Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, November 19, 2009
Homo / Religion U.S. Catholic Bishops: "These unions pose a serious threat to the fabric of society that affects all people."
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM
And they're not talking about labor unions.
The letter defines marriage as "a natural institution established by God the Creator" and called it "a permanent, faithful, fruitful partnership between one man and one woman" that has two purposes: "the good of the spouses" and "the procreation and education of children." ... "Since marriage and same-sex unions are different realities, it is not unjust discrimination to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex unions," the letter says. "These unions pose a serious threat to the fabric of society that affects all people."
The reality, of course, is that marriage is an institution created by humans, not supernatural superfriends, and that the institution of marriage has evolved over the ages to accommodate changing realities and changing cultural values. Why aren't women property anymore? Why is love central to our understanding of marriage? Why are women allowed to have custody of their children in the event of a divorce? Because the institution of marriage has evolved and changed. Marriage, as practiced by heterosexuals today, may be permanent, may be faithful, and may be fruitful. But heterosexuals are not required to remain in marriages that make them unhappy, they are not required to be monogamous, they are not required to procreate. Some more from me—and my enormous, illuminated nose—on marriage...
Back to the Baltimore Sun's write-up...
While "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan" does not represent new Catholic teaching, bishops said the pastoral letter would address a need for an authoritative source to which church leaders may refer as they campaign against divorce, unmarried couples living together and same-sex unions.
The Catholic Church is campaigning against divorce and cohabitation? Really? Is there any evidence of that? Is the Catholic Church funding ballot initiatives that would make divorce illegal? Are they pushing legislation that would make it illegal for landlords to rent apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples? Is the Catholic Church demanding that opposite-sex couples provide proof that they're married before they're allowed to check into hotels?
Please. The Catholic Church is only "campaigning" against the rights of gay couples. They want discrimination against gay couples enshrined in secular law. The Catholic Church does make gentle suggestions to opposite-sex Catholic couples—pretty please don't get divorced, pretty please don't shack up—but they'll annul a Catholic's first marriage (or second or third) for a fee, and they'll still marry straight Catholic couples who are already living together. There is no "campaign" being waged by the U.S. Asshole Catholic Bishops against the rights of straight couples. Please.
1
Loveschild should lose custody of "her" children as she's cohabitating and maintaining guardianship over "her" children that she produced out of wedlock. Give them to a more capable and loving christian family that isn't living the highest of sins.
For the sake of being consistent, of course.
For the sake of being consistent, of course.
2
You know what really poses a threat to the way of life espoused by the Catholic Church? Rational thought.
They should work at stamping that out.
They should work at stamping that out.
3
if you didn't point out your illuminated nose, i never would have noticed it. Now it's all i can focus on. I didn't even hear anything you said.
5
Well said. The church is also not working to outlaw birth control or pre-marital sex. Or eating fish on Fridays during Lent.
A number of Catholic couples that I am friends with lived together officially before getting married (a few more "unofficially" lived together). One couple was berated by their priest during their pre-marriage counseling, and was told that their marriage would most likely end in divorce. But... the priest still married them. I think the church should get serious about the divorce/cohabitation thing. No second marriages. No marrying people who've lived together. We'll see how long Catholicism lasts in this country after that, eh?
A number of Catholic couples that I am friends with lived together officially before getting married (a few more "unofficially" lived together). One couple was berated by their priest during their pre-marriage counseling, and was told that their marriage would most likely end in divorce. But... the priest still married them. I think the church should get serious about the divorce/cohabitation thing. No second marriages. No marrying people who've lived together. We'll see how long Catholicism lasts in this country after that, eh?
6
The fact remains that heterosexual couples are the basis for all societies. It is mainly thru heterosexual unions that life come into existence and new life is added to our world. And even when it's done in a lab, you still need sperm (male) and eggs (female) to recreate it. Since that's the reality and nature of the world we live in the Catholics church message is right on point.
That however does not mean that Catholics nor those who are aware of this truth are the insensitive monsters that homosexual activist like to paint them as. Those struggling with homosexuality are not only to be welcomed, respected in the church but the clergy is called to also provide them counsell more in depth concerning the teachings of true love of the church in the body of Christ:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre…
More...
That however does not mean that Catholics nor those who are aware of this truth are the insensitive monsters that homosexual activist like to paint them as. Those struggling with homosexuality are not only to be welcomed, respected in the church but the clergy is called to also provide them counsell more in depth concerning the teachings of true love of the church in the body of Christ:
"It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre…
7
Cheer up Dan, it only took the RCC a mere 350 or so years to admit they were wrong about that whole "the sun revolves around the earth" thing, so you just have to be patient.
I predict that a pope elected around 2225 will write a Papal Bull admitting the Church was wrong about same-sex marriage too - roughly 150 years after the last nation on earth has already legalized the institution.
I mean, that's not too long to wait, is it?
I predict that a pope elected around 2225 will write a Papal Bull admitting the Church was wrong about same-sex marriage too - roughly 150 years after the last nation on earth has already legalized the institution.
I mean, that's not too long to wait, is it?
8
Want proof that Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage" is a hate group? Run a search on her site for the word "divorce".
Every single mention of the word is in conjunction with an article slamming gay marriage. Every. Single. One. The vast majority of the hits relate to arguments for why same-sex divorce should not be allowed in Rhode Island (because it legitimates same-sex marriage...see how that works?).
In fact, all of those divorcing heteros is another excuse for her to bash gay people:
If she actually were living up to her religious ideals, she'd be going after divorce and cohabitation at least as much as she goes after gay people. But she's not. She doesn't care about the millions of straights not living up to her "moral" code, not while there are gays out there to bash.
Every single mention of the word is in conjunction with an article slamming gay marriage. Every. Single. One. The vast majority of the hits relate to arguments for why same-sex divorce should not be allowed in Rhode Island (because it legitimates same-sex marriage...see how that works?).
In fact, all of those divorcing heteros is another excuse for her to bash gay people:
Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
If she actually were living up to her religious ideals, she'd be going after divorce and cohabitation at least as much as she goes after gay people. But she's not. She doesn't care about the millions of straights not living up to her "moral" code, not while there are gays out there to bash.
9
Perfectly put, Dan. If you hadn't used the F word, I'd forward this to my Grandmother, but unfortunately she has zero tolerance for bad language and would turn it off as soon as you got to that word and turn FOX news back on. Too bad.
10
Depends on who was doing the writing and the audience whether "campaigning" is a valid word.
Internally, the RC church has been campaigning against those things, and spending a lot of money that could be doing a lot of good elsewhere to do it. Of course, a good portion of the faithful don't actually buy into that part of the faith. I know a lot of devout, Catholic couples who use artificial birth control, in most urban parishes, the divorce rate is pretty comparable with the general population (suburbs and rural areas it is actually somewhat lower), and I know a lot of couples where one half of the couple had to move in with a friend for a month before the wedding because the priest wouldn't marry them if they were cohabitating that close to the wedding. Doesn't mean they stopped having sex, of course; one just claimed a different address for a month.
Now are they campaigning against those things to the general public? No, because realistically they don't have a chance to make divorce, artificial birth control, assisted reproduction, or cohabitation illegal. Same sex marriage and civil unions, though, are a whole 'nother story, so that's where there political dollars get spent - along with opposing certain types of genetic research (embryonic stem cells in particular) and assisted suicide.
Internally, the RC church has been campaigning against those things, and spending a lot of money that could be doing a lot of good elsewhere to do it. Of course, a good portion of the faithful don't actually buy into that part of the faith. I know a lot of devout, Catholic couples who use artificial birth control, in most urban parishes, the divorce rate is pretty comparable with the general population (suburbs and rural areas it is actually somewhat lower), and I know a lot of couples where one half of the couple had to move in with a friend for a month before the wedding because the priest wouldn't marry them if they were cohabitating that close to the wedding. Doesn't mean they stopped having sex, of course; one just claimed a different address for a month.
Now are they campaigning against those things to the general public? No, because realistically they don't have a chance to make divorce, artificial birth control, assisted reproduction, or cohabitation illegal. Same sex marriage and civil unions, though, are a whole 'nother story, so that's where there political dollars get spent - along with opposing certain types of genetic research (embryonic stem cells in particular) and assisted suicide.
11
@6 - Loveschild, the survival of the species has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with justifying discrimination against gays. Particularly since only a small portion of the population is gay. Even in a world where 100% of the population was gay (perish the thought, right?), humanity would still survive. People still want to be parents, even gay people, and would still be able to use different methods (surrogates, laboratories) to do so. The "reality and the nature of the world we live in" is that gay individuals can still reproduce.
I'd love it if someone (Golob?) would do the math about the current rate of population growth, and the percentage of adults who would need to be gay (and, according to Loveschild's logic, not reproducing) for it to even mean zero population growth worldwide (let alone a decline).
I'd love it if someone (Golob?) would do the math about the current rate of population growth, and the percentage of adults who would need to be gay (and, according to Loveschild's logic, not reproducing) for it to even mean zero population growth worldwide (let alone a decline).
12
LC -
"The fact remains that heterosexual couples are the basis for all societies. "
False. Until fairly recently, men were the basis for all societies. Only recently have women gained a piece of the pie, and in marriage, only recently a stab at equal footing in a marriage. Women used to be property, the male traffic in women being the vehicle through which property exchange was made. Like slaves, but no one started a civil war about it.
It is mainly thru heterosexual unions that life come into existence and new life is added to our world.
False, if "union" = "marriage". It is through heterosexuals FUCKING that life comes into existence, not the fact that they are married.
Yours, and the Catholic church's and the rest of the right-wing religious nutjobs "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap is but a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your hatred, fear, and desire to press into non-existence the gay people you love so much. Fuck off.
"The fact remains that heterosexual couples are the basis for all societies. "
False. Until fairly recently, men were the basis for all societies. Only recently have women gained a piece of the pie, and in marriage, only recently a stab at equal footing in a marriage. Women used to be property, the male traffic in women being the vehicle through which property exchange was made. Like slaves, but no one started a civil war about it.
It is mainly thru heterosexual unions that life come into existence and new life is added to our world.
False, if "union" = "marriage". It is through heterosexuals FUCKING that life comes into existence, not the fact that they are married.
Yours, and the Catholic church's and the rest of the right-wing religious nutjobs "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap is but a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your hatred, fear, and desire to press into non-existence the gay people you love so much. Fuck off.
14
If gays get married, people are not going to stop having babies, so I don't know what this "foundation of society" bullshit even means.
15
@14: There is a lot of philosophy about the "foundation of society," and not one bit of it even tries to posit heterosexual unions as that foundation. It's a completely untenable hypothesis. Like everything else argued from a fundamentalist perspective, it's not rational.
17
Catholic priests should be seen and not heard - except when they're sunbathing in Florida with their fiancee.
18
Actually Dan, according to Catholic doctrine heterosexuals are required to remain in marriages even if they are unhappy. They just go see a priest, who can't be married, to have their marriage fixed. See how that works? Til death do you part, and all that. Unless you're a Kennedy and then you can have it annuled. And you know what they say about guys with enormous noses. But I digress. And Loveschild, the only time that I "struggled" with my homosexuality was when I tried to deny it. I am what I am and I'm happy, fulfilled, loved, and I know that God loves me just the way I am. And the Catholic Church had bupkis to do with that.
19
Nice double negative in their talking points too. It is "not unjust discrimination" - so that would make it "just discrimination"?
20
@6 - When are you going to get it through your head that not everyone believes the same fairy tales about Jeebus that you do? You can't base a rational argument on the Bible, because it always boils down to the same circular fallacy. If you want to believe your silly fairy tales, that's fine, but as soon as you start trying to use that to dictate how other people ought to live their lives *when it doesn't even hurt your pathetic existence*, you deserve all the animosity that you get.
21
Hey, remember when those Catholic bishops were telling people in Africa that condoms don't stop the spread of HIV?
22
To your point @6, again, "since that's the reality and nature of the world we live in," why won't you forbid infertile couples from being married? Why should my mother-in-law have been able to re-marry, when she is no longer able to reproduce? Just think of being gay as like a kind of infertility. It's not illegal for women who've had hysterectomies to get married, so why should it be illegal for gays?
23
The more they push the "God made marriage" argument, the further they saw through the branch they're sitting on.
