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: 18

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

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 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 by robert mcbean on June 14, 2011 at 7:01pm
Screw history and it's norms.  I'm glad that gay people can finally be able to have free and open relationships.   Biology and/or procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with equality under the law.  Presumably you would also be concerned about straight couple who can't reproduce?  I don't see any Bishop's denying them the right to marry.
Comment by robert mcbean on June 14, 2011 at 7:05pm
Also, I would suggest the word suicide is inappropriate in this context.

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Babies Are Not Born Atheists

Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by archaeopteryx 10 hours ago. 4 Replies

Gideons International

Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 20 hours ago. 3 Replies

Draw Muhhamed day was yesterday Bring out your drawings

Started by ThyPlagueDoctor in Small Talk. Last reply by ThyPlagueDoctor yesterday. 4 Replies

Bible Belt Promiscuity

Started by Dante in Advice. Last reply by Dr. Bob 20 hours ago. 11 Replies

am i the only athiest that believes in spirits

Started by Katie Patterson in Small Talk. Last reply by Emily Mackenzie 3 hours ago. 37 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

The Purpose of Atheism

Posted by Pope Beanie on May 22, 2015 at 8:35pm 0 Comments

Acceptance

Posted by Belle Rose on May 16, 2015 at 4:14am 4 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service