Skip to main content

Homosexuality vs Religion: A false dichotomy

All too often, the debate concerning homosexuality (homosexual orientation, homosexual behavior, gay marriage, etc) is seen as that of being religion vs homosexuality.  This is in fact a false dichotomy.  Yes, there are several major religions who have waged war on homosexuality for some time now.  However, in many cases this is a one-way battle: there are gay people who are not only unwilling to fight against religion, but in fact are very religious themselves.  There are many churches now that are "gay-friendly" churches, who openly accept gay people.  (And I don't mean in the way the LDS church "accepts" gay people, which is that they accept them but tell them they need to refrain from homosexual conduct.  I mean, they allow gay people to be themselves--to have relationships and express love.)  There are also churches which market to gay people, that have gay clergy and preach gay sermons.

Why is this significant?  There are altogether too many people who believe that homosexual people have no morals, are unrepentant sinners, and don't feel any desire to be close to God.  This is simply not true.  While some gay people do feel that way, not all gay people do.  Just like straight people, there are gays who like religion and there are gays that are also atheists.

Another reason this is significant is because one of the arguments used to fight against civil rights for gay people is that of religious freedom.  Churches, such as the LDS church, claim that their religious freedoms are being violated when society accepts homosexuals and homosexuality.  They also make the extremely false claim that if gay marriage was legalized then all churches would be required to perform them.  At any rate, the point is that these churches do not speak for all churches in America.  While there are several large churches who oppose gay marriage, there are also churches that wish to be able to perform gay marriages in their church.  Therefore, banning gay marriage infringes on the religious rights of these churches.  So, the people who are claiming to fight for religious freedom are in fact merely oppressing it.

I do not wish to belong to any particular religion, since I do not believe any of them are correct.  However, I have no ire toward religion.  I have no motive to call for a nation-wide ban on religion (as some churches have called for in regards to gay marriage).  I do not feel as though I am at odds with religion in general or with any particular religion.  I feel perfectly comfortable co-existing with religious people.  And the main point is that there are religions who fully embrace homosexuality and there are homosexuals that fully embrace religion.  So, I don't think the debate on gay rights should be about "religion vs homosexuality".  Let's get down to the real issue at hand.

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Cancel the gym

After I went to the gym this morning, I pulled in to the McDonald's drive through.  While waiting for my food, I played out in my mind a possible conversation I might have with someone concerning just this.  In fact, I have had many real conversations of similar nature.
"How was your morning?"
"It was good.  I went to the gym.  Then I grabbed a late breakfast at McDonald's on my way to work."
"Won't that cancel out?"
"Cancel what?"
"Going to McDonald's after the gym.  Won't that undo all the work you just did?"

I understand the humor.  I laugh about it.  It's funny.  And I think humor is an important thing, and that we should all laugh a little bit more and be offended a little bit less.  And so I write this not up-in-arms, but in the attempts of perhaps reaching some of those who literally believe this line of reasoning.

To the person who asserts that eating "cancels out" going to the gym, I ask just this…