After posting about some openly racist McCain supporters from--sadly, as it is a state in which I lived for eight years and happened to like, by and large, particularly since it's the state where my wife hails from--Ohio, I hadn't planned on doing more posts like this. But a theme emerges, and I decided that this would make a good intermittent series: People with views that shouldn't still be prevalent in 2008, but are. For example:
The homosexual agenda wants people to think that homosexual men are safe for women to hang around and even be alone with. Nothing could be further from the truth. The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men. I've also known of people personally over the years who were known as gay yet "experimented" with the opposite sex. The term bisexual is an unnecessary distinction, because a faggot wants to defile anyone or anything he can get his hands on.
A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.
PZ and Greg, among others, have already picked up on this, which is why I hadn't originally planned on linking to it, either. However, after I saw it, it occurred to me that it's just perfect as a continuation of the theme of "I can't believe people like this still exist." This homeschooling blogger, Raani Starnes, really does believe that homosexuality is evil and that the Biblical punishment for homosexuals is entirely appropriate because it's "in the Bible." Although Raani appears to have unpublished the comments the all powerful Google cache reveals this gem:
Homosexuality is not a part of our sin nature. A normal person could be tempted to commit adultery and even murder but would not be tempted by homosexuality. You can say what you want, but there is no story in the Bible about a homosexual getting saved and going to Heaven. I think Sodomites have already blasphemed the Holy Spirit by changing "the truth of God into a lie". See Revelation 22:19 and Romans 1:25
Clearly, Raani is a product of a different century: the first century A.D., actually (where she would fit right in), and I can't believe that people like Raani still exist in 2008.
Hmmm. I might have to broaden the scope of this feature. After all, there are many sorts of bizarre beliefs, many not even religious in nature, that I have a hard time believing can still exist in 2008, and the blogosphere gives them free rein to demonstrate their lack of compatibility with the 21st century. Why should fundies have all the fun getting a taste of not-so-Respectful Insolence?
ADDENDUM: Raani appears to have some shame after all. She took down the post. However, the all powerful Google cache knows all, at least for as long as the cache sticks around and for as long as my blog exists:
When I was in the process of moving and did not have internet access, I often visited a local library to check my e-mail and look at real estate listings. This particular library was in a small town and seemed to be a popular after school hangout for teenagers. One day as I was surfing the net, I couldn't help but overhear a conversation that was going on across the table from me. An openly gay teenage boy who was surrounded by female "friends" was talking about how he had recently had a relationship with a girl. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the girl's parents. Not only was their daughter sexually active, but she had engaged in some very high risk behavior by sleeping with a gay male.
Yes, I've seen the previews for Will and Grace where they're lying next to each other in bed platonically. Isn't that cute? The homosexual agenda wants people to think that homosexual men are safe for women to hang around and even be alone with. Nothing could be further from the truth. The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men. I've also known of people personally over the years who were known as gay yet "experimented" with the opposite sex. The term bisexual is an unnecessary distinction, because a faggot wants to defile anyone or anything he can get his hands on.
A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.
And, later, here's Raani in a comment:
I chose not to post the many negative comments I received, but here is my reply to all those that were angered by my post:
In the Old Testament, God commanded that Sodomites be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV). Throughout the Old Testament we read about good kings who removed the Sodomites out of the land and bad kings who did not. The New Testament teaches that homosexuals have been turned over to a reprobate mind.(Romans 1, etc.) It's sad that they did not get saved while they still could, but unfortunately it is too late for them. Did you know that God actually hates some people? The Bible says God hated Esau. Try reading the Bible from cover to cover and maybe you will better understand God's holiness.
Since there is no hope for gays, we would be better off without them. They are recruiters and not reproducers so the safest solution would be the death penalty.
Some commented that only God avenges, but human beings have been commanded to enforce the death penalty throughout the Bible. The United States does not adhere to many of the laws that the children of Israel lived by, but since they are God's laws, we know that they are the ideal. Like I said, I don't advocate vigilantism, and we have to obey "the powers that be" in our imperfect society.
The purpose of my post was simply to warn parents of the dangers of sending their kids to public schools where homosexuality runs rampant.
