Religious conservatives are just creepy

Why is it that religious conservatives have no sexual ethics?

This is Bryan Fishcher, of the American Family Association:

Once you allow sex between two people of the same sex, there is no place to stop. You can’t stop just with homosexuality. You can’t stop with polygamy. You can’t even stop with pedophilia. You wind up going all the way to sex with animals.

And this is Fred Clark in response:

In other words, if you ask Bryan Fischer why raping a small child is wrong, he would say it is wrong because it is an instance of sex outside of the context of marriage between one man and one woman. Not because it is coercive. Not because it is rape. But because, for Fischer, straight-married sex is always Good, and any other kind of sex, not being straight-married sex, is always Bad.

This is not “traditional religious ethics.” It isn’t ethics at all. It’s a single check-box formula for determining whether or not any sexual act is Fischer-Approved.

This lack of moral sense, this failure to grasp the notion of consent, this outright dangerous code is hardly unique to Fischer. Islam also has strict rules about sex, which have little to do with consent. Such different worldviews can lead to a basic disagreement on the nature of “good”.

TRiG.

2 thoughts on “Religious conservatives are just creepy

  1. I’m always trying to work out who these people hate most, women, gay people or apparently animals.

    I always find it ironic when they start on with ‘bestiality’. They forget they are advocating exactly that, as we are animals.

    Hence the withering about our specialness…made in His image etc.

    I’ve just been reading a fascinating article about Shaminism. Appaently in paleolithic times..hunter/gatherer, animals were seen as ‘superior’. Well not superior in a disconnected way…shamans take animal form.

    ‘…The era goes back to the Palaeolithic, when animals were generally looked upon as superior and sacred, which is why they were portrayed with preference in ancient petroglyphs, rock art and cave paintings. Human figures – representing the first shaman or magical – appeared only later (see Hoppal 1995: 37; Vitebsky 1955: 28-29). It is therefore perfectly natural that shamans wanted to identify themselves with powerful, strong and intelligent animals….’

    http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol4/hoppal.htm/

    Oh god I’m tired of the Abrahmic literalists and fundamentalists…and their downright hatefulness of the richness of difference.

  2. The notion that animals are superior is interesting. I’ll have to read that article when I get a chance. Thanks for that, Effers.

    TRiG.

Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <p> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>