If marriage is inherently religious, your government needs must get out of it. So once again we see how gay marriage 'endangers' traditional* marriage.
Just like in Texas!
If marriage is inherently religious, your government needs must get out of it. So once again we see how gay marriage 'endangers' traditional* marriage.
Just like in Texas!
24
Sanitation is the BASIS of all societies, not one man one woman Marriage. Anyone suggesting anything else is lying. Bad sanitation nearly wiped out Europe, NOT same sex unions. Bad Sanitation is destroying the world NOT same sex unions.
Sanitation is the basis, the foundation, the glue, the strength, the future of families and of societies. Nothing else takes that place.
Sanitation is the basis, the foundation, the glue, the strength, the future of families and of societies. Nothing else takes that place.
25
And what's more, opposite unions are NOT preventing family breakdown. Opposite sex marriage is not holding societies together, never has never will. Societies grow and decay. Name one ancient long extinct society that Same Sex Marriage. I'll name you 10 that had only Opposite sex marriage and collapsed. One man one woman marriage is not the basis of society.
26
@9 similar reaction here - i wanted to pass this on to everyone i know but having it end with the word 'retarded' means i can't ... too bad, because it is otherwise perfect.
27
I believe that a good BLT sandwich is the basis of modern civilization. Just look at all those places that don't have bacon. Hell-holes.
28
@22- Took the words right outta my mouth.
The "because they can't reproduce" argument is completely disarmed by this rhetoric. We already knew that the reason people oppose gay marriage is simple- they don't like gays.
The "because they can't reproduce" argument is completely disarmed by this rhetoric. We already knew that the reason people oppose gay marriage is simple- they don't like gays.
29
They ought to mind their own fucking business. If they want to tell people who believe their horeshit what to do, fine. But they should butt the fuck out of what the law says. History shows them with bloody hands. And it should be noted that their fucking asshole pope is behind this and is interfering in this countries internal affairs. This could be a matter for the U.N.
30
Don't be so hard on the bishops. If you were declaring bankruptcy right and left after your protection and coverup of decades of child rape had been exposed, you'd be scrambling to identify a worse "threat to the fabric of society," too!
31
The letter has been out for weeks, it was presented to the faithful (in Maine) before the election. You all can read it: http://ncrnews.org/documents/marriage_di…
I find lines 102-104 fascinating.
"Our pastoral letter presents those beliefs and teaching of the Catholic Church - informed by human reason and enlightened by Divine Revelation - that summarizes and expresses God's plan for marriage."
Got to love "informed by human reason". So, what ever idea they pull out of a hat they can use as long as they can cherry pick a scripture to agree with it? And, the faithful have to march in line. Not me. I've got my own brain, I'll think for myself, thank you.
I find lines 102-104 fascinating.
"Our pastoral letter presents those beliefs and teaching of the Catholic Church - informed by human reason and enlightened by Divine Revelation - that summarizes and expresses God's plan for marriage."
Got to love "informed by human reason". So, what ever idea they pull out of a hat they can use as long as they can cherry pick a scripture to agree with it? And, the faithful have to march in line. Not me. I've got my own brain, I'll think for myself, thank you.
32
Thanks for posting, Dan. This is why I think it's appropriate to call these folks "bigots." From a political standpoint, they go after the gays, and *only* the gays.
36
Dan, first off, let me just say, well done. My compliments to you in your wonderful articulation on the subject.
Secondly, I find it interesting that on Nov 13th the Vatican's chief astronomer has conceded other intelligent beings could exist in outer space - See the ABC News article at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/…
So, what happens if such life is found where they find our treatment of gays and lesbians atrocious and barbaric? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass. And talk about fucked up ideals. Gays and lesbians, bad. Outer space dudes, good.
I, like you, grew up in a very staunch, Irish Catholic family. I used to have a great deal of pride belonging to a religion that hailed Saint Peter as our first Pope. I've visited the Vatican, even seeing Pope John Paul delivering Mass. Sadly though of late, I'm not feeling a whole lot of pride by such actions from a church that my Irish ancestors have been members of for many, many centuries.
Secondly, I find it interesting that on Nov 13th the Vatican's chief astronomer has conceded other intelligent beings could exist in outer space - See the ABC News article at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/…
So, what happens if such life is found where they find our treatment of gays and lesbians atrocious and barbaric? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass. And talk about fucked up ideals. Gays and lesbians, bad. Outer space dudes, good.
I, like you, grew up in a very staunch, Irish Catholic family. I used to have a great deal of pride belonging to a religion that hailed Saint Peter as our first Pope. I've visited the Vatican, even seeing Pope John Paul delivering Mass. Sadly though of late, I'm not feeling a whole lot of pride by such actions from a church that my Irish ancestors have been members of for many, many centuries.
37
Logic and consistency have never exactly been the strong suit of the Roman Catholic Church. (Since the first twelve apostles were men, only men can be priests. And since the first twelve apostles were Jews, only . . . d'oh!)
38
@36 This is hilarious. Apparently, no matter what aliens might exist, we'll still be better than them.
"Every creature reflects the goodness and the creativity of God. Humankind, we certainly would argue that we represent that most fully and most completely," he said.
"But all of creation represents God's creativity. So any extraterrestrial being would certainly represent that creativity as well and may be or may not be more developed than we are."
So we're the most fully representative of the goodness and creativity of god, but aliens may be more developed than we are. So they're better than god? Cool, can't wait til they get here!
"Every creature reflects the goodness and the creativity of God. Humankind, we certainly would argue that we represent that most fully and most completely," he said.
"But all of creation represents God's creativity. So any extraterrestrial being would certainly represent that creativity as well and may be or may not be more developed than we are."
So we're the most fully representative of the goodness and creativity of god, but aliens may be more developed than we are. So they're better than god? Cool, can't wait til they get here!
39
Never forget that marriage is between a man and a woman and her sovereign lord who has the right to forcibly rape her on her wedding night.
Right?
Or are we using a definition of marriage from the 1950s?
Right?
Or are we using a definition of marriage from the 1950s?
40
@ 39,
Not quite. Betty Bowers explains bible based marriage the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
Not quite. Betty Bowers explains bible based marriage the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
41
@38--apparently they never read the first of C. S. Lewis's space trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet. He posits a wholly "unfallen" and ultimately superior alien race.
42
@36:
Sounds like someone's trying to reframe the whole "we're God's chosen peoplez" line again, which is pretty funny given my previous post facetiously pointing out how long it took The Vatican to admit that the sun does not revolve around the earth, a concept based solely on the presupposition that, if mankind was made in God's image, we must therefore be his favorite thing in all creation, making us the center of the universe, and therefore all of the other things he created, being secondary to mankind, must needs revolve around us.
I just hope I live to see the day when we encounter an extraterrestrial species that thinks THEY have been made in God's image - hilarity will no doubt ensue!
Sounds like someone's trying to reframe the whole "we're God's chosen peoplez" line again, which is pretty funny given my previous post facetiously pointing out how long it took The Vatican to admit that the sun does not revolve around the earth, a concept based solely on the presupposition that, if mankind was made in God's image, we must therefore be his favorite thing in all creation, making us the center of the universe, and therefore all of the other things he created, being secondary to mankind, must needs revolve around us.
I just hope I live to see the day when we encounter an extraterrestrial species that thinks THEY have been made in God's image - hilarity will no doubt ensue!
43
I am 100% supportive of gay marriage (and I'm talking the real legal deal, not the everything but "domestic partner" business) but I really do not get why Dan is so very very obsessed with the concept of being able to legally marry his partner when he advocates that they are already just like a married couple....but they see other people too, when they want to. Committing to marriage means you don't fuck around with other people when you or your partner feel like it. That is actually the classic definition of an open relationship and people who are dating are of course always free to pursue that avenue for their relationship. But part of the idea of marriage is that you are committing to being with one person. So it seems like Dan (or any heterosexual who is married and not faithful) is arguing that he wants the benefits of marriage but he's really not committing to marriage. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage, more of an issue with Dan's somewhat hippocritical crusade. Grow up and stay faithful to your partner and kid Dan, then maybe you'll be mature enough to actually get married when it becomes legal.