For more Scripture references to help you with your study of this subject, visit this website:
No doubt Raani will think the bloggers who have taken her to task for posting the above are all being so very, very mean to her and that we're such horrific sinners that we're utterly beyond redemption, but her views are so abhorrent that the light of day should be shone upon them, so that she scuttles back from whatever rock she crawled out from under.
The sheer ignorance of such a remark! The term bisexual is necessary to distinguish such individuals from trisexuals.
Orac,
It makes you wonder if her spitefulness and vitriol is because of such a fanatical belief in christianity or if she has closet homosexual tendencies. Quite often, such hatred is thrown at homosexuals because the person is trying to hide their own homosexuality.
For a moment there I wondered if you were quoting John Best.
1st century is a bit far in the past, though. Up until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder. By about the 1950s, the view that homosexuality was a disease as opposed to a sin was considered progressive.
I particularly like the part where she uses the Bible as the indispensible and irrefutable source for unbiased description of how gay men behave. ("The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men.")
I'm not surprised, of course; people like this take the Bible and the indispensible and irrefutable source for all information--except when it conflicts with their own lifestyle (digging a hole with a paddle to bury bodily wastes, anyone?)
These people = societal EPIC FAIL.
HOLY CRAPOLA! I read the other entries on her site, and she's just batshit insane! Birth control is murder? Quiverfulls? I don't even want to guess how she teaches "science" to her kids.
I grew up in the Bible Belt of California, and most of my friends are regular God-fearing, church-going people. But jeeeeebus! That just takes the cake!
Shame...or a warning from Google? I'm sure I'm not the only one who, after reading that post, felt the urge to click on "flag this post". The Blogger TOS doesn't allow hate speech...
I gleefully look forward to some Respectful Insolence being applied to http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ Perhaps more my speciality than Orac's (as a physicist with a secondary degree in astronomy), but an extremely target-rich environment.
I don't understand why these people who claim to be christians always quote the old testament to justify their hate tirades. I thought that the whole point was that Jesus (who ever he was!) left the prejudices of the old testament behind him for a new understanding of the world based on forgiveness?
This homeschooling blogger, Raani Starnes...
Just an fyi, not all homeschoolers are created equal. Some of us actually choose to edumacate our kids at home for reasons other than protecting them from "teh gays" and those godless heathens out there.
Other than that, good post.
I couldn't help digging a little deeper into her blog and I found this:
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/06/did-man-walk-on-moon.h…
Maybe there is an astronomy tie-in after all.
She's also disabled comments. Love how they can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Ian - the Pharyngulites descended upon her in droves and flagged her blog repeatedly.
Warning from Google is highly likely. Someone on Pharyngula pointed out the "flag this post" button and PZ's readers went to town on it.
Doesn't she even know that the 'Sodomites' in the Bible were people from a given city e.g. Sodom: men, women and children? OK, so they may have had interesting sexual customs, but the connection with modern-day homosexuals is tenuous.
Somehow when the subject comes around to reviving ancient customs, the old-fashioned Roman ones of using Christians as Tiki torches never seems to occur to them.
Welllll....
...at least she's consistent. A bit. There are an awful lot of Christians who just ignore vast swathes of their bible - which is apparently the word of god his own self. What I don't understand is people who apparently beleive this here is the word of god himself, and just figure he was joking or something.
God says the punishment for homosexuality (at least, male homosexuality) is death. Same same polycotton and eating lobster. People who follow such rules are dangerous nuts, but at least they're doing what their nutty god tells them. If you're a real Christian, you have to kill gay people. Says so right there.
What I really don't get is folk who still want their cake after they've eaten it. "This is totally the word of god, and I'm going to heaven. Pass the lobster." Great that they've come around to the conclusion that other people being gay is none of their damn business. Great for those Christians who treat gay people the same as everyone, and who speak out against bigotted nuts. And great for gay Christians who can come out more and more nowadays without necessarily being murdered by their loved ones straight away.
...but when do people make the leap that, if this god does exist, he's a bigotted nong? How do you reconcile your god's very clear instruction to kill people for doing something that you, personally, think is perfectly ok? Isn't that god, if he exists, more worthy of resistance than worship? Sorry god, you're an idiot. See ya.
The more people who show that following the bible makes you batshit insane, the better.
Aside from all the obvious ignorance of the whole thing, does anybody think the line "The homosexual agenda wants people to think that homosexual men are safe for women to hang around and even be alone with." implies a decidedly old testament/puritanical view of women in that it is not safe for a woman to be alone with a man?
Orac sez:
You really need to get out and mingle with hoi-polloi more often. Where do you think the woo believers come from? You won't here this very often among the overly educated, but its out there.
I wonder how she feels about classic Old Testament marriage. After all, polygamy did appear to be the norm if I'm reading the text correctly.
Hey, if a man has multiple wives, technically aren't the wives also married to each other? Wow, the bible advocates same sex marriage.
One thing that struck me from the comments is that I think she might be committing a type of heresy. Now I'm no expert on Christian theology (not even a member of the club), but when she says that homosexuals cannot be saved, I have to think that she has no ground to stand on, at least from what I understand of Christianity.
@ Trin Tragula: ROFL =gasp= MAO!!!1! =wiping away tears= I almost couldn't read the rest of the thread..........
Wow, ad hominem FTL.
But there is no story in the Bible about penguins.
But there is no story in the Bible about blue jeans.
But there is no story in the Bible about Sweden.
A deep faith in religion is an excellent way to enhance one's ability to countenance atrocities, like bombing high schools (as long as, you know, there are queers there, because the so deserve to die). Of course, Raani is too sweet and Christ-like a person to toss bombs herself, but she wouldn't mind too terribly if someone else were to act as God's sword of vengeance.
I would mock her even more viciously if I were not aware that she shares tendencies with people in my own family, although at least my relatives have the saving grace of not wishing destruction upon gay members of the family. (They're not even particularly uncomfortable around them anymore, and my cousin used to bring his boyfriend with him [before the breakup] to holiday celebrations. I guess they were accepted because they were "nice guys" and not like "most" gay people, who are evidently disgusting.) In Raani's case, however, she pointed out that they shunned their own gay relative, probably to reduce the possibility of contamination from gay cooties. She really is a stupid, toxic bigot of minimal value to civilization (unless, that is, her driver's license identifies her as an organ donor).
On the other hand, I heard this morning about one of my kids' close friends who may well have gotten to the total breach point with his parents.
And, no, nym aside I'm not Kidding.
This is a person who really needs to read her Bible, starting with Matthew 22:39.
I can't believe there are still people like this either. Good title.
i love how the bible thumpers tend to overlook certain passages in the book they tout as the word of their god.
here are some examples that they ignore regarding the supposed ancestor of jesus, king david. it appears david and jonathan, the son of saul had a thing going. considering that david is married to jonathan's sister, michel, and later has at least ten concubines i guess that would make him bisexual.
samual 18:1-5
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
samuel 20:3-5
3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.
4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, Num. 28.11 and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.
samuel 20:41-42
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
how much more homosexual evidence on one of the favoured of the christian god is needed?
there is no story in the Bible about a homosexual getting saved and going to Heaven.
Excuse me? How about Jesus? You can't tell me he and Judas didn't have a close relationship. So close that he trusted Judas to implement his preordained suicide...or do I have a warped view of the new testament story?
I can't wait for the day all this woman's children come out to her (from safely far away).
Hey, I read the Bible cover to cover, and I do believe it contains the word of God, but I am not a Biblical literalist. Some would accuse me of cherry-picking the bits I like, but the truth is that I'm well aware that humans have had tremendous influence on the content of the Bible. God's Word is told through the lens of ancient cultures, and it can be difficult to tease out what God was trying to say when it's filtered through ancient social strictures. God told His people certain things; they then relayed those things through their own social and cultural context. Add in the fact that God has a tendency to speak in metaphors (well, Jesus certainly did), and that the ancient Jewish religious authorities spent a lot of effort codifying their law and using the Torah to do it, and there is a lot of potential for confusion.
But it's not difficult to sort out. The magnifying glass for understanding the rest of the Bible is the Gospels. I do not understand why so many fundamentalists have it bass-ackwards, and interpret the Gospels through the lens of ancient Mosaic law. Jesus himself violated Mosaic law (which is part of what got him in so much trouble with the authorities -- fundies don't like someone questioning the rules). And he consorted freely with people who, according to ancient law, were condemned.
I cannot imagine that *anyone* is barred admittance to Heaven. It is the height of arrogance to suggest otherwise. Maybe God does refuse certain people; I don't know, and it is not my place to say. Jesus was pretty clear in his teachings, that we are to treat our neighbors (which means *everybody*, even the utterly despicable people like lepers and ethnic traitors like tax collectors) as if they are Christ themselves. "Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me." If we condemn homosexuals, we are condemning Christ. Food for thought.....
If you have to use your own conscience to tease out which bits of the bible to follow, and which bits to avoid as abhorrent... then what's the point of the bible? You have a conscience, and your society informs your morality far more than an ancient book, so cut out the middle man. Spend your life being good, and trying to work out what that means - and you can still get lessons from that book without believing that gods and monsters actually exist.
"If we condemn homosexuals, we are condemning Christ."
And yet Leviticus is pretty clear on it. No metaphor in there - gay men must die. So the bible is, as you say, condemning Christ...
Where does that leave you as a Christian?
I can believe that people like that exist.
I don't like even admitting they're the same species I am, but I believe they exist. I see them as illustrations of the Universe's intermittent drinking problem. Conjoined twins and coconut crabs are examples of what happens when the Universe goes on a bender; biblical literalists and animal-rights terrorists are examples of what happens when the Universe gets the DT's.
Leviticus mentions several things that are "abominations", a list including pork, shellfish, and blended fabrics. If homosexuality were really as important as some many say it is, why isn't it in the "ten words"?
Also, Paul wrote the whole letter to the Galatians in annoyance about early Christians who thought they had to obey Hebrew ceremonial laws. To give you an idea of his opinion, in every other letter, he speaks words of thanks about the local church's faith. There, he spoke words of astonishment at their abandonment of their faith. This is made more startling when one realizes that Paul was a devout Jew himself. Some of his comments I'm not sure I can print here.
Of course, Galatians is also noted for having somewhat inconsistent recollections of Paul's experiences.
i think she needs to view this episode of the west wing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPkSzJzfGKs
Actually, Gray Falcon, according to the Jewish historians that I've read, it's unlikely that Paul was as Jewish as he claimed to be. He apparently had a pretty weak grasp of Jewish theology and was perhaps a pagan-raised wannabe-Jew who had failed rabbinical classes.
The preacher in the youtube video that's on her front page right now, doesn't his shirt look like a cotton/polyester blend?
One of the reasons people like Raani home school, is to make sure the kids have the same beliefs and values that the parents have. So another generation is down the toilet and in 20 years you will be writing that you are surprized these views are still prevalent in 2028. What would be funny is that all of her children turn out gay. What is she going to do stone them?
Hank -
I think we'd better stone him to death just to be on the safe side. If we turn out wrong he gets to go to heaven anyway, so it's a win-win situation.
Hey, Orac -- these stories are O/T, but they're in your bailiwick and should make you feel a bit better about the world:
1) ABC News busts several autism myths -- taking dead aim at the "curable" myth.
2) Vaccines don't cause autism. Period.
Hurry up and put some pro-science remarks in the comments section before the antivaxers fill them up with nonsense!
Magpie:
Why *not* use my conscience? But that's not the point. I feel that to really understand the Bible, one has to understand the context in which it was written. There is far more to print than merely the language -- there are cultural cues which writers exploit all the time in order to get their point across, so if you read the Bible purely looking for literal definitions, you're going to be misled. And that's the trap that I think a lot of fundamentalists fall into.
