Sunday in Outer Blogness: Pride and Joy Edition!

chanson,

I probably don’t need to tell you that there have been some amazing Gay Pride events recently. Which didn’t go unnoticed by the LDS church. (Sadly, I didn’t get to go — at least not this year.)

On a related note people are analyzing and rethinking their marriages (among other parts of their journey). And in the discussion of why not to save GLBTs from themselves (not all religions do it but the gay/atheist correlation isn’t just a coincidence) — here’s the central conflict:

Without intervention, [Dr. Joseph] Nicolosi said, Stevie had a 75-percent chance of growing up homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.

Whereas with intervention, Stevie can instead grow up with deep-rooted psychological problems and self-loathing, no matter what orientation he has.

Really, the whole doctrine of eternal gender roles is deeply problematic. The problem with modesty/chastity isn’t just the insanity, but rather blaming one person for another’s actions or valuing the human less than the hymen, which leads to reproduction as a punishment. Which, in turn, leads to the question of how this affects families.

Interestingly, this ties in naturally with politics. Ah, that crazy Mormon moment! They have some interesting multicultural issues as well.

Then, there was a small sub-theme of comparative religions, especially invented ones!! I love this video where Muslims use a very familiar argument — exaggerating how ignorant a certain prophet/author must have been in order for his work to be miraculous. (Review this classic for the refutation.)

So, back to listening to God’s favorite musical — have a great week!!!

Homosexuality Sunday in Outer Blogness

Related Posts

Patriarchy, redux

A recent post on a Mormon-themed group blog asked the question What are some of the common themes that emerge in patriarchal societies? It then compared these societies with Mormonism. There were a number of parallels. To me, the most interesting aspect of this article was what it didn’t mention….

Read More

Comments (6)

  4. p.s. let me just re-quote the most relevant passage:

    Theres this dynamic that ensures that really flattering biographies of religious figures can only be written by atheists or non-believers. Specifically, to the extent that the religious figure accomplished amazing things, the atheist will attribute them to the figure. The believer will attribute them to God, and will posit weaknesses in the figure to make the accomplishments even more miraculous. The irony here is that believing readers will actually be offended by the complimentary view of the atheist, because the believing reader sees only the unwillingness to connect the figures accomplishments with the divine. The believing reader will frequently prefer the account that runs down the religious figure, because insulting the religious figure emphasizes the role of the divine. We see this dynamic at work with Brodie and Bushman. Brodies Joseph is a great man. Bushmans Joseph is basically neutered. Yet most Mormons prefer Bushmans Joseph, still taking offense at Brodies highly complimentary portrayal.

    Reply

  6. DKL — no problem! The piece was again relevant because of that new video which illustrates exactly what you described.

    Here’s one exchange from the video:

    PZ Myers: I’m just kind of surprised that your argument rests on the fact– you’re arguing that Arabs were ignorant nomads who knew nothing at all.

    Islamic Education and Research Academy: Yes, this is exactly– this is what we say, yes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *