They resort to throwing pies in the face of their opponents.
Archbishop Leonard of Brussels, Belgium, has been targeted for his stance that AIDS spread through risky sexual behavior, at that a large part of that spread had to do with the homosexual culture of the late 1970s. This is factually true, but he is being assaulted for it.
This is what happens when reason breaks down. For now, it's just pies. He's also had lawsuits thrown at him. In the future, who knows what sort of violence will break out (and be justified as "retributive justice" or payback for past grievances)?
You can read more about the attacks here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What, exactly, is a "homosexual argument"? And how can it throw a pie?
And who is "they"?
Inquiring minds would love to know...
The argument is that it is an ethically, socially, morally, medically, and economically neutral sexual behavior pattern. The "they" (and the pie-chuckers) are the ones who make such ludicrous arguments.
So you actually mean, a rather narrow, particular argument about homosexuality, made by particular individuals, then. In addition, there are literally millions of gay people in the world - and just a couple of Belgian pie-throwers that we know of so far. So you go too far with your headline (even if one assumes that "homosexual" can be used as an adjective for "arguments," which is a stretch).
But of course, what you're saying is still inaccurate. Because of course in large parts of the world, AIDS is found predominantly among heterosexuals. And I don't think you would be claim that heterosexuality is "an ethically, socially, morally, medically, and economically harmful sexual behavior pattern" - which is what you seem to be claiming about homosexuality.
In other words, as far as I can tell you are claiming there's something in homosexuality per se that is harmful - a claim not supported by any facts. At least, none that you've given here.
You're right...the headline is a misnomer. I should have said "when leftist arguments lose" because they then resort to violence (physical, judicial, or otherwise) to accomplish what they fail to do with argument. Thank you for the correction.
I don't remember bringing up AIDS, but since you inject it into the argument... that disease is primarily spread through aberrant sexual behavior (i.e. anything that misses the biblical standard of one man and one woman in lifelong faithful sexual union). Whether through the promiscuity of colonial Africa or the sexcapades of men like Gaetan Dugas (not necessarily him), AIDS is fundamentally a disease of risky sexual behavior. The riskiest sexual behavior is found in the homosexual male population, for a variety of factors (physiological, psychological, and otherwise).
Anal sex is an incredibly risky behavior, just from a purely histological perspective. When it is combined with other risky behaviors (multiple partners, substance abuse, mental illness - all of which have an exceptionally high instance in gay populations), the cocktail is deadly.
You did, of course, bring up AIDS - it's in your second paragraph: "Archbishop Leonard of Brussels, Belgium, has been targeted for his stance that AIDS spread through risky sexual behavior, at that a large part of that spread had to do with the homosexual culture of the late 1970s. This is factually true, but he is being assaulted for it."
It's the whole point of the article you linked, too. So unless you are now making the claim that "homosexuality inexorably leads to pie-throwing" - again not supported by any facts, as I mentioned above - I don't know what else you could be referring to.
I'm fine with the claim that "AIDS is fundamentally a disease of risky sexual behavior." But of course, "risky sexual behavior" is not found only among the homosexual population. And "risky sexual behavior" can be modified and changed - whereas homosexuality, from everything we know so far, cannot.
So I'd think it would be more profitable for the church to stop trying to get around the fact that gay people exist - lots of whom don't engage in "risky sexual behavior" - and start trying to help people who do engage in that behavior - or who are drug-addicted or mentally ill - to find God and thus some peace of soul and sanity in their lives.
I thought that was what the church was for, actually.
So do you propose that we try to help people who are engaged in such risky behaviors by telling them "do it smarter"? Or should we keep saying "stop it" like we have for millenia?
"Smarter"? Is that how you see redemption for yourself? Are you doing things "smarter" because you're a Christian - or is it about something else? If the later - what, exactly?
My question, really, is this: what would you yourself be like, do you think, without the cross? Today is a good day to ask this question, don't you think? What, exactly, would have happened to your life without the redemption of Christ's "one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world"? Mightn't you possibly be engaged in "risky behaviors," too?
I would also suggest that it's problematic to make an equivalence between "the homosexual culture of the late 1970s" (in the main post) and "just-plain-homosexuality," which seems to be what you're referring to in your first comment, in the when you refer to "The [ludicrous] argument [that] is that it is an ethically, socially, morally, medically, and economically neutral sexual behavior pattern."
There is no such equivalence. For one thing: the 1970s were 30 years ago, and things have quite obviously changed. For another: there are also homosexual women, whom you seem to be leaving out of the discussion altogether. For a third: you are still avoiding the fact that most cases of AIDS worldwide are found among heterosexuals. If you said "stop it" to heterosexuals, what would you be referring to, exactly? And why wouldn't the same sort of "stop it" apply to gay people?
Because the fact is that the "stop it" you're referring to here when you're talking about homosexuality means "don't try to find a partner in the world - you can't have one because of the 'behavior patterns' of some men in the 1970s." That certainly couldn't be what you'd be referring to in the case of heterosexuals. You would mean, in that, case: stop being promiscuous and find a partner and be monogamous, because this will save your life and health - and in addition, monogamy is a "type" of the relationship between the soul and God.
So why wouldn't the very same advice apply to gay people? I'd be interested to know, anyway, exactly what you expect gay people to do, once you've told them to "stop it."
The 1970s have ZIP to do with the immorality of the act. It isn't merely dangerous for the body since AIDS. It's always been destructive to the body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:18). The fact is that God has spoken about homosex acts and condemned them (just as he condemned adultery and fornication). Telling people "follow your bliss" lands them in hell. This bishop is doing the right thing by telling people "stop it."
There are no shortcuts to joy. You either follow the path to happiness that Christ and the Apostles handed to us, or you end in misery.
Amen (for both the post and the comments in response) Rev'd. Larimer.
I don't know if anyone has picked this up or not, but there seems to be almost a pathology of arrested development in play that reminds me of the dynamics of a Jr. High School lunch table. This "pieing", "glittering", et al amounts to petulant adolescent behavior.
I'll likely be tarred and feathered in some circles, but we should be asking if homosexuality is a hallmark symptom of severe emotional developmental disorder.
Until recently, it was recognized as that very thing. The Roman Church still categorically discusses homosexual desire as an underdeveloped masculinity. It is severely inward-turned (by its very nature)...and I can think of no time when we are more self-absorbed than in the throws of adolescent narcissism.
Post a Comment