Being a "Public Christian"
(updated below)
Reacting to the Iowa gay marriage ruling today, Rod Dreher writes:
Yeah, it's pretty rough being a Christian in America. Maybe Dreher should try being a "public homosexual" for a while and compare the experience. If I had a Quantum Leap machine, I'd be tempted to zap Dreher into the life of a gay high school student or maybe a gay man in a small Southern town and see how easy he finds it to publicly be himself. I wonder if Dreyer has any clue how much harder that would be than anything he's ever had to deal with as a straight white christian male.
The truth is that while society is much more tolerant of homosexuality than it used to be, it's still not easy to be openly gay, particularly in certain parts of the country and among certain age groups. Tens of thousands of gay Americans (at least) remain closeted, afraid to admit to their family and friends--sometimes even themselves--that they are gay. Gay teenagers are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight teenagers. These facts can both be explained--at least in large part--by the continued willingness of many Americans to publicly display their intolerance of homosexuality.
So forgive me if I don't join Dreher's pity party for the poor oppressed Christians who are increasingly being forced to keep their intolerant beliefs in the closet.
Which brings me to another point. I find it more than a little pathetic that Dreher and his friends feel that they can't be "public Christians" without going out of their way to advertise their disapproval of homosexuality. First, there are millions of Christians in this country who have no problem at all with gay marriage or homosexuality generally (indeed, there are many gay Christians). But more importantly, since when is expressing disapproval of homosexuality a key part of being a "public Christian"? What about going to church or singing Christmas carols or celebrating Easter or (gasp!) volunteering your time to help those less fortunate? Aren't those pretty effective ways of being publicly Christian? Is gay marriage really going to make it any harder to do any of those things? We still do live in a majority Christian country after all, and I have a feeling that will continue to be the case even after we start treating gay people like full citizens.
UPDATE: Over at the American Spectator, someone named Robert Stacy McCain has written an angry response to this post. He writes:
I wonder if it ever occurs to this guy that it's not about him, that maybe, just maybe, the movement for marriage equality is about securing equal rights for gay people and not about making the Rod Drehers and Robert McCains of the world feel uncomfortable. I have zero desire to punish anyone for anything. But if the increasing societal acceptance of gay people makes people like Dreher and McCain feel uncomfortable expressing their intolerant beliefs publicly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. You can say or believe whatever you want. It's a free country. But that doesn't mean everyone has to go out of their way to make you feel comfortable expressing whatever you might happen to believe whenever you want. If I want to go around expressing my moral disapproval of people who use contraception or who eat pork, I'm free to do so, but I'm not entitled to live in a world where there are no social repercussions for doing so.
When you boil everything else away, what this really comes down to is that people like Dreher and McCain are struggling to come to grips with the reality that their views (which were once majority views) are now the views of a shrinking minority. They feel threatened by that realization and long for a world in which they can express their views without fear of their colleagues thinking less of them. That's understandable. But it's also not a legitimate complaint, nor a legitimate reason to deny people basic rights.
UPDATE II: Ron Chusid at Liberal Values has tangled with Robert Stacy McCain in the past and relates an interesting exchange.
Reacting to the Iowa gay marriage ruling today, Rod Dreher writes:
This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.I realize its often hard to appreciate how your words will come across to those who don't share your beliefs, but good grief, is it possible to be more oblivious? Dreher is lamenting the fact that as the law progresses toward recognizing the rights of homosexual people, it will become increasingly hard to be publicly intolerant of homosexuality. Dreher thinks it's getting hard to be a "public Christian" in this country.
That world got a little bit closer this morning. And most people don't even see it.
Yeah, it's pretty rough being a Christian in America. Maybe Dreher should try being a "public homosexual" for a while and compare the experience. If I had a Quantum Leap machine, I'd be tempted to zap Dreher into the life of a gay high school student or maybe a gay man in a small Southern town and see how easy he finds it to publicly be himself. I wonder if Dreyer has any clue how much harder that would be than anything he's ever had to deal with as a straight white christian male.
The truth is that while society is much more tolerant of homosexuality than it used to be, it's still not easy to be openly gay, particularly in certain parts of the country and among certain age groups. Tens of thousands of gay Americans (at least) remain closeted, afraid to admit to their family and friends--sometimes even themselves--that they are gay. Gay teenagers are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight teenagers. These facts can both be explained--at least in large part--by the continued willingness of many Americans to publicly display their intolerance of homosexuality.
So forgive me if I don't join Dreher's pity party for the poor oppressed Christians who are increasingly being forced to keep their intolerant beliefs in the closet.
Which brings me to another point. I find it more than a little pathetic that Dreher and his friends feel that they can't be "public Christians" without going out of their way to advertise their disapproval of homosexuality. First, there are millions of Christians in this country who have no problem at all with gay marriage or homosexuality generally (indeed, there are many gay Christians). But more importantly, since when is expressing disapproval of homosexuality a key part of being a "public Christian"? What about going to church or singing Christmas carols or celebrating Easter or (gasp!) volunteering your time to help those less fortunate? Aren't those pretty effective ways of being publicly Christian? Is gay marriage really going to make it any harder to do any of those things? We still do live in a majority Christian country after all, and I have a feeling that will continue to be the case even after we start treating gay people like full citizens.
UPDATE: Over at the American Spectator, someone named Robert Stacy McCain has written an angry response to this post. He writes:
What is asserted here [in my post] is that homosexuals are so inherently weak that they cannot survive mere disapproval of their preferences. Anonymous Liberal has witlessly dispelled all the legalistic nonsense about "equal protection" and confessed the real purpose of the crusade for same-sex marriage, which might fairly be summarized thus:Wow. That is some seriously crazy stuff. Apparently by suggesting that it's a little more difficult to be openly gay in this country than openly Christian, I was really asserting that gay people are "inherently weak." I particularly like McCain's attempt to "summarize" my post. Apparently I want to "compel" people to approve of homosexuality and "punish" them if they refuse to do so. Notice how bizarrely self-referential this criticism is. Supporters of marriage equality--like myself--aren't really interested in advancing the interests of gay people (in fact, we're apparently "contemptuous" of gay people). Rather, our true agenda is to attack and punish people like Dreher and McCain.We will compel you hateful small-town troglodytes to approve of homosexuality, and will punish those who persist in displaying an anti-social attitude of disapproval.Anonymous Liberal is not only contemptuous of the ability of homosexuals to withstand public disapproval, but seems to assume that opponents of same-sex marriage are either too stupid to see through his charade or too cowardly to denounce it as the dishonest humbug it is.
I wonder if it ever occurs to this guy that it's not about him, that maybe, just maybe, the movement for marriage equality is about securing equal rights for gay people and not about making the Rod Drehers and Robert McCains of the world feel uncomfortable. I have zero desire to punish anyone for anything. But if the increasing societal acceptance of gay people makes people like Dreher and McCain feel uncomfortable expressing their intolerant beliefs publicly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. You can say or believe whatever you want. It's a free country. But that doesn't mean everyone has to go out of their way to make you feel comfortable expressing whatever you might happen to believe whenever you want. If I want to go around expressing my moral disapproval of people who use contraception or who eat pork, I'm free to do so, but I'm not entitled to live in a world where there are no social repercussions for doing so.
When you boil everything else away, what this really comes down to is that people like Dreher and McCain are struggling to come to grips with the reality that their views (which were once majority views) are now the views of a shrinking minority. They feel threatened by that realization and long for a world in which they can express their views without fear of their colleagues thinking less of them. That's understandable. But it's also not a legitimate complaint, nor a legitimate reason to deny people basic rights.
UPDATE II: Ron Chusid at Liberal Values has tangled with Robert Stacy McCain in the past and relates an interesting exchange.
posted by A.L. at 9:12 PM
60 Comments:
Good post and I hope the asshole trolls come back for more.
I find the threads much more interesting that way.
Anyways, I enjoy your weblog and thanks.
Yes the mentality is quite disturbing. I have no difficulty being a public atheist. I don't feel any need to 'tolerate' people with a different belief system. It's their business and completely de-coupled from what I believe.
As you say, the inability to feel empathy with gays is self-evident. There is simply a blind adherence to the conviction that Christians are the normal, righteous ones and 'the other' are there to be 'tolerated', or not, according to the interests of the dominant ideology.
Agreed. I am not afraid of espousing my religious or political beliefs for the sake of soothing someone else's ears. It is a free country, after all. We have a right to discuss and debate our differences.
A rabid evangelist spent about six days on our campus lecturing about the sins of us heathens, and he hit all the high notes -- from masturbation to premarital sex to lying to being gay. This guy I talk with pretty regularly defended his beefs, saying that in the eyes of God, these are all sins brought on by our "rebellious nature." While he disagreed that God stripping us of free will would solve the problem, he assured me that Christianity can cleanse one's slate. That means, if you're gay, God can reverse it, despite what modern psychology, biology, and medicine would tell you.
I want to be respectful of differences, but hearing stuff like this makes me want to rescind on my promise. If Christians spent have as much time and money leaving people alone, we would have a lot more peace in this country.
A very good article my fellow liberal. I also don't think Mr. Dreher took into consideration the millions upon millions in tax shelters that christians and their cohorts receive. He positions himself as the victim but christianity has thrived in the US more so than any other country and as you pointed out in your article, christianity isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Mr. Dreher's statements to me reflect someone who is insecure in his own beliefs and supposed ideology of tolerance. Christians bitch and moan every time something different makes it's way into the public spotlight. One only has to see Dreher's title (Gay Marriage "Forced" on Iowa) to see that christians are only truly tolerant when it comes to other christians.
Boo-effin-hoo I say. Dreher needs to pull his head out of the sand and beat some progressive thought into his thick dome.
I am a public Christian, by which I mean that I try to act out my faith as much as possible in my relations with other people. That means things like trying to be loving instead of angry. It means trying to stand up for those who are treated badly. It doesn't mean mocking or putting down other people, EVEN IF I think they are doing something wrong.
As for "Christian" teachings on homosexuality, I have two points.
1) Jesus never said a word on the subject, or at least, none that any of the Gospel writers thought worth writing down. So it can't have been a very important issue to Jesus. Real Christian teachings (defined by what Jesus said) have a lot to do with helping the poor and NOT JUDGING OTHERS.
2) At one time it was a basic part many people's "Christian" faith that black people were inherently inferior, and had been "saved" by being enslaved. Is anyone complaining that you can't say that in public anymore?
Peace. Please don't define Christianity by these ignorant people's hatreds and cultural biases.
On my Facebook page, I wrote that I was "Proud of Iowa"--and that's all I wrote. Just a quick little thing that was on my mind at that moment.
An online acquaintance of mine--who is a DEVOUT Christian--felt compelled to write "I'm not" as a response to what I wrote.
I feel like that's where these people come from, emotionally, and Rod Dreher's piece is another example of that--they just can't not keep their big f*cking mouths closed when there's something they disapprove of, and they want legal protection from the government to be schmucks.
I'm sure segregationists must have felt the same way.
Being on the wrong side of history is a bitch. Get over it.
They're superstitious BIGOTS. Inherently so because they're religious.
Hound them, ridicule them, harass them!
Almost all of us are atheists. Some of us have also stopped believing in the bearded sky god as well.
They should be wary of expressing religious belief, let alne the bigotry associated with homosexuality
I must agree with Arenfell. There is nothing Christian about homophobia, it's just an excuse and a dishonest one. There is nothing Christian about hating people who are different from you -- or the same.
How about loving your neighbor as yourself? Treat others as you would have them treat you.
The best part, too: These are of course the same people, sitting around lamenting their soon-to-be inability to berate their coworkers, who would have had breakfast the previous day all miffed at the showy homosexuals, and why can't they just be gay, why do they need to let everyone know they're gay.
The hypocrisy involved in being a so-called "public Christian" these days must be difficult, so I have some sympathy for Dreher. Imagine reconciling the widespread support for "enhanced interrogation" techniques with the persistent question, WWJD? I work as a criminal defense lawyer and frequently think of Vonnegut's observation that no so-called Christian ever want to post the Beatitudes in the courthouse. "Blessed are the merciful", behind Alito? "Visit the imprisoned," next to federal judge and indicted war criminal Jay Bybee?
In law school I attended a debate between Prof. Duncan, a noted opponent of same sex marriage and Prof. Snowden. I went as an opponent, sitting on the "Duncan" side and then moved as the hatred on the faces on the side I chose didn't match what I saw on the "other side" or what I wanted to stand for.
Why is it that when they pick-and-choose which passages to believe literally, they choose the bigoted ones? I don't hear any "public Christians" demanding the right to sell their daughters into slavery, or to stone adulterers to death.
Nothing new here in this one-sided socialist debate. It's not a real debate. Where's real debate on biological vs. social conditioning? Hidden.
It's all psychological and social. We can F*** anything if we develop the taste or addiction.
Lets face it, sex gets boring. Even with lots of people. Its a physiological rush. The only 'biological' conditioning is actually 'form conditioning' - holes get filled.
I don't want my young boy to be taught sex is OK with boys, or good or brave. In fact I don't think sex with girls is as good or sex is necessary to avoid depression as the hype let's out, and commercialises, either, and I'm a known star stud.
Really sex is about children or fun. And masturbation does make men blind. Lets get that straight..you can't dismiss it without proof. Plenty of people experience that, and say so. It makes you a poor performer, and sportsman too.
The best reason to be gay is that so women are nasty, horrible ball-crushers, led by divorce-on demand policies of the brown-nose socialist goverment employees.
Not everything is alright, and things can be clear: masturbation and multiple partner sex is tedious and selfish like all addictions; God exists or doesn't there's no in between.
The human race is not progressing, and homosexuality and adultery was always tolerated...no need to make it an institution or promote it. Children should grow up free of it all, and choose themselves.
Finally, more gay teenagers commit suicide, because there are more and more of them struggling with sexual identity...confused by the messages people like you put around, with your wishy washy , tolerant attitude. Actually, it appears you're intolerant of religion, truth and god. Of course there are bigoted Christians, so what? There are bigoted Non-governmental charities and workers..go after them for a change.
Life is short, and sex without children is boring, and children without marriage is a disaster for the children. We play the flied a little when we're teenagers, it's risky, and we should soon grow up. But we don't.
JOhn
Wow, thank you John (Plum). First bona fide troll posting I've seen in a while.
@ Anonymous: I suppose that's your smart -arse way of debating? Meaning, I take it, you don't like what I wrote! What did you do with your brain cells..give them to your government boss with the rest of your body?
plum, so tell me, how is allowing people of the same sex to marry a "socialist" idea? I think marriage ought to be privatized. The government should limit itself to recognizing domestic partnerships between two unrelated adults, and leave marriage outside of the purview of government.
By the way, a student of abnormal psychology would have a field day with your sexual attitudes.
Dreher's response is yet another example of the long line of fundamentalists who think they shouldn't have to obey the rules if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Then they act like they're "martyrs" if they get punished for not obeying the rules. And if they lose their jobs? OH NOEZ! They're being PERSECUTED!!! Call the papers! Call a lawyer! My religious rights are being violated because I can't proselytize people on the job!!
Small snark here, okay? If someone pitches a fit about not being allowed to keep a job after violating the rules associated with that job, they don't get to cry martyr. Martyrs are people who are punished for having a faith, not for having a faith and using it to punish others. People who deliberately set themselves up to be punished by way of harming or harassing other people with their faith? They're not martyrs.
They're hypocrites.
Really sex is about children or fun.
There is a lot to pick apart in John's comment, but the above sentence strikes me as just about the saddest I have ever seen.
Sex is about having children or having fun? That's it? John! Have you ever heard of the expression, "making love"?
I'm guessing your wife hasn't, or if she has, has resigned herself to never experiencing it again.
I feel sorry for you. Truly.
@ plum: Wow, is it ever time for you to get back on your Thorazine! If you believe any of that nonsense, you must be a paranoid schizophrenic (and currently unmedicated). Do go see your doctor and get some help... and in the meantime, give the nice young men your computer. Crazy people shouldn't go near expensive electronic equipment, you know.
@ anonymous: your id is it, anonymous?
'Socialist' because it was the 'i am a do-gooder ' ilk..'who support such ideas of 'equality', and compete with god.
You're are a student of abnormal psychology, but an anonymous one?
Students of abnormal psychology are sitting down to learn about other people, not themselves, or just get a job 'to help people' and the management manage them. ..power.
Enrolled Students of abnormal psychology might giggle at anything they considered ab-themselves, which could be everything they don't consider politically-correct or 'cool'. Being empowered as 'students' of what is correct to learn, including what is abnormal, I suppose they are invariably sure of their own correctness - more so than than 'men of the world' , with nasty stuff like experience, and responsibility, who may even tend to appear non-conformist, that is if they haven't ended up in the loony bin struggling to keep their family intact.
Fascinating though the subject may be, All abnormal psychology boils down to is people who went crazy and killed for no apparent reason or for deprave tastes, or are coping with crippling loss of freedom, bullying single-parents, butch mothers,, or social worker-managers, and basic needs, like housing.
NOw, back to your comment, about what those students would think of me: it' could be a sly way, - - is it not, of saying something deroggatory about me, without actually saying anything! NO, I admit, it may be masked admiration, I don't really know, because you remain kind of , anonymous.
Thanks for your kind and open question.
So far as 'privatised' goes, Doesn't that mean simply, don't interfere with cultural practices? Marriage is for couples who can have children...heterosexuals, it's about families with children. it's not a contract for romantic love in the movies. It's a contract of honour and obedience. Obedience means to go the way, to act in accordance....not to fight and quarrel and snigger and poo poo, and undermine generally - a fathers vision for his children. The Fathers' eyes and heart. HIs way with spirit, conduct...his teaching, his example. We all have fathers, and the government, nor the scientists made no seed. Not one, not even a mustard seed.
The government cannot limit itself.
Suppose I take Leviticus 21:18-20 very seriously and am constantly badgering a handicapped coworker not to profane God's altar by entering a temple with a defect...
@ Kathy said...
Yes I'm sad too, am I? Of course I've heard of those things, dear. I deliberately omitted them for your sake.