44
"I don't get it", you are confusing the legal rights that come along with marriage to monogamy. The two can be, and often are, mutually exclusive. One need not be married to be monogamous just as one can be married and not be monogamous. You seem to think that two people cannot be committed to each other, adn want to be with anf for each other for the rest of their lives, but still may want a little action on the side as long as it is OK with the other partner. Personally, I don't see a problem with that no matter what your orientation.
45
43
Cheating on your domestic partner just doesn't have the same thrill as cheating on your spouse.
And it's all about the thrills, baby...
Cheating on your domestic partner just doesn't have the same thrill as cheating on your spouse.
And it's all about the thrills, baby...
46
" Why is love central to our understanding of marriage? "
What are you talking about, Dan?
When you went to get your marriage license did they ask you if you loved the lady?
When you told them you did not love her did the clerk care?
Where in America do you need to show that you are in love to get married?
Love plays no part at all in the civil institution of marriage.
No one guarantees heterosexuals or anyone else that they can marry the person they love.
What are you talking about, Dan?
When you went to get your marriage license did they ask you if you loved the lady?
When you told them you did not love her did the clerk care?
Where in America do you need to show that you are in love to get married?
Love plays no part at all in the civil institution of marriage.
No one guarantees heterosexuals or anyone else that they can marry the person they love.
47
What a lovely bunch of narcissistic perverts!
At least the Catholic Church stands up for long established, positive moral principles. You guys seem to have never met a moral deviation or personal perversion that you didn't like, or weren't willing to embrace.
Society doesn't need to institutionalize "crap" like that.
Keep it to yourself and call it anything you like. Just don't kid yourselves into thinking it has anything to do with what normal people and normal society understand to be marriage.
At least the Catholic Church stands up for long established, positive moral principles. You guys seem to have never met a moral deviation or personal perversion that you didn't like, or weren't willing to embrace.
Society doesn't need to institutionalize "crap" like that.
Keep it to yourself and call it anything you like. Just don't kid yourselves into thinking it has anything to do with what normal people and normal society understand to be marriage.
49
@47, scratch just a little below the surface of all the people you know, and I guarantee you at least 90% of them have a "moral deviation" or "personal perversion".
One reason people become staunchly religious is often because they have these deviations and perversions that they are afraid to face, and so they rigorously cling to their faith in the vain hope that that will rid them of the temptation and drive they feel. They also condemn the "deviations" and "perversions" in others because they feel that if they can get everyone to behave "properly", there will no longer be any deviant or perverse behavior out there to tempt them, and so they will get off the hook that way.
I know that's what I did, and many friends I know, as well. And one only need look at the Youth Pastor Watch or RC clergy scandals to realize it's true.
One reason people become staunchly religious is often because they have these deviations and perversions that they are afraid to face, and so they rigorously cling to their faith in the vain hope that that will rid them of the temptation and drive they feel. They also condemn the "deviations" and "perversions" in others because they feel that if they can get everyone to behave "properly", there will no longer be any deviant or perverse behavior out there to tempt them, and so they will get off the hook that way.
I know that's what I did, and many friends I know, as well. And one only need look at the Youth Pastor Watch or RC clergy scandals to realize it's true.
50
When are people going to realize that the Bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago?! "Divinely inspired"? maybe. God-written? No. People can choose to believe whatever they want, but they need to acknowledge the fact that these "books" in the Bible were written by men. Woman-hating, thumb-up-some-of-their-asses men. God sure as shit doesn't believe in hating people for what they are. Jesus taught that everyone is precious and not to hurt each other. Somehow, those lessons get lost among all the crap that's been spewed in the name of the lord.
51
Some men don't realize that women are the only way this species is going to survive. So far, science has not found a substitute for the human uterus, and only people biologically born with them are able to birth people. Dudes, stand up and pay attention - you need us to reproduce, but we don't need you. Understand that we women will not tolerate being treated like crap and downtrodden anymore. A lot of the same people trying to "get rid of the gays" are also trying to screw over and control women. Come on, ladies! Stand up for your reproductive rights! You don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Prospecting Science by Charles Mudede
-
Google Briefly Acknowledges the Existence of Gay Couples—and Princess/Frog Couples—on Valentine's Day by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (51) RSS