Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Bryan Fischer Claims Homosexuality is a Birth Defect
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Bryan Fischer, Director of Issues Analysis at the American Family Association, is at it again, twisting the words of scientists to say that homosexuality is a birth defect.
In a blog post yesterday, Fischer cited the study and deliberately misinterpreted it to say that the scientists “are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect.”
He went at it again on yesterday’s broadcast hate-fest:
I would have more respect for Religious Right opponents to marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights if they would simply say their religion forbids both, and leave it at that. I would still detest a religion that makes these claims and demands, but I could at least summon up some respect for the fact of their adherence to what they perceive to be the commandments of their god.
Instead, they resort to pervasive dishonesty to defend their positions.
Their problem is understandable. Their religion’s supposed rejection of homosexuality is far less comprehensive than they pretend, relying on this Old Testament passage…
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13).
…that is surrounded by passages condemning other behaviors the Religious Right is happy to ignore.
Why are the punishments for sexual sin in Leviticus 20 stressed while the punishments in Leviticus 19 (against clothing woven of two kinds of material; meat with blood still in it; cutting your hair; wearing tattoos,etc.) ignored?
And where are the Biblical denunciations of lesbianism? There aren’t any. No seed was involved.
Where is “traditional marriage”? There isn’t any. It’s not in the Bible.
But most of all, why is Leviticus 19:11, the injunction not to lie, ignored?
At Leviticus 19:19 God says simply, “Keep my decrees.” He doesn’t say “keep my decree about men engaging in sex with men but ignore my decree about shaving.”
When did dishonesty become a sacred duty? If it’s “of Satan” why are supposed Christians engaging in lying with such fervor?
What I am trying to say is that unless they want to be liars and hypocrities, today’s Religious Right has no choice but to enforce all decrees equally according to their own God in their own holy scriptures.
That still won’t solve all their problems, however.
Neither the Old nor the New Testament address birth control, and as far as abortion goes, the Old Testament’s pages are literally filled with God’s command to abort children, as well as child sacrifice. Look at Numbers 31:17, concerning the Midianites:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Not only forced abortions (some of these women were certainly pregnant), but female sexual slavery.
The god of human sexual trafficking. Stay classy, God of Abraham.
While we are all certainly happy followers of YHWH have eschewed human sacrifice, they really have no option but to adopt it, because God demands it – in several places.
Exodus 22.29 literally, YHWH demanded human sacrifice as well: that of the first-born son:
Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
Ezekiel (20.26) certainly takes God’s command literally:
“I let them become defiled through their gifts – the sacrifice of every firstborn – that I might fill them with horrors so they would know that I am the LORD.”
The ever-reviled Baal and Moloch have nothing on this guy.
Of course, some apologists claim that this was not literally sacrifice but only consecration. Problems arise, however, when we see for example how in 2 Kings 21.6 King Manasseh “sacrificed his own son to the fire.”
Some consecration! Couldn’t he just dab a little holy water on the tike’s head rather than burning him up like a strip of prime sirloin?
And Levicitus (27.28-29) makes clear this is sacrifice, not consecration:
But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD – whether man or animal or family land – may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
You might notice this command in Leviticus comes from the same Old Testament book condemning homosexuality, a book supposedly written by Moses. So why does the Religious Right attack homosexuals but not those who fail to sacrifice their children to God?
When was it given to them to decide which divine commandments to obey and which to ignore?
We think wackos on the Religious Right are terrible for supporting the kill-the-gays law in Uganda, but in fact, their Bible demands death for people who worship other god. Deuteronomy 32:9-43 is white hot in its opposition to non-believers, as is Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods…you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’
This is reprehensible, but at least this IS in their Bible.
Despite all this raping and killing and aborting and enslaving, the Religious Right insists their God is a God of Life.
The arguments used to advance this pro-life point of view are weak and general: Nehemiah 9:6 that God gives life to everything; Job 12:10 that God’s hand is in the life of every creature; Deuteronomy 30:19-20 where God tells the Jews to choose life over death. The argument that because God creates life he is pro-life is a weak one. He obviously also created death and later, we are to believe, sent his own son to be killed. And while Deuteronomy is used to promote the pro-life cause, as we have seen above just a couple passages later God is expounding a very pro-death point of view (Deuteronomy 32:9-43).
The most mis-used passage relates to a very special person, and not to all people. That is Jeremiah 1:4-5:
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
A very special case, said nowhere to apply to humankind generally. In fact, it is a unique statement in the Bible.
You want abortion examples from the Bible? Hosea 9:11-16; Hosea 13:16; Numbers 5:11-21; Numbers 31:17; 2 Kings 15:16. You want the murder of infants? 1 Samuel 15:3; Psalms 135:8, 136:10; Psalms 137:9.
