Skip to content

Way to go, WordPress

August 5, 2008

On my WordPress front page right now under the “religion” category is a post entitled “Irish cleric defends sexual slavery.” A better title for it might be, “Irish cleric less backward than most,” or “Irish cleric inches Catholicism one step closer to pulling its head out of the sand.”

I was all ready to leave a fiery comment on it, but then it occurred to me that his blog is his space, and honestly, I don’t particularly want to engage in a flame war with the “Gay Christian Movement WATCH.” (Still, I can’t help but note that the title makes it sound like they enjoy looking at sexy, sexy gay Christians.)

The story, for those of you who don’t care to read it (and I applaud you), is that some Irish cleric said that it’s only a sin to do gay things if you’re straight, since that’s against your nature, but it’s okay for gay people, because that’s just how you were made. Then the author launches into a rant about “sexual slavery.” Of course, he makes no obvious connection between being gay and “sexual slavery,” but anti-gay bigots have a long history of ignoring all logic, so while the complaint is valid, it’s hardly new. My best guess is that he believes gay people are somehow slaves to their sex drives. That’s not any more true than it is for straight people, and having a sex drive is itself also completely natural. You may as well say people are “slaves” to their need for food or human contact – they’re biological drives.

And of course, homosexuality has been documented in a huge number of species throughout the world, and there is absolutely no argument among reasonable scientists as to whether or not it’s natural. (No one suggests the boy fruit fly goes for other males because he was too close to his mother as a larva.)

Check out my favorite part:

Homosexuality isn’t normal for anyone, just as sin isnt normal for anyone. Sin has temporary pleasure and blinds people to its true nature and intent. Sin can feel normal and can be perceived as normal, but such deception is embedded to wit: the ability to feel and appear normal while destroying the person’s soul. What Harper and other gay christian proponents are calling natural orientation is actually sexual slavery ala sin.

Here’s what I love, in order of appearance:

  1. He links to an obviously biased site ( and his own blog for all the evidence he thinks he needs.
  2. He says being gay destroys a person’s soul, when it’s pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look that what actually destroys lives (and souls, if you believe in those) is hatred, which can cause parents to cast out their children and makes strangers yell at me and my boyfriend in the street. And it’s those pressures that put gay teens at such high risk for suicide. (Oh hey, look! A credible source!)
  3. The idea that homosexuality is somehow “sexual slavery.” It sounds like he’s experiencing a bit of Freudian sublimation there, and his secret yearning for sadomasochistic domination is slipping out into his prose.

I’ll ignore the Bible quotes in the post, because they don’t have any connection to the topic (despite what he may have written). I’ll also ignore the rest of his incestuous linking and circular logic, and I don’t care to comment on the Catholic Church, since I’m not Catholic and I think they’re wrong on a number of major issues. (Did you know condoms actually do prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS? Not if you listened to Catholic missionaries!)

What really bothers me is that WordPress gave such, well, press to that post, which is some of the poorest reasoning I’ve seen in a while. I can only pray (joke intended) that the highlights are randomly generated, and someone at the company didn’t actually think that was worth looking at.

Unless they’re trying to get a rise out of people who’ll point out this ridiculous “logic,” in which case, mission accomplished!

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Shep permalink
    August 5, 2008 5:47 pm

    The Irish Cleric’s argument (aye, laddie, with a +2 to all Righteousness skill checks) does sound sort of flimsy, but kudos to him for trying to find an interpretation that falls more in line with reality without sacrificing infallibility.

    A pity the response isn’t more interesting — the best part is easily the bit where he explains how the Bible was used to justify slavery, then concluded that using the Bible to justify homosexuality must be just as wrong. Hey, perhaps using the Bible to justify the subjugation of your fellow humans being is wrong in general? I mean, you’ve already admitted your holy text can be interpreted to justify pretty much anything anyway…

    My guess is that homosexuality actually WAS a problem when the Bible was being written. Tribes probably thrived or died based on their population size, so someone who refused to reproduce was essentially not doing their duty. That’s why Onan was punished for pulling out of his brother’s widow: sexing up your extended family to claim their children as your own is okay, but you can’t waste the precious gift of semen!

    Of course, today, there are too many people as-is, so homosexuals are really helping, not hurting. I vote we update The Sin of Homosexuality to some equivalent, like, The Sin of Having Your Parents Pay Your Way Through College But Then Failing Out in Your Senior Year Because You Couldn’t Find the Motivation to Keep Up with Your Studies.

    My way would let the Christians keep their infallibility, even — what God said was right _at the time_, it’s just that times have changed. Christians get their shrimp and pork (outlawed in Leviticus as well), gays get their guys, everyone wins!

  2. Shep permalink
    August 5, 2008 6:08 pm

    (Erp, just realized my memory of Genesis 38 was off — Onan’s brother and his wife were childless. If Onan had conceived a child with his brother’s widow, the child would have been consider his dead brother’s legitimate heir. Onan apparently found this weird and couldn’t bear to actually impregnate her, so he needed to be punished.

    It’s a good thing marriage laws are _completely_ immutable, eh?)

  3. confessionsofaclosetcase permalink
    August 5, 2008 8:11 pm

    wow, you’re right. this article is full of contradictions. initially, i thought that it is one of those gay christian movements. until they started criticizing homosexuality. and i agree with Shep – that all these rules and regulations belong to the past. right now, we are able to intermarry across races, eat anything and not need to go through the various rituals during worship. times have changed. we should adapt.

    and hahaha, yes, they do sound as if they enjoy looking at sexy, sexy gays.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: