"If homosexuality was the normal way, God would have made Adam and Bruce." ----- ANITA BRYANT
On the whole, going against homosexuality and or anything else for that matter base solely on one own religion is not worth refuting, because in a democratic society, one should not imposing one’s belief onto someone who is not a believer. Religion and politics should never be place together, or else if the Muslims say no one should consume pork, just because it says so in the al-Quran, be it if we are Muslims or otherwise can only keep mum and obey. Is that equitable? Would you comply?
But, denouncing the statement by Anita Bryant above is still a useful way to set an exemplary, for it will shed lights on how ridiculous and overbearing the logic of homophobias are.
It is overbearing, because it forcefully imposes its own faith and belief on to the public and the society; it is ridiculous, because the way it annotate the intrinsic logic of the Bible sink into a point of sheer preposterous.
If homosexuality is erroneous, because instead of “Adam and Bruce”, God created “Adam and Eve”; on the other hand, if God approved of homosexuality, He will create two men, namely “Adam and Bruce”. If this is the case, then incest should be valid, and by condemning homosexuality, we are promoting incest. Based on this logic, if incest is another booboo, God should have not only create “Adam and Eve”, He should create a set of “David and Mary” as well, so to enable the offspring of both family to mate. Since we all know God only created “Adam and Eve”, so the grandchildren of Adam and Eve are no doubt the offspring of the incestuous mating between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. It might have even went as far as Adam and Eve themselves form sexual relationships with their own children.
In accordance to Anita Bryant’s logic, since God never created two sets of family, with only one man and one woman created, and that all men and women came from this set of family, that proves incest is indeed approvable; because if God is against incest and label incest as an act of evil. He should have created at least two sets of couples. But, God never did that, therefore, Incest IS approvable. No?
So, how would you perceive of the conclusion? Will those who condemn homosexuality by the abovementioned logic ready to accept the conclusion inferred out of the logic itself, that is incest is indeed acceptable?
From that we can see how childish and unreasonable are those who use the creationism theory from the Bible to lambaste homosexuals. Sadly, these incongruous theories will never make sense to those who practices blind faith, homophobic and brainless. If you were to learn from me by explaining the whole absurdity with some citations as proofs, those who still has a shred of conscience and has a somewhat healthy mindset would still have a sense of remorse for the way they think, but mark my words, few will bow and apologize to homosexuals nor they will take back whatever homophobic expressions they lashed out.
By the way, Anita Bryant was a beauty pageant; pretty without a brain, coincidence? You be the judge.
On the whole, going against homosexuality and or anything else for that matter base solely on one own religion is not worth refuting, because in a democratic society, one should not imposing one’s belief onto someone who is not a believer. Religion and politics should never be place together, or else if the Muslims say no one should consume pork, just because it says so in the al-Quran, be it if we are Muslims or otherwise can only keep mum and obey. Is that equitable? Would you comply?
But, denouncing the statement by Anita Bryant above is still a useful way to set an exemplary, for it will shed lights on how ridiculous and overbearing the logic of homophobias are.
It is overbearing, because it forcefully imposes its own faith and belief on to the public and the society; it is ridiculous, because the way it annotate the intrinsic logic of the Bible sink into a point of sheer preposterous.
If homosexuality is erroneous, because instead of “Adam and Bruce”, God created “Adam and Eve”; on the other hand, if God approved of homosexuality, He will create two men, namely “Adam and Bruce”. If this is the case, then incest should be valid, and by condemning homosexuality, we are promoting incest. Based on this logic, if incest is another booboo, God should have not only create “Adam and Eve”, He should create a set of “David and Mary” as well, so to enable the offspring of both family to mate. Since we all know God only created “Adam and Eve”, so the grandchildren of Adam and Eve are no doubt the offspring of the incestuous mating between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. It might have even went as far as Adam and Eve themselves form sexual relationships with their own children.
In accordance to Anita Bryant’s logic, since God never created two sets of family, with only one man and one woman created, and that all men and women came from this set of family, that proves incest is indeed approvable; because if God is against incest and label incest as an act of evil. He should have created at least two sets of couples. But, God never did that, therefore, Incest IS approvable. No?
So, how would you perceive of the conclusion? Will those who condemn homosexuality by the abovementioned logic ready to accept the conclusion inferred out of the logic itself, that is incest is indeed acceptable?
From that we can see how childish and unreasonable are those who use the creationism theory from the Bible to lambaste homosexuals. Sadly, these incongruous theories will never make sense to those who practices blind faith, homophobic and brainless. If you were to learn from me by explaining the whole absurdity with some citations as proofs, those who still has a shred of conscience and has a somewhat healthy mindset would still have a sense of remorse for the way they think, but mark my words, few will bow and apologize to homosexuals nor they will take back whatever homophobic expressions they lashed out.
By the way, Anita Bryant was a beauty pageant; pretty without a brain, coincidence? You be the judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment