Exodus President Alan Chambers Claims Satan Using Gay People to Further His Agenda to “Destroy the Kingdom of God”
[bold] Can you imagine a world where ministries like Exodus International were illegal? [/bold] There is a move not only to silence the voices of the redeemed but to eliminate the redemption. At the core of it all, this isn’t a battle about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it is a battle between good and evil. One of the many evils this world has to offer is the sin of homosexuality. Satan, the enemy is using people to further his agenda to destroy the Kingdom of God and as many souls as he can.
Our job is simple: [underline] wage war against the Kingdom of Darkness and save souls. [/underline]
-Alan Chambers, Exodus “Impact” newsletter October 2005, Volume 3 – Issue 10
I wish I could post the full text of Chambers’ article or a readable copy of the newsletter but even when you’re working for Satan you’re still bound to fair-use excerpts.
Re: “It seems to me that many posters on this board do not accept the non-religious point of view as it is often seen as embracing the tactics of our enemies. I do not see it that way.”
I hope my comments don’t leave you with this impression. My example above (at November 15, 2005 04:22 PM) sought to move the topic away from a religious discussion, which is pretty much guaranteed to go nowhere.
I agree that, as you put it, “they have no position on my status in society and I have no position on theirs”, insofar as their religious beliefs are concerned. For the sake of consistency with that position, it would be a mistake then to even continue discussing religion or theology. In doing so, we allow them to frame the subject in religious terms, which is inconsistent with the idea that religious dictums trump politics.
Keeping the conversation on religious beliefs would keep the argument on their territory. It’s as if our army agreed to meet an opposing army on a battle field of their choosing. I don’t think Montgomery or Patton would have gone for something like that at all.
Ack! …
That should read, “…which is inconsistent with opposing the idea that religious dictums trump politics.
ReasonAble (David) – As Tim mentioned earlier its been largely religion that has been and is still responsible for the oppression of GLBTs. Much as I hate to I believe I can resist slandering religion in general in order to give strangers the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way any specific belief gets a free ride just because someone considers it to be religious. The belief that people should be tortured for eternity because they choose a loving supportive same sex relationship is a belief that deserves to be slandered. The fundamentalist religious belief that rather than fairnes its a virtue to rigidly adhere to ideas one accepted at face value as a child too young to think logically deserves no respect whatsoever.
Who was it that said (paraphrased):
Substitute other religions (and I’d include Marxism or Environmentalism) as you see fit.Jim, I understand what you’re saying although I don’t use a “battle” analogy. That in itself is playing into “their” hands because it inflames a topic “they” want to present as a war between good and evil (me good, you evil). I’ve often discussed religion with people, but find debating it to be particularly threadbare.Political and social behaviours caused by religious affiliation… well, that a whole different matter.
The link goes to Mencken’s essay on evangelical Christianity, in the context of the Scope’s trial. I regard this as the best and most accurate exposition I have ever encountered. It is a vived and lifelike today as 80 years ago.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Mencken/the-hills-of-zion/
The page linked here is to a general Mencken list. His complete coverage of the Scopes trial is linked from here.
“>http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/
In Inheirit The Wind, the reporter is Mencken. He was a leading figure in literature and commentary in the first half of the 20th century. Mencken wrote a great deal about evangelical Christianity, none of it positive. He wrote before there was a distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist. At that time, the terms were interchangable.
I have this strange sense of actually wanting to watch paint dry…What is the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist?
Randi, you are a glutton for punishment!
Try these…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
I’m going to kick myself for taking on another religious post… but:
Within a business structure, those who are least experienced or mature have jobs that are strict and rigid. You start at a specific time, take a break when a whistle blows, make the part exactly to the standards in the book, etc. You do not question why things are done a certain way, you just follow rules. And while this job may not pay well, it is also low in stress.
As you grow in experience and maturity, you take on responsibilities that are not so easily pre-determined. You have to use wisdom and judgment. You may find that you don’t leave when the whistle blows, you may come in early, or late, or do things that are “not your job” like sweep the floor. As you begin to recognize the purpose behind the rules, you are assigned more responsibility.
When you are CEO, you have no manual to tell you what to do. You have to balance the interests of the shareholders with those of your fellow employees and all without anyone else to blame if things go wrong. You don’t follow rules; in fact, you are responsible for the rules others follow. This requires a great deal of effort and talent and is thus the highest paid job in the business. It also comes with the highest level of stress.
So too it is with religion. Some folks cannot survive without a rigid set of rules guiding their every move. Without a manual to tell them what to do and without a boss rewarding and punishing their compliance, they would just sit there. They do not have the maturity to know the why of the rules, only that they are to be followed.
Some folks never mature enough to understand the purposes behind a religious decree. And some don’t want to, it’s just too much effort. Such people will find a fundamentalist religion. If there were no Christianity, they would find it in another religion or a cult or even become fundamentalist atheists.
Randi, a shorter version is
(a) Not all evangelicals are conservative or fundamentalists. Some are fairly liberal. They are more of the “christianity is good news” types.
(b) Fundamentalists are generally of the sledgehammer conservative types, and originally were defined by the five “fundamentals” listed in the article linked to by Jim. Apparently they have branched out since then so that belief in the five “fundamentals” aren’t absolute requirements any more.
Regarding one of the five “fundamentals,” the belief in the inerrancy of the bible, I wonder what version of the bible they are referring to. And I wonder how they reconcile the numerous inconsistencies that have been identified in the bible. I suspect that they haven’t even attempted a reconciliation.
Randi,
Another example is this: When I think of a fundamentalist, I think of Jerry Falwell. When I think of an evangelical, I think of Tammy Faye Bakker. This may not be strictly accurate, but I think it captures the flavor. And it is instructive that evangelicals were furious at the idea of a fundamentalist (Falwell) taking over the Bakker’s evangelical PTL playground near Charlotte some fifteen years ago.
I’m not sure where Pat Robertson fits in. He may be a little of both. There is some overlap between the two.
As Raj points out, not all evangelicals are conservative or fundamentalists. In my experience, most evangelicals are conservative — even quite conservative. Many are fundamentalist, but I’m not so sure that most of them necessarily are.
But I know that most fundamentalists bristle at the thought of being confused with evangelicals because they accuse evangelicals of not being doctrinally pure.
For most of my life I identified as an evangelical and certainly did NOT see myself as a fundamentalist. Years later, I now see the two as being closer than I did before. In fact, I would now go so far as to say that evangelicalism is just fundamentalism with a softer edge. When you scratch beneath the surface, you get down to the same core beliefs and attitudes. Towing the party line re: homosexuality is a virtual requirement for acceptance in both groups.
Randi said
The belief that people should be tortured for eternity because they choose a loving supportive same sex relationship is a belief that deserves to be slandered.
I would first say that this hardly sums up Christianity. But more to your point, I have to disagree; if one doesn’t subscribe to a certain belief, what difference does it make if someone else does? And as long as none of these beliefs are allowed to assume power of law or government policy, how is it any of our concern that they exist? I still think that to berate someone else’s belief just because we may find it disturbing is to make us just as bad as those trying to impose their belief on others. And most important of all, it simply doesn’t accomplish anything. That’s not to say that I don’t understand the urge to lash out about this – it can cause anger to know that someone else believes you are bad just for whom you are. I just think the better action is to positively impact the world around us as much as possible and allow people to believe what they will. The alternative would seem to have two sides yelling, possibly hating each other with no resolution at all.
Timothy said:
So too it is with religion. Some folks cannot survive without a rigid set of rules guiding their every move. Without a manual to tell them what to do and without a boss rewarding and punishing their compliance, they would just sit there. They do not have the maturity to know the why of the rules, only that they are to be followed.
Timothy, respectfully I see this as a rather one dimensional point of view. I would consider myself a relatively conservative Christian and it certainly doesn’t describe me. Some of the greatest people in history have shared my beliefs and none of them could be described this way. I don’t really know you so perhaps your only exposure to Christians has been to those who twist the scriptures into instruments to bolster their own hatred and narrow mindedness. Perhaps issues of belief are just too polarizing by their nature to be discussed without some degree of “one dimensionality” coming into play on both sides. That’s why I think the most we can ask for is respect (or at the very least tolerance!) for the other person and their beliefs even if we don’t agree. Then put those energies into fighting the spill over of religion into civil life where we (and potentially anyone) truly might be marginalized.
I’m not sure I see religion as the source of this hatred. Rather, it seems that some people use it to justify and even amplify their own pre-existing prejudices and fears. In the end, those people degrade the good in both the secular and the sacred.
Please understand, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t voice an objection to this or that interpretation of scripture. But if one has no belief in God or the authority of those scriptures, the result is usually just to summarily dismiss the other’s belief entirely as myth. This is certainly wrong and will alienate many good people. Scripture was twisted by some to justify discrimination and slavery for many years. Yet we don’t see the great leaders who fought for civil rights alienating believers, but instead they embraced God and their belief and used those same scriptures to call for equality and the strength to stand up for it. These were not simple people in need of a manual.
David
David says: Please understand, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t voice an objection to this or that interpretation of scripture. But if one has no belief in God or the authority of those scriptures, the result is usually just to summarily dismiss the other’s belief entirely as myth. This is certainly wrong and will alienate many good people. Scripture was twisted by some to justify discrimination and slavery for many years. Yet we don’t see the great leaders who fought for civil rights alienating believers, but instead they embraced God and their belief and used those same scriptures to call for equality and the strength to stand up for it. These were not simple people in need of a manual.
Uhhh, David unless you did not notice slavery existed for over 1,000 years of Christian practice before anyone called it wrong. To ignore and trivialize the intense Christian involvement in slavey strikes me as wrong. You are attempting to whitewash, to hide, the actual history of the Christian faith. From its beggingings Christianity has been a major support of slavery.
Dalea,I think it would be fairer, given which came first, to say that nations that permitted slavery then became christian. Unsurprisingly, the Christian doctrines, intepretations, scripture consequently supported the practice.But that was 400CE…More shocking is the response of mainstream Christianity — and mainstream Christians — to slavery AFTER the enlightenment. Not only was slavery acceptable, but rapidly became entangled in racism and went onto be seen as white priviledge. The Church of Rome said it was OK — but only for non-white non-christians. The Southern Baptists… well, they came about because they supported black slavery. About the only ones with a consistent and honorable history are the Quakers.We are, of course, still dealing with the residue of that history — racism tied to slavery tied to subservience — to this very day.And for David — frankly, I’d like some day to be as interested and involved in a debate about Christian political involvement in my life as much as I am about Hindu involvement. In other words, I shouldn’t even need to notice unless I choose to. So it, hopefully, will not even raise questions of tolerence of respect — it is simply something OTHER people do. I am, of course, perfectly OK with being informed and knowing about any religion.(And a big fat ditto for Islam).
Also David — boy, did you get Timothy wrong. Bad guess, hahaha.I’m sure he’ll let you know how things stand
Uhhh, David unless you did not notice slavery existed for over 1,000 years of Christian practice before anyone called it wrong. To ignore and trivialize the intense Christian involvement in slavey strikes me as wrong. You are attempting to whitewash, to hide, the actual history of the Christian faith. From its beggingings Christianity has been a major support of slavery.
Oh my I can’t see where I did that at all. The Church can stand on its own, warts and atrocities and all. I am talking mostly about that with which I am most familiar, the time when slavery ended in this country, with the emergence of civil rights and ideas of equality that came after that. Your emphasis on the many years the Church condoned slavery amplifies my point. In this country at least, many who had been persecuted through, among other things, a misuse of scripture, embraced the Christian faith quite fully in their own struggle. They seemed to understand that just because scripture acknowledged slavery as a practice 2000 years ago, it didn’t necessarily endorse it or certainly not the idea that some people are not worth as much as others (though people used what it did say to justify just that). Scriptures written in a time of slavery and lessor rights for women (or when loving homosexual relationships are not a known as such) are going to carry those artifacts. But focusing on those things without taking it as a whole, without understanding what Jesus taught, and how it comes together, that will bring all kinds of misunderstanding – like using Leviticus as a proof text against homosexuality.
It is puzzling to me why scripture did not rail against slavery and a few other things. I’m not sure if slavery would have ended anyway, not until there was alternate means of getting work done (ie powered machines). It is a sad fact of our history. The truth is, if any of us were alive in those days, we would probably either be slaves or own them. That we have come as far as we have in such a short time with civil rights and equality is nothing short of amazing. The fact that it is not fully complete is certainly cause for more work, but how far we have come is cause for hope. The Church has gone through its own growing pains with the rest of humanity. Lets hope it continues to grow.
Sorry if I got Timothy wrong
It’s very difficult to have these discussions in this format – there are so many nuances that don’t communicate well via the text. The main point I wanted to make in all of this was to respect the fact that many of us do have deeply held beliefs which are precious to us. Negating those with a single sentence, well it can hurt because it is it’s own form of discrimination. I like what grantdale said in that last paragraph – and I know people who do that very well. It makes for much more productive debate.
I do want to say that I appreciate all the input. This site is a rare collection of people who generally discuss issues with great wisdom and respect for others. I like to see people disagree on issues without the need for personal attacks. This issue is just something that has hit me a few times and I thought I would speak my mind. Thanks.
David
David (reasonable)- I never said the belief that gays should be tortured for an eternity sums up Christianity. I am vehemently opposed to the idea that preventing gay love is in anyway central or critically important to Christianity. However Christians themselves say that is the case when as they frequently do they use the attack on that nefarious idea as evidence that Christianity in general is under attack. They are the ones claiming this as a belief central to their religious freedom. They are the ones saying a gay killed a Christian because of her Christianity epitomized by anti-gay proseletyzing when in realty the motivation was revenge for personal criticism which co-incidentally happened to be a Christian belief. Some prominent Christians are maliciously lying when they say GLBT opposition to specific anti-gay religious beliefs means opposition to religious beliefs in general. Frankly other than specific anti-gay beliefs I couldn’t care less about religion in general.
I most certainly would happily ignore that belief if they did not use it to advocate their judging and controlling GLBT lives – I couldn’t care less what Christians do as long as it doesn’t affect me. Unfortunately the evil belief of christians that they have the obligation to save us from ourselves results in them blindly attempting to dominate us when it benefits them not at all. I believe the idea that we should tolerate not just Christianity in general, but show any respect whatsoever to PARTICULAR evil beliefs is what was referred to correctly as “candy-assed”. A failure to strongly oppose ideas based on one person blindly judging and controlling another is something that infuriates me and is why some GLBTs say we need to get tough. Treating such beliefs with kid gloves gives undeserved credibility to them and allows the large convincible portion of moderate voters to see specific anti-gay rhetoric as “compassion” which it most certainly is not. That religious belief is a convenient cover for the underlying motivation which is “I think same gender sex is gross, and to make me 1/2 of one percent happier society should maximally oppose it even if it takes away 1/2 or 3/4 of the happiness of GLBT individuals.
I’m a bit of a fairness fundamentalist myself. Fairness must come first and I am figuratively at war with the idea that any particular anti-gay religious belief comes first unless there’s a damn good reason for it. I sure haven’t heard it yet. The general public in the U.S. has bought into this lie of “compassion” partly because we’ve shown deference to it instead of clearly expressing our shock and outrage in the way that was done at the Boston “Love Won Out Protests”. Its time for a wakeup call to people who believe this lie that its moral to unconditionally oppose even loving, monogamous, and supportive same sex intimate relationships. Sex is one of the ties that bind and it brings people together and encourages valuing and caring for others. That is a good thing in and of itself
The above post was by Randi Schimnosky. I’m away from home and haven’t set it up on this computer to list my name.
David,
“Negating those with a single sentence, well it can hurt…”
Very true. But, then again, keep reading. Maybe the one sentence is seen out of context and more will enlighten.
Just for the record (as will come as no surprise to most here) I am a Christian. I come from a very conservative fundamentalist background and know from experience that a great many that share those beliefs are not motivated by hatred or stupidity. Nor are they casual or thoughtless in their quest for knowledge of God.
However, those who are not capable of nuance or who are seeking rigid structure in their spiritual life do gravitate towards more fundamentalist minded branches of religions. They are looking for answers and they want someone to tell them with certainty exactly what is true.
I was recently communicating with a gay person on another site. He was absolutely certain that God condemned homosexuality, period. I suggested that perhaps he was right, but that it is also possible that the Biblical scholars who had come to other conclusions might be right, instead. I proposed that before he made his final determination he at least consider what they said.
This infuriated him. His universe did not have room for doubt – only certainty. He gave me a little lecture about orthodoxy and how anyone who disagreed was simply wrong, no possibility for flexibility. You simply could not be Christian and disagree with what he had been taught.
I do know that this is not indicative of all folks who are fundamentalist (and most definitely not all Christians). I know that there are fundamentalists who say “I’ve considered what you say but have concluded otherwise”. There, too, are those who say “This is what I believe, but I will think about what you present”. But fundamentalism (of all religious positions) does give home to those who say “I’m right, you’re wrong and if you continue to challenge me, you’re evil”.
Consequently, the greatest opponants of freedom and quality for gay people on the planet today are probably adherents of fundamentalist religions (primarily Islam, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism).
Randi said:
I believe the idea that we should tolerate not just Christianity in general, but show any respect whatsoever to PARTICULAR evil beliefs is what was referred to correctly as “candy-assed”. A failure to strongly oppose ideas based on one person blindly judging and controlling another is something that infuriates me and is why some GLBTs say we need to get tough.
I would never allow someone controlling another to go without challenge but I think we may just have to agree to disagree on the rest. I don’t think you will change any minds with that kind of adversarial approach. In the public square, in objection to LIA operating without proper licensing, or in what should and should not be taught in schools, etc. – yes I would debate these strongly.
Timothy, I would agree with your more detailed version – thanks for clarifying. And I think breaking out of that mindset where nothing that your particular circle says can be challenged because it is holy writ is the first step in becoming a mature Christian. I feel for the person you mentioned – it is such a hard place to be.
David
David, an adversarial approach isn’t my first choice but I believe that is the only effective choice anti-gay religionists have given us by their decision to oppose us with lies and the pursuit of laws codifying unconditional heterosexual dominance over GLBTs. A non-adversarial approach lets convincible voters easily believe we aren’t particularly troubled by anti-gay actions and that that means maybe such actions are well and good. How can we expect moderate voters to oppose anti-gay actions and beliefs when we don’t clearly do so ourselves?
Most everyone believes its wrong to physically attack someone without having been physically violently attacked first. Most everyone also believes its justifiable and wise to respond to unprovoked physical attacks with at least some measured force of your own, that’s self defense.
To politely respond to verbal attacks made under the disengenous veil of “love” is to fail to show such hate for what it is and to invite more of the same.
I would like to take us back for a moment to the original assertion from Chambers that started this thread: that at the core of this is that we are evil pawns of satan and the discussion is not about whether our biological and physiological make-up is right or wrong, but evil vs good. We got off on a few tangents with discussion of various points of view and scriptural references. I even got rather annoyed with some comments that having a non-christian point of view meant that I was in effect ridiculing beliefs, which is not the case. I am countering those beliefs because I do not share them, I am not ridiculing them. When I stated in the first post that I find these assertions not only false, but highly offensive as a non-christian, the discussion veered into the territory of how we react to such assertions and does our reaction guage if we are taking on Chambers characteristics of how we choose to oppose this stuff. I also see it as inciteful hate speech and an intrusion of my civil rights. I do not see it as free speech or religious freedom. Sorry, I just don’t buy that argument that we must respect what Chambers says because it is a relgious belief and not see him as the enemy that he truly is. I disagree, this is beyond religious belief and it is an intentional use of words to incite contempt and hatred towards gays. As we all know, words are very powerful and have a long-lasting effect, like the first time a bully yells faggot at you.
“…like the first time a bully yells faggot at you”
This reminds me of a tactic I’ve adopted. When some punk (usually from the oppositve side of the street) yells “faggot”, I yell right back. But instead of “f— you” or “bigot”, I yell “yep, that’s right” in a cheerful voice like I’m congratulating them for guessing right. This leaves them so confused they tend to stammer and walk quickly away.
I did say the “first time” Timothy, the second time they usually don’t make it through without cowering and running the other way.:) I like your approach. Sometimes we’re just too damn serious aren’t we. Have a great weekend.
Tim
I know we have been all around on this but there really was a basic point I was trying to make and it wasn’t actually about Chambers’ comments. However, let me give you an example of how I would respond to Chambers if I were an atheist. “I don’t adhere to the idea that there exists a god or other higher power in the universe, so what you say doesn’t concern me. Those who do hold such beliefs will have to determine for themselves whether this is truly the teaching of their scriptures and if they agree. I for one do not see how it could possibly be so.” Now, this guy can spew that stuff all day long as far as I’m concerned, as long as it does not become codified into law or other government policy. The latter is where I would put my energies. Society is evolving and every year these kinds of comments become less tolerated by the masses – not because we lambaste people like Chambers but because I think people have an innate sense of fairness and the more positive examples of gay people they see, the less likely they are to agree with something so incredibly unfair and wrong. Simply put, the guy has the absolute right to make an ass of himself and I have the right to disagree with what he says. But I don’t have the right to tell him not to say or believe it.
My original point was more about how we deal with each other in a discussion of this sort. For example, in your original post the comment “To be fair and unbiased, the article would allude to all alleged sins because christians repeatedly spew the “we all sin” line of BS before launching mercilessly into another anti-gay hate speech.” As a Christian who is gay and also believes what Chambers said is a load of garbage, I am hurt by that statement. You just lumped me and a whole lot of other people together who should not be – all Christians don’t do that. Not even a majority of Christians do that. The ones that do should be ashamed of themselves but that is another issue. All I’m asking is that we not polarize the issues any more than they already are. You may find a lot of good people of faith out there who agree with you.
As for “hate speech”, I’m not sure I like the direction that is going in (I’m still debating myself on that one). I tend to think that labeling something hate speech is one step away from censorship. It seems that a lot can qualify for that label these days. I would be strongly against any kind of legal implications for it beyond what already exists.
Randi Said:
How can we expect moderate voters to oppose anti-gay actions and beliefs when we don’t clearly do so ourselves?
By all means we should oppose anti-gay ordinances or other legislation if they are proposed. I’ve maintained that when these things enter civil life they need to be opposed. If someone tried to pass legislation making adultery illegal, I would oppose that too (and in that case I even agree that it’s wrong to cheat on your spouse). I’m sure there are still some old statutes on the books that did just that but they are an example of how inadvisable it is to do so.
The fact that there are people out there who think you or I are evil is sad, but I can’t control them. I might be able to persuade them over time in the right setting, but some will probably always think that way.
If you made it this far, congratulations! I apologize for the loooong post. I’m taking a break
David
Thanks for the post David, what you said makes sense and I apologize for lumping all christians together, but I am frustrated with the intrusion of fundamentalism in civil rights, that’s where this is coming from. Have a great day.
Bible, Shmible….
It’s all a big ‘ol boys club that got together and wrote it.
No women involved in it’s creation or writing.
In strict religious cultures, illiteracy and isolation of women is the first order of business, isn’t it?
The genius of women squandered for so many years, simply has justified misogyny in the worst way.
The natural world, has no one that’s strictly a woman or man.
I don’t mind the Bible being studied and read as a piece of ancient literature and chronicle of societies of that time.
But try and make me…or anyone else live and work or be excluded ‘according to what the Bible says’…and violate once and again and again
the 11 most precious laws (10 commandments and golden rule) among humankind written there…
and I’ll slap you up with your unmitigated and hypocritical breaking of those universal laws every time.
Our new millenium society obviously can’t afford to be fighting over the interpretation of something that doesn’t resemble our lives now…or anything that could have possibly been reality THEN either.
I would respect the Bible more, love it and care about it…if so many MEN hadn’t been spending so much of the last 2,000 years abusing people with it.
That book and the Q’ran have been turned into such poison, why should I or anyone else with a brain want to trustfully take it from just ANYONE?
Why should I love anything used to be hateful to me and other precious and misrepresented human beings?
You feel me on that?
You people are amusing
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society? I’m not trying to make fun, I’d actually like to hear a serious response. That being said, would you say that homosexuality is a)a functional attribute of society (meaning, it serves a valuable purpose), b)a dysfunctional attribute, or c)that it does not significantly impact society enough to make a difference one way or the other. If you respond to this please support your answers with objective facts.
TD Van,I doubt Darwin would have much of an opinion on the subject.He is dead. Has been for 123 years.If you care for a response based on evolutionary theory, please first indicate at what level you are capable of understanding the subject.
TD Van at December 6, 2005 12:06 AM
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society?
I don’t particularly care what Darwin would have considered, but you might consider posting the question on a blog that specializes in evolution such as http://www.pandasthumb.org
I suspect that Darwin–like most scientists–was considering what is, not what some people believe ought to be. There is a rather substantial difference. And Darwin’s theory has pretty much stood the test of time, observation and experiment.
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society?
Assuming by Darwin you mean current evolutionary theory, I honestly have no idea. There is evidence to suggest why homosexuals continue to thrive despite the inability to procreate. However if one adheres to that theory (evolution), recorded human history is but a blink of an eye in the scheme of things so even if being gay was an “aberration” it could be around for millennia to come. That would mean that society has to deal with it pretty much the same as if it were some sort of adaptation (which some speculate could be as a governor for population growth, but I’m not sure if there is any evidence of that).
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it really doesn’t matter either way.