2 Kings 15:16 is particularly damning to the “pro-life” crowd: “He [Menahem, king of Israel] sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women,” as is Hosea 13:15-16: “I will have no compassion…the people of Samaria…will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashes to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open.”
Tell me either the woman or the child survived this savagery.
It’s all there in black and white. It can be read by anyone: the God of the Old Testament is NOT pro-life. He does not hate fags unless he also hates men who shave, or people who wear clothing made of two different materials.
Leaving people on the Religious Right to resort to devices like gay animal demons, “nature’s law” (despite the existence of literally scads of animal species that engage in homosexual behavior), and inventing or twisting scientific studies, as Bryan Fischer did in this instance.
Be a stand-up guy, Mr. Fischer. Be open and honest about what your Bible demands of you and then live your life accordingly. When you have dealt with this log in your own eye – and it’s a huge fucking log – then deal with the mote in your neighbor’s.
Yes, that is out of your Bible too (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42).
Obey the command in Leviticus 19:19, and tell the truth not only about what your Bible says, but what about scientists say.
I would still despise any religion that holds to a belief that their God wants them to engage in the inhuman savagery described above, but I could at least respect the fact that your belief is sincerely held, which is clearly not the case now.
Related Posts :
There’s nothing quite like the right to write an article in your school paper endorsing murdering people be ...
I wrote yesterday about religion-based bigotry versus the world of facts and I'm going to touch on that subj ...
Each major poetical party in the United States is accusing the other of something that party holds up as a b ...
Just when you thought it was safe to go to church, this pops up: I am an atheist and a person of color an ...
Right Wing Watch reports that perennial bigot Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Govern ...
22 Responses to Bryan Fischer Claims Homosexuality is a Birth Defect
Public Service Advertisements
novenator
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Bryan Fischer is a birth defect. I guess being born out of an anus made him an a-hole.
kevin
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I didn’t get anything from what you said about what the study “really” determined…just a hunch of hating on religions………….
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
You didnt read it then. There is a link to see what the studys said.
And only one specific religion is involved
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
What I am hating on is rape, sexual slavery, and genocide and the lie that all these things = pro-life
SinghX
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 8:33 am
My comment is slightly off topic, but relevant to Fisher the Phisher’s “core values”…
We saw the movie “Lincoln” yesterday–there is a scene where the house debating the 13th Amendment before passage. One of the royal opposition stated, “What next for the Negro; the right to votes?” (The pro-slavery gallery screams “NO!”) he continues, …”And, what follows next? Giving women the right to vote??”
The entire house leaped to their feet in outrage, shock over such an “unnatural” act! Freeing slaves, voting, etc were all considered “unnatural acts” of god.
It was hilarious in hindsight, but very insightful. It only shows how religious rigidity, hate and white male privilege as a “gold standard” still tries to rear it’s ugly head as an “American value”. Fisher’s days are numbered…
Reynardine
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Is Brian Fischer advocating the infanticide of all “defective births”? I guarantee you he will find some reason why “the Lard” commands it.
A Walkaway
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Well, the Eugenics movement DID start in the US, and was still very much accepted through WWII. Even after the war, they were still sterilizing Native American women (estimates up to a quarter to half of our women were sterilized against their will or knowledge) into the 70s.
They also did it (some) to the poor and to women they considered mental defectives, and to African American women as well.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
here in the US there isn’t one Jewish person that lives by his own Old Testament. If there was they would’ve wiped their own race out of thousand years ago. And we know full well of people like Brian Fischer do not live by the Old Testament unless it’s to their benefit. He knows darn well that he is not going to go out and tell people not to cut their hair or what colored clothing they should wear. That’s not to his benefit.
Reason number 2,000,000,654 why I do not have anything to do with people like Brian Fischer or anyone who teaches the Old Testament. Quite frankly the New Testament as well
RMuse
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Fischer is a freak and like Novenator says, a walking talking birth defect that his god would have snuffed out for apostacy against Jesus Christ according to their bible. Either they are devotees of Old Testament mean and vindictive god, or follow Christ’s teaching of love, charity, and goodwill towards all humans.
D. W. Skinner
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
if Mr. Fischer were standing in the middle of the road incapable of moving because of a debilitating stroke as a mack truck came hurtling at a deadly speed, out of control, headed straight for him… i would buy some popcorn and a splatterguard and happily watch the show and cheer at the aftermath as wild feral cats ate what was left in the street.
Reynardine
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Cats wouldn’t eat that, but dogs might roll in it.