One important thing in the Bible is that Jesus specifically spoke against a lot of things which the fundamentalists of the day held to be absolute truth, because they were based on Scripture. If Jesus was pointing out that his contemporaries had misinterpreted the word of God, surely there's nothing wrong with me also concluding that those who committed the Old Testament books to paper may have misinterpreted things, putting the focus in all the wrong places? The Bible contains the Word of God -- but written down by people, and people are fallible and prone to injecting their own thoughts (consciously or otherwise). The only way to tease the truth out of ancient texts is to read them critically, rather than uncritically as this woman seems to have done -- and to look at thing as a whole rather than just passages in isolation. There's often a much larger point being made, and as I read it, the point is generally that if you want to be saved on your own merits, you have to live up to this impossible standard. On one level, she's right -- gay people can not get into Heaven by their own merits. But neither can she. No one is without sin, and you'd have to be sinless to get to Heaven entirely on your own merits. That's the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice -- to let us know that it doesn't matter, God loves us regardless, and we can trust in that love to get us to Heaven (whatever "going to Heaven" really means; I have a hunch it's nothing like the usual cliched images). Personally, I don't think you even have to be "officially" Christian to be saved, because that would contradict the premise that he gave his life for all people.
I always find it tragically ironic when Christians espouse hatred and judgment against others, because that was precisely the sort of thing Jesus railed against two thousand years ago. Whether he was really the son of God or not, one has to admit had made some very good points about the hopelessness of judgmentalism. His contemporaries believed that you were unworthy if you committed various sins, and that disease was divine punishment. Jesus pointed out how messed up that was by healing the sick, and by hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors. (The tax collectors of the day were basically thugs who extorted money from their countrymen on behalf of Rome, and kept any extra they collected. Not nice people.)
So why do so many Christians judge others as unworthy? We all do it; I suppose it's a very human thing. We are, after all, social animals, and we've evolved an ability to organize ourselves into a social hierarchy. It's probably the downside of that ability that we sometimes apply it far too energetically. But I wish Christians would at least not do it in the name of God. It is not our place to judge people's faith, or God's love for them.
Certainly if God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said "Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole " . . . as with a woman" thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28 ) for "leaving their natural relations" (i.e.... as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex
" . . . as with a woman" would be like.
"Homosexual" was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. ( The King James version is honest.) It premiered in a 1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.
As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.
Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the "sinner"? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? (Jesus didn't.) These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law.
It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.
We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father's loving will.
What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn't Christians be telling those "sinful" homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.
Frederick:
It's all very well going on about god and jesus and hell and whatnot, but you do realise that non of those things actually exist, right?
The old post is down, but she put up a new one. Kinda seems to me that it was Blogspot that was shamed rather than the author. Wonder if the new post will stick around?
I may have this wrong (haven't been a Christian for a long time), but I believe the death of Jesus freed his followers (i.e. Christians) from following the old Jewish laws. Thus the laws of Leviticus don't apply to Christians, including the prohibition on homosexuality.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, Andrew. ;-) Just take what he said as an another perspective on interpreting Christian Scripture within the context of Christianity.
I was an English major, so even if I wasn't a Christian, I would not be troubled by what he wrote -- he's interpreting the text within the text's context, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can do the same thing with any religion's scripture, and with book which anyone would agree is fiction, such as "Lord of the Rings". So don't get upset just because he believes in God and you don't.
(BTW, it's worth mentioning that Frederick didn't bring up hell at all in his post, so he's not going on about that at all.)
Basically, we Christians can object to this lady's hateful statements against gays on one level, and atheists can object to her on another level. The one thing I think you and I can agree on is that her attitude towards gays is repulsive, and should be spoken against.
You are correct, Natalie. "This cup is a new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sins." The "new covenant" means that it replaces the old covenant between God and the Hebrews, which was codified in Mosaic law*.
Most Christians thus feel that the single most important ritual is Holy Communion, which is a symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper. Most don't quite grasp all of the symbolism in it, though. Jews may pick up on it, though. You see, the Last Supper was a Passover feast, and traditionally, one extra place is laid for Moses, in case he returns, complete with a cup of wine. Nobody drinks that cup of wine. That's the cup that Jesus picked up, so whether you're a Christian or not, you can see that he was really sending quite a potent message to his disciples that night.
*This greatly contributed to early adoption of Christianity among Gentiles because it meant the guys didn't have to endure one specific part of the Jewish custom which had long been a barrier to joining what was at the time the dominant religious practice of the region: circumcision. ;-)
The kind of thinking Raani displays is not unique to fundies. I saw a well-reviewed french movie that laid out *exactly* what Raani says, without a speck of biblical reference.
