In other words, they don't do righteous acts or unrighteous acts. So...what am I to make of these animals that engage in homosexual activity? It seems to me that this behavior reveals a sense of brokenness in the natural world. Paul spoke of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, "men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..."(Rom. 1:27). So, what he says is unnatural, now looks to be natural! But, just as natural disasters aren't normative, neither is homosexual activity within animals. The creation itself is marred with the effects of sin (i.e. death).

84 comments

old comment by dionysus

If I'm honest, I would say my first reaction was to shield him from these animals because of their behavior. This wouldn't be uncharacteristic for us, since there are lots of animal behaviors that are difficult for a four-year old to understand (i.e. mating, violence, etc...). However, what's different about this particular behavior is that in an orthodox biblical position, homosexuality is a sin... but animals don't sin.

So are you going to shield your son from learning about octopuses? They eat shellfish, which is also a sin.

Paul spoke of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, "men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..."(Rom. 1:27).

Paul was a hateful asshole who hated everyone and their brother. Of course, I do realize that fundies all treat Paul like he's the messiah and largely ignore the teachings of Jesus. In fact, you guys need to stop calling yourselves Christians and call yourselves Paulians instead. It would be much more honest.

So, what he says is unnatural, now looks to be natural!

Damn it, you were so close! Why oh why did you suddenly veer off this path? I mean it's like an football (American football) player about to cross the end zone with no defense anywhere near him who inexplicably dives out of bounds.

But, just as natural disasters aren't normative, neither is homosexual activity within animals.

Not normative != not natural. Gold is not normative but it's perfectly natural. Blonde hair is not normative but it's perfectly natural. You see, rare things can still be natural.

The creation itself is marred with the effects of sin (i.e. death).

Or maybe sin is just a human concept invented to make people feel guilty.

old comment by John

So here's the premises:

1) Bonobos engage in homosexuality.

2) According to your interpretation of the Bible, homosexuality is "unnatural".

Now what are the natural conclusions? Either:

1) your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

2) Bonobos engage in homosexual behavior because they're "infected with sin".

Now believing (1) is simple. All you have to do is give up your pride and admit you're wrong. Believing (2) is a bit more difficult. You must believe that human "sin" corrupted everything; even the behavior of animals. There's nothing in the Bible, and certainly nothing in the OT, that remotely suggests this is true; so you need to descend into even more bizarre interpretations of the writings of Paul that somehow condemns the behavior of bonobos without condemning yourself.

old comment by Woody

I think this is a "darnedest thing" although perhaps less so than some of the things we quote on this site.

What I saw in Wes's letter was someone who had a fundamental belief and was not willing to bend but cleverly wrote as though they were being open-minded and questioning so they would not appear bigoted. However, Wes only questioned points that could be questioned without changing the original fundamental belief structure and included points that would not produce a full challenge to their original opinions. An argumentative technique used by many, not just those who don't want their religious beliefs undermined.

Therein lies the strength of the power of fundamentalist belief and why churches can manipulate people whilst simultaneously appearing to be full of intelligent people.

old comment by Pule Thamex

Dear Wes, I entirely sympathize with the uncomfortable position within which you find yourself. Luckily, I do have the solution to your problem, a solution that, I'm afraid, is going to be very difficult for you to acknowledge, let alone put in to practice .

First, the easy part, the cause of the problem. This bit is very straightforward and very easy to understand. Your difficulties are caused by you having faith in strange beliefs. To be more exact, you believe in an invisible deity and all its associated dogmas. Specifically, in your case, a myth that grew in ancient times in the middle eastern region. The specific myth that you have taken a shine to, or has taken a shine to you, contains the concept of sin, whereby anything that the ancients who promulgated the myth disapproved of, was written down in a record book.

Now for the hard part. Ignore the record book altogether. Not easy for you, I know. But the eventual rewards will be worth it. In any case, much of its text consists of the fanciful ravings of several demented lunatics. I'm guessing that it will be hard for you because you have, at least up till now, placed your faith in the book's veracity and inerrancy.

But, I feel that if you can make a supreme effort, you can free yourself from what is really the record book for a cult which is every bit as sinister as the fictional Cthulhu Mythos, and every bit as fictional. Indeed, you might say the record book was the Necronomicon of its day.

But of course, the real gain from your perseverance and your struggle to kick the habit will be the freeing of Owen from its tentacled clasp and the flowering of his inquisitive human intellect.

old comment by FurryPurryKee

Part I

I agree with John_in_Oz. This is not a FSTDT.

Keep in mind, I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism who fully supports gay rights and the idea that other animals can have varying levels of self-awareness:

From a Biblical standpoint, animals don't sin because they are considered "innocent and ignorant," unlike humans who ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Once we ate the fruit, we lost our innocence, and now have to contend with taking moral responsibility for our actions.

You can say that humans are animals too, but the God of the Bible obviously expects better behavior out of humans than the "other" animals, and therefore gave humanity rules to follow. What animals might do in their "ignorance," like consume their own young or have homosexual relations, is considered unacceptable for humans, who have the capacity to understand the moral implications of their actions.

And he's right (Biblically) that the natural world is "broken" due to the emergence of sin. Remember in the OT when God destroyed the world with a flood? That was because he deemed the entire world--natural and human--to be corrupt, so he wiped the slate mostly clean and started over.

Look, I don't believe the Bible, and therefore disagree with his conclusions. But from a BIBLICAL standpoint, he makes good points. His position doesn't seem to be one of hatred; not all people who believe homosexuality to be sinful and wrong, feel that way because they detest gay people. Believing that the sin of homosexuality will cause someone to burn in Hell, is NOT the same as delighting in the idea.