Divided by Marriage: How Christianity Can Destroy Families
Focus On Your Own Family
Anti-Prop 8 Protest in Pittsburgh
Photo © Bonnie Cline, 2008
So which is ultimately more destructive of family: a loving, committed partnership that happens to be between two people of the same sex, or the hate, intolerance, disrespect, and ostracism initiated by self-righteous Christians who don't want to have anything to do with gay relatives? Which sort of "family" would you prefer to be part of: one where you have to conform to a particular religion's dogmas in order to be accepted and treated like a real human being, or one where people are caring and loving regardless of differences?
Edifying Spectacle quotes an article from The Westerly Sun written by Ryan Blessing:
About five years ago at her sister's wedding, Suann Serra told [her brother] that she hoped that someday he could give her away to her partner at their wedding. "He said he couldn't do it, and told me if I don't change my ways I'm going to hell," she said. ... "Rippy" Serra said that as a Christian, he's reflected on what the Bible and various faiths say about homosexuality, which he said is a "lifestyle," and not something one is born with.
Makes a lot of sense, right? Study what ancient religious scriptures have to say in order to come to a conclusion about the biology and psychology of sexual orientation in the modern world. Don't pay any attention to what scientists today tell us about sexuality and relationships; instead, focus entirely on the opinions of ignorant and barely-literate nomads who lived millennia ago in the Middle East.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as relying solely on those ancient scriptures in for moral guidance in the first place. Or science. Or medicine. With relatives like Rippy, who needs enemies? It's good, of course, that not all Christians are like this but we have to face the fact that religion easily encourages such behavior. When you adopt certain positions not on the basis of evidence and reason but rather because you're told that it's the will of some alleged god, it doesn't really matter whether the position is "liberal" or "conservative" — it's still ultimately destructive of reason, mental health, and morality.
Comments
I’ve always found it weird how organisations claiming they supported “family values” don’t much seem to value actual families. Instead their focus is on a formula – one man, one woman, and as many kids as they can make together – as if love or happiness were a chemical process.
Nice work, Austin.
What gets me is that human love is an emotional need, and some people, as Richard Dawkins wrote, “misfire” and find that emotional need in someone of the same sex. The love between the two is no different than the heterosexual kind – perhaps more intense, perhaps less. Regardless, you illustrate your point nicely. Granted, I’m not gay, but I do understand the emotional need to love and be loved.
Interesting site, Austin.
I’m intrigued by the fans of Dawkins. I see one(at least) here-I ask you what you think of Dawkins’ refusal to debate Dinesh D’Souza? Also, are you aware in a recent interview Dawkins profered the possibility that aliens may have been responsible for the beginning of the universe? …inferring that aliens are an intelligent being; This poses an inherent problem with you deniers of God(god)the creator, Am I wrong?
Indigo,
Do you not acknowledge hormones and endorphins as actual human chemicals??
Assuming for now that Indigo is atheist, I’ll say its one of the most curious things for me to read an atheist judge the values of of a purported believer while sitting in his own glass house void of any “values”. Or,perhaps you care to make the case that ones “values” are not derived from anything metaphysical…but from dirt? Always curious I am.
David, If there is no difference between homosexual love and hetro love, what would be the point of you distinguishing that you are not homosexual, as if that would be judged? I would contend that you yourself make your own moral judgement without actually ever admitting it. This is a philiosophical problem of the Left/relativist crowd that it is tone deaf to reality. “Do as I say, not as I do”-is no intellectually honest way to go through life, much less an argument.
This illustrates one of my great respects for Christains- that is that they inherently believe judgement belongs only to God-despite how secular society cares to interpret it.
Is there any particular reason to debate him?
I’m not familiar with him or anyone else suggesting that “aliens” started the universe. I don’t suppose you have a quote?
It’s as bigoted to say that atheists have no values as it is to say that Jews or blacks have no values.
The fact that there is no difference in the nature of the love does not lead to the conclusion that there is nothing to distinguish — namely, that one does not happen to share that love.
Feel free to provide anything at all that would support this accusation.
I would say the same with respect to making unsupported claims and accusations about people you don’t know.
And yet, you maintain that respect in spite of the fact that so few Christians actually refrain from making judgements anyway. This tells us something about your attitude towards intellectual honesty and respect, I suspect.
By the way, much of what you wrote is off topic with regards to the above post and should instead be posted in the site’s forum.
“Is there any particular reason to debate him?”
Aside from the fact that every other noted atheist already has, of course…science gone undebated would actually render itself moot. No?
“I’m not familiar with him or anyone else suggesting that “aliens” started the universe. I don’t suppose you have a quote?”
That’s right, you’re big on debate. See Ben Stein’s interview of Dawkins in the production: “Expelled”
“It’s as bigoted to say that atheists have no values as it is to say that Jews or blacks have no values.”
Jews and Blacks can rightfully cite where their values are derived. Can you? Isn’t bigotry itself a value judgement? And its ok for you can do this because you do not believe in a God, right? Because there is no account for your edicts or actions, right??
“The fact that there is no difference in the nature of the love does not lead to the conclusion that there is nothing to distinguish — namely, that one does not happen to share that love.”
I don’t accept your premise. If there is no difference in the nature of love, would you stay in love with your significant other if they had a habitual hygiene problem? I contend that “judging’ and “judgement” are not equivalent.
“I would say the same with respect to making unsupported claims and accusations about people you don’t know.”
Right on ! All I have are words.
“And yet, you maintain that respect in spite of the fact that so few Christians actually refrain from making judgements anyway. This tells us something about your attitude towards intellectual honesty and respect, I suspect.”
I myself invite suspicion, it leads to learning. Again, judgements are not created equal; remember this next time you drive from your safe neighborhood, then stopping at a stoplight in front of crack-head corner in a not so safe neighborhood.
Forgive me, but I fail to see why I’m off topic. My first time here, so not too familiar with the format.
Austin, do you have enough fairness in you to acknowledge that Christianity can and has been mostly good for families – even gay ones? Or do you simply take the proctologists view of Christianity 24/7 ?
Every other “noted” atheist has debated him? Then, perhaps there is no reason to just repeat the event? Or is there something unique and special which D’Souza brings?
I’ve read several interviews with him. I wasn’t aware that Dawkins was involved in any of them and thus could be quoted from one saying that “aliens” were involved with the origin of the universe. Which interview are you thinking of here?
Yes, I can.
And it’s bigoted of you to assume that I have no values merely because I’m an atheist.
Yes, bigots are making value judgments.
Yes, it’s as OK for an atheist to point out bigotry as it is OK for theists to point out bigotry.
I’m afraid I don’t know what this myth about atheists has to do with pointing out bigotry in others. I also don’t know what it has to do with the post your supposedly commenting on.
Now you shifting the basis for comparison. Please try to stick with the original comparison if you are going to question a premise in an argument.
That remains to be seen, doesn’t it?
The topic of the above post is gay marriage. Your bigotry and myths about atheism and atheists is not the same topic as gay marriage. Ergo, those comments are not on topic. Ergo, they are off topic.
Understanding what is and is not the same topic as “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “format.”
Mostly good? Sorry, but I can’t make such a judgment. No one can.
Comments from Christians here rarely give me any other view of Christianity.
MattB asked
D’Souza brings nothing to the table except his own version of the “Gish Gallop”. Why should Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, debate him? True, others such as Shermer, Hitchens and Dennet have, but so what? Why give someone as disreputable as D’Souza any more publicity?
Are you aware that this response by Dawkins was in regards to the question of whether there was any scenario Dawkins could think of where ID might be plausible? If the most plausible scenario of ID is obviously absurd, even to ID’s supporters, it shows how far off the mark ID really is.
Are you aware that the makers of the movie Expelled, where you got this quote from, are pathetic, contemptible and deceitful? Are you aware that this part of the movie was purposefully edited so that it appeared that this is what Dawkins believed?
And yes, you are wrong. Suggesting that extra terrestrial lifeforms could be intelligent (possibly even more so than human beings and to the point that they could create life on an otherwise lifeless rock) poses no problems for atheists.
Some classic trolling by MattB there.
As has been pointed out, Dawkins was merely discussing the idea of directed panspermia as a possible naturalistic alternative to abiogenesis. Nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Speculation is allowed, you know. Science wouldn’t get very far without it.
And, as has been pointed out, the fact that the most reasonable version of ID is so ridiculous tells you everything you need to know about ID. After all, at least intelligent aliens would be corporeal and part of the natural world. “Magic sky man done it somehow at some time by magic, now get down on your knees and send money” is far sillier.
This reminded me of
an old post by Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog which deals with the curious habit believers have of confusing biological natural selection with abiogenesis, and even with the origin of the universe, as MattB has done. Even after having the distinctions between them explained to them ad nauseam
Certain believers see no problem in confusing all these different issues as they think it’s all the same thing anyway. It’s all just unbelief, it’s all just nonsense made up by hateful heathens to avoid having to face up to their responsibility to [insert god here], whose existence is clear and obvious and who is loving and forgiving but will gladly torture them forever for not genuflecting properly.
This is why a lot of stuff these believers say comes across as so nonsensical to the reality-based, who realise that natural selection, abiogenesis and the big bang are separate issues, dealing with separate areas of investigation and with separate lines of evidence supporting them.
In order for this to change, the faithful would have to actually listen to scientists and try to understand what they’re saying. Don’t see much chance of that happening. After all, why listen to people who are blinded by the corrupting wisdom of man and who therefore ignore the wisdom of [insert god here], which is the only TRUE wisdom?
“This is why a lot of stuff these believers say comes across as so nonsensical to the reality-based, who realise that natural selection, abiogenesis and the big bang are separate issues, dealing with separate areas of investigation and with separate lines of evidence supporting them…
In order for this to change, the faithful would have to actually listen to scientists and try to understand what they’re saying. Don’t see much chance of that happening.”
Really, Mark!? so Gerald Schroeder and Dinesh D’Souza are figments of our imagination???
“Separate issues” ??? So, there were 2 big bangs?? Lay that one out for me…
MattB, did you really not understand what Mark wrote about or was it an intentional misconstruction to avoid addressing his points?
Hmph. Just a troll.
As I said, I think Rosenhouse has MattB pegged. He’s only interested in arguing against the spectre of nonbelief. What nonbelievers are actually saying, and whether there are any important distinctions that need to be comprehended, is irrelevant to him. It’s all just different flavours of nonbelief.
It’s not exactly a brilliant advertisement for the faith-based perspective, which is fine by me.
I must admit I wasn’t expecting much from MattB when, after being asked by Austin to supply quotation from Dawkins, he immediately mentioned ‘Expelled’. Not a good start.
Matt B:
“This illustrates one of my great respects for Christains- that is that they inherently believe judgement belongs only to God-despite how secular society cares to interpret it.”
Wow, Matt must have access to a group of Christians on another planet. Matt proves that he doesn’t understand what the word “secular” means.
Matt B:
“Austin, do you have enough fairness in you to acknowledge that Christianity can and has been mostly good for families – even gay ones? Or do you simply take the proctologists view of Christianity 24/7 ?”
That’s kind of like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife, isn’t it? Why would anyone acknowledge a claim that is false? Please demonstrate how your religion is “mostly good” for families. What positive effect does Christianity have, that it can actually claim the credit for as a cause, rather than merely a correlation?
The negative effects of Christianity on families are numerous, and you can read about them every week on this site, the Internet Infidels News Wire, and other sources.