The movie was Irréversible: see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/
Quote from my blog post on Irréversible:
http://www.alisoncummins.com/2003/10/03/movies-breaking-the-monotony/
"It's notorious for its brutal, nine-minute rape/murder scene. Mark had warned me in advance so I kept my eyes closed for that bit, but the soundtrack was pretty gruesome all by itself. Overall what I noticed about the movie was its sophomoric frat-boy obsession with anal sex, and its mysterious (to me) equation of anal sex with sadism. The person who embodied evil was nicknamed La Tenia (tapeworm); he was a gay man who hung out in a gay bath house called Le Rectum; he was a top (sexually dominant in anal sex); which meant, quite naturally in the world of the film, that he was essentially a sadistic rapist; and his essential identity as a sadistic rapist meant that he was a danger to all women everywhere."
Note that the movie rates 7.3/10 stars on imdb.com, and 3.5/5 on the New York Times site http://tinyurl.com/625zvf. Note that while the NYT review was not particularly positive, it did not identify any inconsistency in the portrayal of gay men as rapists of women.
I thought it was totally bizarre. But apparently it's so totally mainstream that nobody notices.
Wow some people are just sick. It blows my mind.
Hi there Orac,
I left a comment here earlier this morning but it was riddled with urls so it's probably hung up in your spam filter.
It's not spam -- promise.
That sounds like a very bizarre and uncomfortable movie to watch. As a French film, I wonder if was inspired at all by the old Grand Guignol tradition?
But you are correct that one doesn't have to be a fundie to feel this way. This woman merely presents a fundie justification for rank hatred of gays.
I agree with JoshS about the Bonne Belle lip gloss. That stuff is like crack. You try that shizzle, and you can never go back to Chapstick.
So, where is this "flog post for removal" button, so that I may flag newly posted tripe on crazy woman's blog.
I know she had a post about cooking with shrimp, so she's being baughty in God's sight.
btw, why do you suppose there's a kosher rule against lbended fabrics? Pork and shgellfish I can figure out, but what's up with the textiles?
Rogue Epidemiologist: God loves chafing.
That crazy lady wrote on her latest bit: "Little girls should also not be left alone with a man outside their immediate family because they are not immune to being victimized by a Sodomite. Molestation can irreparably damage young children, so it is our responsibility to keep our children safe from such danger."
Ignoring that many children are not molested by strangers, but by their own relatives. "In almost half of the the child molestation cases, the child was the convicted sex offender's son, daughter, or relative."... from http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/ (found through Google, I am sure there are better sources out there).
It's been a while since I read the thing, but I'm pretty sure there's also no story in the Bible about Catholics or Protestants getting saved and going to Heaven. Wow, it'll be crowded in hell.
HCN -- and of the remaining half of child molestation cases, most are a non-relative whom the child knows and respects (teacher, priest, pastor, music director, physician, babysitter, next-door neighbor, parent's significant other, etc). Stranger rape, whether of an adult or a child, is actually fairly uncommon.
Yes, Calli Arcale, that is very true. Homosexual is NOT synonymous with pedophile.
By the way, I have been thinking of all the truly lovely people I know that this woman hates just because of their sexual orientation. From my neighbor who I talked gardening with (and shared equipment, supplies and plants), to a college lab partner and the a pair of marching band parents... these are people I who I would much rather hang out with than someone who could be as nasty as that particular homeschooler (who also gives homeschoolers a bad name, I know some very good homeschooling parents including my oldest son's last speech therapist!).
Calli Arcale, I know.
I had a longer answer but it is caught in a spam trap. It did not contain any URLs, but I must have used a word it looks for. I did say (in different words) that a person's sexual orientation is not the same as a person who molests children, and that I would rather hang out with the people the blogger in question vilifies than her. Hatefulness is just not a good vibe to be around.
I'm sorry, I didn't meant to imply you didn't know that; I was just adding to what you'd said for the benefit of others. It is indeed sad that this woman had so much hate for people that she has never even met. Her hate is so strong that I don't think it would ever allow her to see an actual gay person fairly. I've known a few homosexuals and bisexuals through the years, and they've all been decent, ordinary folks. I'm sure there are homosexual jerks; they probably have a similar ratio of jerk/non-jerk as heterosexuals do.