Minnesota Archbishop: Opposing Marriage Equality Is Not Anti-GayMinnesota Archbishop: Opposing Marriage Equality Is Not Anti-Gay

Via ThinkProgress:

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt: “The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, support this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but rather for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral.”



(Original news item.)

Lets assume for a second that the Archbishop's homophobia is not born of prejudicial or political reasons (which no intelligent person would believe for a second). That leaves his pseudo-humanist argument that it's about theology biology, and pastoral authority or care.

Theology isn't a useful factor here because there are many different theologies. Some theologies actually acknowledge the whole person and accept gay people as equal and normal. Shock! Aside from that theology is a useless guideline for public policy.

Biology has no relevance to gay marriage, or the legalization of it. The Archbishop still thinks he lives in a world where his distortions of modern science are actually relevant to society at large.

That leaves us with Pastoral authority or care. This only applies to Catholics. Leave the rest of us and public policy out of it.

(Shakes angry atheist fist up to sky)

 

Reposted from Five of Five

 

Views: 11

Tags: Gay, Marriage, catholic, constitutionalism, homophobia, lgbt, marriage, minnesota, religion

Comment by kris feenstra on June 14, 2011 at 5:09pm

"Biology has no relevance to gay marriage, or the legalization of it."

 

I am sure I read somewhere that gays produce an enzyme called homosexualase.  This enzyme actually converts heterocytes into homocytes, and as we all know, heterocytes are necessary for the formation of marriagine in R-BCCs (red-blooded conservative cells).  I'm all for equal rights, but there's no arguing with science.

Comment by Arcus on June 14, 2011 at 5:40pm

"Biology has no relevance to gay marriage, or the legalization of it."

That's a bit silly, of course it does. Homosexuality is biological (genetically speaking) suicide. An increasing number of gay people thus is a sign that the population is reaching its maximal potential, and male sexuality becomes subdued to the point of self imposed reprocreational annihilation.

That said, of course it should be legal - even encouraged. I just don't see how this can be made into an argument in favor of gay people being religious enough to marry. (Note that my opposition to marriage stems from any couple getting maried, gay or straight.)

Comment by kris feenstra on June 14, 2011 at 6:05pm

An increasing number of gay people thus is a sign that the population is reaching its maximal potential, and male sexuality becomes subdued to the point of self imposed reprocreational annihilation.

 

My understanding is that most such hypotheses are not well supported thus far, though some researchers maintain that position.  I'm also not aware of any solid data that clearly there has been an increase in homosexual orientation, though perhaps there is some data to suggest an increase in homosexual behaviour or individuals who openly identify as homosexual.  

 

Besides, marriage is a social contract that has had a weakening connection to reproduction for quite some time now.  Even if reproduction was the basis for making the connection of biology and marriage, we'd have to factor in homosexuals that choose to sexually reproduce through various arrangements, heterosexuals that choose not to reproduce, heterosexuals and homosexuals that are incapable of reproducing also including variations on gender phenotypes such as androgen insensitivity syndrome.

 

All I'm saying is, I don't think our present understanding of biology makes a very strong statement here beyond speculation.

Comment by Steve on June 14, 2011 at 6:11pm

Homosexuality isn't suicide for a population as evidenced by the hundreds of animals species in which it occurs, yet which somehow survived. That's because the percentage of gay people has remained pretty constant throughout history.

 

Also, the vast majority of gay offspring come from straight parents, not gay ones. So it's not a trait that is increased in frequency simply by gay people procreating.

Comment by Arcus on June 14, 2011 at 6:24pm

"we'd have to factor in homosexuals that choose to sexually reproduce through various arrangements"

I do not disagree, but that's not 'pure' homosexuality. As for homosexuality as part of a sexual buffet which also include cross-gender sexuality, it merely serves to expand horizons. However, pure homosexuality does not exactly need scientist confirmation to conclude that it is reprocreationally considered suicide.

@Steve: I was not considering population (for which homosexuality makes perfect sense), but individual survival probability. For homosexuals this probability is zero without the aid of modern science. (A far-fetched case for adoption could also possible be made).

Comment by Steve on June 14, 2011 at 6:31pm
You don't make the slightest bit of sense. Gay people are "produced" by straight people, so there is an infinite supply of new gays. There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but it's not a simple gene or allele that gets passed down the line like certain clearly identified mutations. There is even a theory that it's related to hormone exposure in the womb.
Comment by Arcus on June 14, 2011 at 6:36pm

Homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, just like those born sterile. They are an evolutionary dead end which will disappear from nature at their death. That is my only argument.

How can that not make sense?

Comment by Kirsten on June 14, 2011 at 6:50pm
Homosexuality refers to your preference of gender in partner selection, not your ability to reproduce.

The fact that is inhibited reproduction is a side effect which, as was pointed out, is no longer the necessary case. This is very important; humanity has been using technology to get ahead for about 2.5 million year, possibly longer. It is a valid strategy within our species.

As such, any cases against gay marriage based on the already pathetic clause of non-reproduction are no longer truly valid.

Goodness knows, it's not as though the Earth is lacking in human life forms... I'd personally prefer if every square mile wasn't covered in human buildings and farms and things. Give me lots of space with nary a person around and I shall be happiest by far.

The Catholic Church... I can't even describe...
Comment by Steve on June 14, 2011 at 6:55pm

You don't even need to bring up technology. Gay people producing naturally has been the norm throughout human history until very recently. Society forced most them into opposite-sex relationships and they had children.

 

It's still not possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce with each other, i.e. each one contributing genetic material. So usually you have half the chromosomes coming from someone who is straight.

Comment by Steve on June 14, 2011 at 6:57pm
Btw, one can make the argument that it's advantageous for a population to have "spare" couples around to adopt children that lose their parents for one reason or another. Evolution doesn't mean everyone popping out as many babies as possible.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service