To which I reply, Love doesn't have to be sex, nor does expression, , haven't you heard? I love my children, and don't have sex with them. Sex has to have fun or children as its aim, or its perverse (like an abnormal kind of sick anonymous hunter), surely? It doesn't have to have expression, it could be duty, it doesn't have to have love, perhaps it never can be love, because love is love, not sex. Sex is sex and means copulation or something like that. I do think love is a good idea though, or even better, a good heart.
I have had sex with love, and it was once only, with the 'ugliest woman in the world': she had a moustache, and later apologised for ugly face (which almost spoilt the magnificent vision of love and white light).
I've said enough on this post, you can deride me all you like now, without me defending myself.
For those who prescribe medication for me: that's it drug me, bind me! - its what you want to do, repress me. It's you, not the Christians; you the government atheists. You're god aren't you - you and your government? Funny to think you may be a homophobe anyway, in reality.
Although not from Iowa, I too am proud of the actions of the Iowa Supreme Court. During the Korean War era I served aboard the battleship USS Iowa (BB61) and have always been proud of her heritage and accomplishments during WWII and subsequent years until being decommissioned in the early '90s. It is a pride that is shared by the decreasing number of former crew members when we meet for our annual reunion.
How does all this relate to the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage? Well, in 1955 the Navy placed some undercover investigators aboard the ship to determine if any crew members were homosexual (the term gay wasn't used back then). One day, without warning, several crew members, some whom I knew personally, were handcuffed, accused of being homosexuals and, in plain view of the ship's crew, removed from the ship. The last that I heard about their fate was that they were later incarcerated at the US Naval Prison in Portsmouth, NH.
Although I know that this was a Navy decision and in no way reflects on the state of Iowa, I can't help but feel that the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, even if only symbolically, helps a bit to make up for this miscarriage of justice.
Rod could try being a public atheist, too, if we want a more direct comparison to "public Christian."
"Plum," Freud would have a field day with your "holes" fixation.
Oh, I get it. Well done, plum.
Plum, you said that "Marriage is for couples who can have children". Really? What if someone is infertile? Or in the post-menapausal years? Should the sacred bond of marriage be denied to them because they can't reproduce?
My mom became a widow at 64. Does that mean she can not marry again if she chooses to?
In short, plum, can you come up with a single solitary reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't based on a religious text or your own personal hatred of homosexuality?
How they can manage legalized divorce, premarital sex, contraceptives, not going to church on Sunday, women in the ministry, etc. is also hard to understand.
Jesus actually directly spoke about divorce and in raw numbers it is more of a 'problem' to 'Christians' right?
Sorry for the misplaced comment. My above comment was meant for AL's previous post, "Marriage Equality in Iowa."
@anoymouse: The reason for marriage (cross-culture) was/is to sanctify sex which tends to beget children.
Particularly because humans have sex for pleasure, all year round, not just at spring, and because children don't fly the nest in the same month their born. Swans don't get married, but stay partners for life anyway. I presume that's love.
Whether a couple is infertile or not is beside the point. They don't intend to be infertile, generally.
Od course your mother can re-marry, and she can have sex too - its not illegal. Or she may just seek companionship if dwellings are remotely spaced, or she feels lonely. Their are other issues in that case, with one's own feelings about faithfulness etc. Its a personal thing. Generally, people who were elder widows didn't get remarried but joined their children's household.
All bonds of friendship in truth, are sacred under God. Even the bonds of thieves. Marriage isn't so necessary for thieves to keep company nor is it for elderly widows, homosexuals, bluetits, dogs, masturbators, and apple trees.
There are more questions, then if must questioniwhat is rather strightforward, and you see it becomes absurd:
If I masturbate, should I be able to marry myself?
Not Even if I have a split-personality?
If I have one good friend I love platonically, should I be unable to love others? I don't think so.
If I have sex and love one brother, should I not be able to have sex with another homosexual, and get married to them all?
If I have a wife and children and all in love another woman, helplessly, should I desert my children and wife? Then run back after it becomes more everyday, and mundane?
Should I not be able to marry them all the women and all the men I am friends with (love), sex or not?
Regards,
Plum
AL seems to have been previously unaware of Robert Stacy McCain's blogging. For a better idea of how he thinks, check out this post:
Liberal vs. Conservative Views on Marriage Equality
For example, back in December I wrote a post on how many in the religious right are resistant to moderating their views. McCain responded:
"The real question isn’t the influence of Dobson, but rather the influence of God, and if you’re waiting for God to moderate his views, I suspect you’ll be waiting a long time."
I responded to this comment here. As long as people like McCain think that their objection to homosexuality is based upon following God’s own views there will be no change in their attitude. As they also lack any respect for our heritage of separation of church and state, they will continue to seek to use the power of government to impose what they see as God’s views upon others.
From Fritz's post, we learn that it is GOVERNMENT that shows intolerance in that case, not people. Therefore the law should be to prohibit government intolerance.
What Christians say, is neither here nor there. What the author , subject of this post is saying, is that Christians next, will get government intolerance for having views that differ from the government. That is dangerous. It's also clear that supporters of this marriage business have no real ability to think about what marriage for means, being an institution for children. And bear in mind , this is in an age where a government materially supports 'divorce-on demand', at the experience of children, fathers and even the mothers I.E whole families by the tens of thousands.
REF: 'fixation on Holes' This whole psychiatry thing is rather dull-witted, a mean way to offer a jibe. It's worrying that views supporting marriage as an institution for children, are held to be the province of trainee abnormal-psychologists.
What I said about holes is clear and in context, not a fixation. Freud doesn't give a damn about me, and nor is he the sole expert or original thinker about human psyche. YOu are still required to exercise your own critical thought.
I asked you about infertile couples and widowed senior citizens in order to knock down what appears to be the one argument against gay marriage that isn't a Bible Verse. This notion that because gay people can't easily have children, that they cannot enjoy an institution of marriage that is meant to promote the procreation of the species. And, lo and behold, you admitted that it isn't illegal for for infertile couples or widowed senior citizens to marry. Yet, you still want to deny gay people the right to enter into a legal contract based on a consensual relationship why again? Unless you are going to argue that adult gay people are not human beings, and therefore unable to grant legal consent, then why are you fighting this so much?