Mike
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
There are some problems with Brian Fischer’s analysis. I, a gay man, agree that some parents might want to abort a fetus with the “gay gene,” not knowing whether it is dominant or recessive. It is also apparent that if the gene exists, as Mr Fischer suggests, then Christian objections to homosexuality as a choice dissolve. Not only that, but the highly lucrative business of gay reparative therapy also has to go out the window; how can you pray away the gene? If he is correct, then gays become a protected class under the Americans for Disabilities Act and therefore gain those “special” rights that the religious Right has fought so much against There are unintended consequences when you accept science. Perhaps there is a gene that promotes belief in superstition?
Elizabeth 44
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I’m with you. I didn’t think it through as completely as you did, but I saw “birth defect” which means “born that way” and thought, “well that’s at least some progress”. Even if the child has a “gay gene” they can’t abort it because they don’t allow for abortion.
Paws
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I saw that study yesterday on another site and the author here is right – what Fischer is saying is so not what the researchers concluded. It’s pretty far off the mark and I imagine the researchers would be appalled at this misrepresentation of their work by Fischer.
Paws
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
This is the conclusion of the researchers (keeping in mind this is one study)…
“Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.”
There’s nothing in this study that says homosexuality is a “birth defect.”
Daniel Berry, NYC
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
hah! he should talk…
Anne
Dec. 13th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
While homosexuality is not a “birth defect,” being a hateful, dishonest bigot is certainly a huge character defect that Fischer shares with others of his ilk. He is also like others in cherry-picking points from the Bible to support his regressive ideology and rejecting others that don’t support it. He is swimming in vain against a tide, and is incapable of being honest with himself–much less anyone else–about his own blatant bigotry, which he rationalizes with the use of religion.
A Walkaway
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I was listening to a radio station a few minutes ago and a Christmas song came on that wasn’t all “Church Church Church”.
It brought tears to my eyes, because this obviously not very religious song had more of the “Good News” (as all of us would consider it) than any of the dominionist preaching I’ve ever heard. It was a call for peace and goodwill for all humankind – something I haven’t heard from a church (except maybe mixed in with a big dose of rules and regulations or whatever) in many years.
The thing that struck me was the irony of people like Fischer preaching “the Bible” and bringing so much harm to people who don’t deserve it – the people whom I think Jesus would rather “hang out” with, and a “secular” (at least by their standards) singer was singing about the very same thing Jesus emphasized (at least, the parts that we are rather certain He said).
To the way I think (and to my beliefs), the irony was unbelievably painful – that those who think they’re “serving God” would be so hateful and harmful, and the people they would despise would be so RIGHT.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
While your crying heres a happy thought.
Cry for the kids overseas that make those gifts kids get, that will never see or get a gift and who work in slave environments
American xmas exceptionalism
A Walkaway
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I don’t think they’re forgotten.
Greed and selfishness… the enemy of all humankind.
A Walkaway
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
My first impression of this was that it was getting suspiciously close to accepting one of the tenets of evolution (at least the older understanding without including epigenetics) – mutations in the genetic code.
As far as being purely genetic, the variation around the world in the numbers of individuals who are homosexual as part of their local/regional demonstrates that to not be the case. There are statistics that can show if it was some sort of recessive gene that the number of people with it would run about 1-2% of the population. If something cultural or environmental affects it (selects for it), the numbers will be higher.
There are cultures where it’s almost unknown (not quite, suggesting a genetic link of some sort), up to cultures where it’s the norm and almost all are homosexual (marriage and heterosexual activity is reserved for procreation only). I’ve read that there are two indications of genetic connections – that homosexuality often runs in families and that there seems to be a connection with the X chromosome, but the connections are fuzzy (to use imprecise language).
The interplay between genetics and culture is known – that is, we know it happens (certainly through epigenetics), but it’s too complex to say what it could be. Thus, it’s likely we will never find “gay genes” (it’s also suspected to involve a number of genes).
Gregg L. DesElms
Dec. 14th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I think we’re looking a gift horse in the mouth, here. One of what at least they have always believed is among their most salient points is that homosexuality is not the way someone’s born; that, rather, it’s a lifestyle choice. And so, then, such as same-sex marriage can’t possibly be a civil right, because protected classes can (or at least should) consist of only those who can do nothing about how they were born.
So, if they’re saying it’s a genetic birth defect, then at least they can no longer say it’s a lifestyle choice; at least they’re admitting it’s genetic; something with which they were born, and over which they have no control.
Let ‘em keep sayin’ it, I say. Let ‘em go on record with it. Let it become part of the Right Wing talking points so that they can no longer try to stop such as same-sex marriage based on that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and so doesn’t deserve constitutional civil rights protection.
We can deal with whether or not it’s a “defect” later! For now, let ‘em go ahead and make the case for the LGBT community being a constitutionally protected class!
_________________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com