By the by, if you really feel that it is appropriate for a majority to take away the rights of a disfavored minority through the legislative process, I don't want to hear you complain if someone decides to teach your side a lesson and start promoting laws banning heterosexual marriage.
Seriously, plum, no one is forcing you to suck another man's cock.
@ Anonymous. Gay people cannot have children, naturally, they must use donor sperm. That's a modern thing. The government now wants to open sperm baks, intended for infertile heterosexuals, 'to same sex couples' Actually it means in practice lesbian couples. Male homosexual couples cannot have children.
Marriage is not meant to be an enjoyment for its own sake. Ice cream is an enjoyment, company is an enjoyment; marriage is a relationship with oaths, between heterosexuals, because it means children.
I said couples don't intend to be infertile. They weren't screened first before marriage, neither should they. Science cannot rule on fertility with 100% success.
The point I make is that marriage is an institution about children. People should be able to have views on that. If not, then the only views that will be able to put across are sexual liberality, at the expense of children. It already happens they and their fathers suffer from that, even the liberated women do, many saying at an older age, how foolish they've been, against their own well-being, and their dependants.
It's a big jump to say that this is a right for all people , marriage, when in practice it has always been between heterosexuals, because it is about children, not romantic love.
There is no disfavoured minority denied 'rights' , and no rights to take away. Marriage isn't a right of young children, for precisely the reason I've given. It's not a question of rights. The debate is about the recognition of what marriage is, as an institution to protect human children. AS soon as you make it a right as a 'an enjoyment' for infertile homosexuals or children even, then it loses its meaning, and its value, and therefore its purpose. There is nothing to replace it.
It is an attack against heterosuexual marriage, in order to destabilise families. that;s all the whole movement is about. Homosexuals, for the most part, recognise what I say, and don't want marriage.
People Like Elton John, speak only for themselves, not for families or children.
ANd should you want to mention the right of lesbians to sperm and children in marriage, I can't think of a worse environment for children: there is something about children needing fathers. ANd lesbians are the most instable and violent of all relationships, as a rule, in fact according to official statistics.
Its worth mentioning that there is the view that we are all bisexual, in the last analysis. ANd so therefore, the distinct possibility that homosexuality iis also linked to promiscuity, which is no good for children's stability. They need parents more than school governments.
It's children without fathers who have the highest suicide rates, greatest unemploymentt, greatest schizophrenia etc.
Seriously, No one needs to force me suck cock. It's better than ice cream, isn't it? I can be married and heterosexual and suck cock. Ican suck cock without marriage. BUt above all it is not my duty to suck cock, but it is my spiritual duty to support my children, spiritually, physically, and in companionship. I cannot bring up children properly without marriage. It certainly takes two parents to be able to offer that and with full attention and time.
More, but less directly to the point: I personally believe that heterosexual parents have something special to offer each other and their children by virtue of being male and female.
Finally, I am not Christian myself, I am Vedantist. The woes that are the subject of the article under discussion, extend to all people throughout the world, who wish to safeguard marriage, or even express views, as an institution for children, and a sacred bond for children; that means all of us. ANd the danger is from the politically-correct, and government servants. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance to homosexauls, its actually about intolerance to heterosexual families with children.
In general al this nonsense is supported by atheists, and Elton John fans, who are apt to believe that the government will be manufacturing children from cells from pigs or mice - they spend our money on that research right now, just as they materially support women who leave the fathers of their children, upon any whim. The are the very same people who ever showed intolerance to homosexuals, or any other minority. They are the people who dismiss intelligent critical thought by appealing to the God Freud, with aspersions about 'fixations' and the American Handbook of Abnormal Psychology, without knowing anything about them either. Their target is now christains and muslims in particular, they 'tar' them all with the same brush, and they employ facile, stupid reasoning in support of a minority (homosexuals) which doesn't even want or trust their support. Why? because the same people support the wholesale and rapid destabilisation of public life, and send us into slavery: through allegiance to the corrupting manipulators of government. You haven't seen intolerance yet. Please recall that Christians have a history of tolerance, as do all god-loving and free people.
Regards,
'Socialist' because it was the 'i am a do-gooder ' ilk..'who support such ideas of 'equality', and compete with god.
Hmm. Then I guess we were founded as a socialist country: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."
Marriage is for couples who can have children...heterosexuals ...
That's what you think, and that's what a bunch of churches think too. So, keep the government to recognition of civil domestic partnerships, and leave marriage a wholly private matter.
The government cannot limit itself.
Of course it can. Ours does.
marriage is a relationship with oaths, between heterosexuals, because it means children
Well, if a particular religion declines to marry infertile people, I wouldn't interfere. But it's none of the government's business.
The reason for marriage (cross-culture) was/is to sanctify sex which tends to beget children
This is why the government shouldn't be involved. Since when do Christians need the government to provide "sanctification" of anything or anyone?
Seriously, No one needs to force me suck cock. It's better than ice cream, isn't it? I can be married and heterosexual and suck cock. Ican suck cock without marriage. BUt above all it is not my duty to suck cock
You've given this a lot of thought, have you? Any practice, perchance? Since the Boy Scouts, that is.
I am not Christian myself, I am Vedantist. The woes that are the subject of the article under discussion, extend to all people throughout the world, who wish to safeguard marriage, or even express views, as an institution for children, and a sacred bond for children; that means all of us.
Thanks for making clear what I've long believed, which is that the Eastern religions are no more progressive than the Western ones.
Please recall that Christians have a history of tolerance
You are your own best parody!
@ Ron Chusid : I doubt whether 'people like McCain' object to homosexuality. It exists. Their objection is to marriage for homosexuals, isn't it?
It's worth bearing in mind that discreet homosexuality has been tolerated, as it occurs in reality, not sanctioned, but warned against, in the same breath as masturbation, in terms of promiscuity, corruption, and enjoyment of sex for its won sake. That's their view, and perhaps, the bible's, I don't know the bible well enough to speak about that.
@anonymous: "Thanks for making clear what I've long believed, which is that the Eastern religions are no more progressive than the Western ones". You let yourself down. That's a sudden jump, no reasoning whatsoever; simple prejudice. And what's 'progressive' exactly? The latest politically -correct trend? No reasoning necessary, We shall obey? Two people working to afford a mortgage?
Bigger bombs to bomb people at the touch of button, and more medals for easier killing? Supermarket ready-made meals?
Vedanta is not 'Eastern': the World is ROUND.
Vedanta is about truth. Now policeman of religions, what is the basis (evidence ) for your suspicions?
How is government spending going up, and yet the government getting smaller, as you say
In conclusion, it appears that this whole matter of 'support for homosexual minorities' is a front for atheists to knock religious views, without employing any reasoning; It is not motivated by tolerance or understanding of homosexuality or heterosexual families. Its just the rage of aethists who worship goverment and Psychiatry.
Plum, you said "Marriage is not meant to be an enjoyment for its own sake. Ice cream is an enjoyment, company is an enjoyment; marriage is a relationship with oaths, between heterosexuals, because it means children.
I said couples don't intend to be infertile."
You are aware, you little twat, that there are many, many, many couples who get married that never intend to have children, and take steps not to have children. By your oft-repeated definition of "marriage", are these couples not married or should they not be allowed to marry? Again, my 64 year old widowed mother obviously cannot have children, so would that mean that a second marriage for her would be invalid because of no children?
No matter how you try to spin this, you piece of shit, you carefully set up your definitions of valid marriages so that straight people don't have to meet the threshold or rules that you are laying down, the same thresholds you say disqualify gay people from enjoying the right of marriage.
As for your "destabilizing families" bullshit, tell me, fuckwad, gay marriage has been legal in numerous countries and a few states in the US for a while now. Did the "family" suddenly disintegrate. Well, can you point me to some authoritative studies to back up your prattle?
For someone who claims to be a Vedandist, it's pretty staggering that you basically are arguing literally your entire opposition to gay marriage with the premise that gay people aren't human beings. You know what, you festering cunt bubble, gay people ARE human beings. Even you're a human being, although you are such a despicable person I would gladly go to jail if I had the opportunity to break all your fucking limbs.
Good post! I grew up in a Southern Baptist household. I could write a book about the hypocrisy that went on in my families home as well as others I knew of the same faith. Needless to say when I grew up the abuse took its toll and I found myself on a path of healing that continues to this day.
Part of my healing has been the need to make since out of this religion of "Christianity". I always felt like something must be there, how could something become so huge if it were nothing but a lie? After a lot of study and seeking I did come to the conclusion that there was nothing that could prove that Jesus was born in a manger, that he rose from the dead, that he saved us from anything. But I did one day come to another realization. That Jesus story was the story of my life. I came into this world pure and whole, nothing wrong with me. But there was no room for me here. My father beat me mercilessly for dancing, beginning at age 3. I was shamed and ridiculed for not being good at sports, for not being interested in a lot of things other boys were. There was no room for me at in the Inn.
But I had a grandfather who adored me. He loved me and did all he could to protect me and nurture me. In his eyes I could do no wrong. He was my wise man, he was my 3 kings.
But still, I lost myself, I learned how to talk differently, to walk differently, to act like all the other boys. I had to, my survival depended on it. But when the pain became to great, the burden of the lie to big to carry, I came back to myself and in doing so lost everything. My family scorned me, my friends gradually fell away. I was crucified and it sent me straight to hell. But by going to hell I found myself, my whole self,not just my gay self but the self I was created to be, I arose, yes the scars were there but I arose, no one ever had the power to destroy me. Nobody ever could.
As gay people I believe we have been given a gift, a gift that can lead us to a place few others will ever find. We are hated, we are ridiculed for just being who we are.
But if we can hold on, if we can go into the journey we will all see that not only we are loved, we are the embodiment of love. And thats all God is on this plane, the embodiment of love.
"I said couples don't intend to be infertile. They weren't screened first before marriage, neither should they. Science cannot rule on fertility with 100% success" - plum
Ah, but if science *could* rule with 100% success, then we could finally stop those infertile free-loaders from marrying! We must continue to hold out hope for that day.
You may be a troll, plum, but at least you're an entertaining troll.
to all the readers and commenters who seem to be so engaged by PLUM's comments, may I recommend the diary of Vaslav Nijinsky. Not nearly as toxic, but provides much the same rubber-necking thrill. He wrote it in Switzerland in 1919, the year he lost his mind.
to all the readers and commenters who seem to be so engaged by PLUM's comments, may I recommend the diary of Vaslav Nijinsky. Not nearly as toxic, but provides much the same rubber-necking thrill. He wrote it in Switzerland in 1919, the year he lost his mind.
@ anonymous: "many couples who get married that never intend to have children, and take steps not to have children." yes but many not for ever.
"I could write a book about the hypocrisy that went on "
I agree that happens, but it's not reasoning against truth or practicality or necessity. It is precisely hypocrisy, which is deplorable, but hypocrisy doesn't debase the spiritual truth, or just truth.
"How could something become so huge if it were nothing but a lie?" It's huge and includes hypocrisy, but isn't only hypocrisy. You have to live by the truth.
"My father beat me mercilessly for dancing, beginning at age 3" that's stupid. It may be a reason for why you interpret your dancing as being gay. Dancing is a male thing, not sexuality necessarily. Vedantists dance for god.
"As gay people I believe we have been given a gift, a gift that can lead us to a place few others will ever find. " I htink that is sometimes true, Mainly becauseof suffering. I have suffered just for riding my bycycle, but I don't call myself a byccylcist with a special gift. I have suffered, and been ridiculed for telling the truth!
"We are hated, we are ridiculed for just being who we are." For being homosexual , I think you mean, or for being effeminate. I think effeminate doesn't necessarily equal homosexuality, we are led to believe that. It's much looser. Your real self is neither homosexual nor not, I should imagine, it's beyond such designations.
ANd I might add, that where sex in marriage has become or is, mainly a contract , like commerce, love may exist more freely in sex with homosexuals, or even just friendship. That's a contemportary thing, affected by power relationships (end government).
In the free world, there are no such conditions, and we could be married and live separately just by building a hut next door - no onorous economic ties to unjust (untrue/infaithful/unfriendly ) power. That would help relationships proseper in love and friendship and truth, for all current appetites, attractions.
I'm sorry you had a painful relationship worth your father, its really not good for children , the depend upon their fathers. Perhaps you can understand that your father would feel shame? But you cannot easily forgive hypocrisy, but even that can be understood, when we understand, then forgive weakness. I can't stand institutionalised hypocrisy though: that has to be fought, there is no one to forgive.
My only way is to live by truth, which is also the way of love.
Thanks for post
Best wishes,
Plum
@Anonynous: "Ah, but if science *could* rule rule with 100% success"
I'm being sincere when I speak for heterosexual families/marriage being for children.
I am not at all anti homosexual. I am anti-government intolerance: I don't think America was founded on socialism. I think SOcialism sounds nice, but runs intio troubles of being stupid (nanny government) , wasteful, wronglyinterfering, and totalitarianism.
I said and think homosexuality can be corrupting, because of taboos, and its use in controlling government employees. So is pedophile, bribery, child prostitution/prostitution used in the same way. Basically sex with its taboos -and hypocrysy!
Ron (whom I have a lot of respect for both as a writer, and as an educated, open-minded and wise person) says it perfectly:
"As long as people like McCain think that their objection to homosexuality is based upon following God’s own views there will be no change in their attitude. As they also lack any respect for our heritage of separation of church and state, they will continue to seek to use the power of government to impose what they see as God’s views upon others."
God is, without a doubt, the culprit here, as well as in almost every other civil/human rights travesty in history.. The intolerance of these so-called "Christians" would make the real Jesus turn over in his grave..
Not to get off on a huge tangent.. but this directly leads to our impossible (and absurd) dream of spreading "freedom and Christianity" to the middle east.. a people that have this same "my duty is gods will" brainwashing that absolutely can NOT be argued.. These are people that are willing to strap C-4 to their body (or even to their son or daughters body) and willingly die one of the most horrific deaths one could imagine, all in the name of god.. Doesn't that say something to the OVER dedication to Religion?
Get a clue people.. ARGH! It feels like I am taking crazy pills!! To see things like this still happening today.. in 2009.. its scary to think of where we are headed if we allow Religion to continue to dominate our Political and Social beliefs and tolerances..
I say the religious nut bags get an ultimatum.. they have until 2012 for Jesus or Mohammad or who-ever your crazy ass thinks is going to come back from the dead after 2000 years to hold your hand while floating up into an imaginary land controlled by some old white guy (while burning and or damning all non-believers to a life of ever-lasting torture in another imaginary land underground where some evil red person is at the controls)
Thats it.. if this damn Resurrection doesn't happen by December 31st at 11:59PM ALL Religions have to lower themselves to just club status.. you know..like Elks or Boy/Girl Scouts.. no more tax breaks.. no more using that tax free money to pay lobbyists to persuade congress and the government to alter legislation in favor of religious beliefs over common sense.. no more free rides. period.. nothing more..
THEN WE WILL FINALLY SEE SOME PROGRESSION IN THE WORLD AS FAR AS TOLERANCE AND UNDERSTANDING.
PS - Plum sucks cock for sure.
Lol
Plum, I won't criticize the content your comments because quite frankly after a few sentences I start feeling like I am watching paint dry and the boredom won't allow me to finish reading them. I detect some truth in what I am able to get through but its all so full of intellectual masturbation and disconnection from the heart that reading your comments is like listening to the drips of a leaky faucet hit the sink. For the sake of Jesus F@%!*ng Christ get a human personality before you try to convey your ideas to a human audience. If you are married it must be to a corpse because I don't know of anything else that resembles a person that could stand you.
Okay Plum, I am back and I tried to read some more of your comments. Not only are you a bore but your thoughts and beliefs are actually quite frightening. I was barely able to get through 2 of them and that was enough pollution for my brain to handle for a while. In one of them you compare the wounds from riding a bicycle to those inflicted by an abusive upbringing. Its obvious you have a loose screw. The inability to differentiate between the two are what serial killers are made of. Obviously at some point you lost the ability to empathize with human suffering and hold it on par with a damaged car bumper. Scary stuff. your correct in believing that its not your scrapes and bruises from bike riding that makes you special, its your narcissism and spiritual bankruptcy that does. The other was your statement about Lesbian relationships being the most abusive, where do you get that fact from, The Family Research Council? If so you should now that it has all the validity of a study done by the Tobacco companies. You have a opinions that you cloud with your dull intellectualism. Maybe if you learned to shout a little louder and added some intensity in your tirades you could hold rallies in Berlin the way Hitler used to. Because the crap that spews from your brain and out your mouth would make you an excellent successor to him. Oh and as far as your bullshit about forgiveness goes, you have no clue to what forgiveness even is. Jesus hung on the cross and forgave the criminal that hung next to him. But nowhere in the bible does it show he forgave Judas, in fact he allowed him to kill himself. Hint, hint.
The poor christianist victims, (yes you too Mr. Dreher) always being persecuted in a country that they have controlled for over 200 years.
What planet do you people live on because it does not even begin to resemble reality.
I came out of the closet in 1979 and have received my fair share of persecution and plenty of it from my own biological family who are evangelical christianists. I also received nearly daily ridicule from the christianists that I worked along side of.
For example, almost weekly, someone would leave me homophobic fascist 'bible tracts' that informed me that I was inhuman and responsible for all the evil in the world, etc., etc....much like the crap that the Westboro Baptist Church of 'God Hates Fags' infamy. When I was finished tossing these garbage tracts I was barraged with christianist conversations meant for me to overhear, such as singing the praises of such scumbags as Mr. Dobson of Focus on the Family or of other christianist homophobes. Yes, I guess I could have complained to the HR department but as it also was full of the same type of christianist homophobes, alot of good that would have done me.
I lived in a neighborhood that literally had three churches on every major corner, and if you did not sport some sort of Republican or Christianist themed bumper sticker on your car you were suspect and harrased by the local police.....I could go on and on and on.
I finally came to my senses and left this horrible place behind. I also accepted the fact that my biological family was insane with their hateful christianist blather and would never change.
The thing that makes me insane is how these assholes in the name of christ bully, torment, belittle, judge, marginalize and hate publically, all the while they claim victim status. These folks exhibit all of the behaviour that their Christ spoke against and unbelieveably they cannot see or grasp the irony.
In spite of being on the receiving end of all this christianist abuse, I hardly live life as a victim because I see my christianist tormentors claim that status and it is anything but pretty.
So Mr.Dreher, drown in your victimist quicksand. The reality is, no one cares to take away the rights of christianists, they just want your homophobic rants to stay in your churches and prayer groups and out of the rational public discource. You, like all other bigots, are on the wrong side of history. Your not being persecuted, your just being called on your uncivilized public bigotry the same way that anti semites, anti african american, etc. are. It may have been fun and empowering for all you christianists to express your homobigotry, but the times are a changin and soon what brought you much power will only send you packing to the fringes of polite society.
could you imagine the kkk arguing that blacks and jew did not deserve the rights as white because then they wouldnt be able to say nigger and kike out loud?
Evangelical, fundamentalist christiams and catholics are our modern day Pharisee's. If Jesus was real and came back today he would have a field day with them. Remember when he pointed out to them that he without sin cast the first stone and they all fled? Same goes with Christians today. If there is anything timeless about the bible it is the way it illustrates the lower aspects of human nature and it is as true today as it was then. But also remember that bible spoke of the wolves in sheeps clothing, the people who would claim God as their own but actually be false prophets. This is the what the anti-christ is and its alive and well. But the bible also speaks of all things hidden being revealed. Is it any wonder that these hypocrites are being exposed. There priests rape our children, their ministers rent prostitutes and spend the money of their parishoner's on illicit drugs. While children starve and die of AIDS in Africa their clergymen hide their sins under velvet robes while gazing upon art collections that could fill the stomachs of thousands. But Mr. The politicians use the hate of these people to further their careers and power. Plum, you are correct, none of this obscures the truth, it actually by contrast, illuminates it further. Gods love lives in the hearts of the meek, the scars of the wounded and downtrodden and scorned. The bible itself says, "God loves a sinner". So let me be a sinner, because from what I can tell from the the example of Christ is that is who gets Gods love. So get off your Christian victim crap, you only claim victim status to justify being a perpetrator and spreading your hatred, lies and hunger for power and control.
I recognize Robert Stacy McCain from the entries about him at SPLC. He used to be one of the editors at the Wa.Times.
Stacy is neo-Confederate who used to publish letters in the Times from the white supremacist Bill White. The same Bill White who tried to get his readers to go out and kill Leonard Pitts.
Link
Plum--why don't you try being gay for a while. It might change your view on choice or on sex or on a whole range of things.
It really amazes me that all the people who talk about being gay being some sort of choice or "lifestyle" are the people who've never had to make that choice.
And my mom and stepdad got married at age 50. No kids. Should they not have had the right to get married?
The wounds on my bicycle paralysed me for over six years, from the neck down. to my feet, unable to rest my head on a pillow for sleep, unable to walk, without falling, when i was able to stand, severed cranial nerves, so that to use my eyes made me giddy and sick, (constant vertigo), lose my job, lose my house, my pursuits, and some 'friends'.
I'm boring, I'm a troll,I'm spiritually bankrupt, narcissistic, I'm insane, I would make Freud worried, should be medicated, I'm dull , boring, intellectual,and I'm engaging, inhuman,I can't empathize, ..yeah come on, more....Am I vitriolic, by any chance? ...And people who are pro-family, are homophobes, automatically...(according to you)
BUt what I say is very simple: marriage is about children.
The research is from the British Crime Statistics.
You can't have a polite or reasonable discussion..
@Dean: I already answered about marriage at older ages. Marriage is/was primarily about children and families. There was no need to worry about people who might be infertile, that's absurd, and so is drawing an age limit. being exclusively for heterosexuals, does not make it anti-friend anti-gay, or just let's say two women who choose companionship without sex.
I didn't talk about being gay a lifestyle choice, but now you mention it I don't really like the idea. If have sex with the same sex you just do, what's the fuss?
Why I don't I try being gay for a while? - Isn't that like a lifestyle choice? Do you know anything about my sex life , no. It's private, unless I choose to speak about it. Tis discussion isn't about me is it?
How do you know I'm not 'gay' whatever that might be? You don't. How do you know I haven't got a happy homosexual friendship - you don't
You're jumping to conclusions. How do you know, I 'm not a campaigner for Gay rights? You don't.
So keep that out of it.
ANd who of you have 'same sex parents?
after all the intelligent, articulate, and well argued comments going back and forth i would like to just tell plum to go fuck himself.
"i would like to just tell plum to go fuck himself."
Mega dittos.
Uh HUh. Faking gays reading from a script.
anonymous said...
I always felt like something must be there, how could something become so huge if it were nothing but a lie? After a lot of study and seeking I did come to the conclusion that there was nothing that could prove that Jesus was born in a manger, that he rose from the dead, that he saved us from anything. But I did one day come to another realization. That Jesus story was the story of my life.
---
Interesting idea. I encountered something similar when I took a mythology class. The reason that myths exist--and for me, that includes the Christian myth--is because they speak to something in our own experience. We find ourselves in the stories. For me, the myth of Jesus (which you can find in numerous previous myths, by the way) doesn't resonate. Other myths do, however. Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education!
The core message of christianity is very much like the core message of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and most other world religions--remember you are part of something bigger and answerable for your actions, and treat others as you would wish to be treated. Everything else is pretty much cultural window dressing, as far as I'm concerned. It all boils down to where we find ourselves in the stories.
If Dreher thinks that there is something wrong with being a public christian who will be chastised for his or her views of things, perhaps he needs to read his Bible where it says that Christians will be rewarded by governments for following Jesus and serving as ambassadors for the Kingdom of God.
What an imbecile. More confusion of political conservative ideology and populism for what Christianity and the Bible actually say. He can take this comment with the various health and wealth propositions and ask God for forgiveness.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home