In their own words:
''My concern is for the children -- for the future.''
''The marriage issue is waking up alliances that never existed. Abortion was never like this.''
"It's unfortunate that homosexuals have taken the moniker 'gay,' because their lifestyle and its consequences are anything but. Look what has happened in the decades since the sexual revolution and acceptance of the gay lifestyle as normal. Viruses have mutated. S.T.D.'s have spread. It shows that when we try to change the natural course of things, what comes out of that is not joy or gayness.''
''If you have a same-gendered union, you have no natural, biological way to propagate your philosophy. We have to recognize that they have a strategy to propagate their lifestyle. Think back 10 or 20 years ago, when you had the first openly homosexual person on TV. It was shocking to a lot of people. Now it's the norm on television, so you don't have the shock factor. Then they had two men with a passionate kiss on TV. That's the road they're heading down. They have a strategy.''
''They are attempting through the public-school system to teach not only that homosexuality is O.K. but that it's normal. And now they are going as far as teaching children how to engage in the act. I find that appalling and absolutely unacceptable.''
''You'd be amazed how many people in the floral industry are homosexuals. And that's where I became curious. How do you put it together, that they've chosen to do something that I have such an aversion to, yet I'm finding I can see them as real people? As a Christian, that was a welcome development. Around the same time, a close friend told me he was struggling because he was attracted to men. Over the next two years, I had two other people confide the same thing to me. For some reason, God was putting it in my path. I took a psychology course, and ever since I've seen it as part of my ministry to counsel these people. I tell them that is part of God's challenge to them, and those temptations have to be fought off with spiritual weapons.''
''People feel liberated. They feel like we don't have to go along with this stuff anymore, the idea that we're repressed backwater religious zealots just for wanting a decent society in which our children can thrive. It's O.K. today to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Saying so does not make you a hater or bigot.''
''My concern is the health issue. I want to get these people away from AIDS, out of that unhealthy lifestyle.''
''The ex-gay movement is a very important part of the story. I've had quite a few opportunities to counsel people who were in a homosexual lifestyle. They have generally found themselves in a desperate place. They know that Christ promises an abundant life, but that promise was made with some restrictions. These people have tried to find fulfillment in ways that are against God's principles. So you don't want to further the error by allowing gay marriage. Most of these folks have had an abusive situation that goes back to childhood. You want to heal that. You want to hold back the tide and not let such a high impact issue harm the whole society.''
''The threat to traditional marriage will affect our society more than any other issue that's come up.''
''To put it succinctly, the institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order. Everything of value sits on that base. Institutions, governments, religious fervor and the welfare of children are all dependent on its stability.''
''The homosexual community would have us believe that marriage is simply about loving one another. I say it's about two human beings who are wired completely differently, one with estrogen and one with testosterone, living together in love but with the purpose of procreation. It's a lot deeper than love. So I can't see how someone could look on a same-sex marriage as marriage at all.''
''When marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. Why bother to get married at all?''
''I bet a dollar against a doughnut that if they get gay marriage, one day a bisexual is going to show up who says, 'I want to marry a man and a woman. It's going to open the door to polygamy.''
''Once you start this, you could have a 45-year-old man wanting to marry a 9-year-old boy. That could be O.K. in 20 years. That's what you get with relative moral truth. Whereas with absolute moral truth, what was O.K. 50 years ago will still be O.K. 20 years from now.''
''The purpose of the hate-crime legislation seems to be just to silence those of us who oppose homosexuality." As to the medical-decision-making bill, she added, ''We know it's a back-door way for the homosexual activists to get gay marriage.''
The article is a fascinating read about how these people will take any sort of half-truths or their own religious beliefs as fact. I highly suggest reading the entire thing. Basically, the argument still goes that if gays can marry, all society will crumble. How that will exactly happen isn't exactly clear but it just will, damnit!
These two quotes really struck me:
''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh'' -- and then goes on to add, ''With those 22 words, God announced the ordination of the family, long before He established the two other great human institutions, the church and the government.''
''Marriage was defined thousands of years ago and has served us well,'' said Rebecca Denning, a retired secretary in southern Maryland who volunteers alongside Evalena Gray. ''I think marriage is about procreation and families. And I think we're getting into something that we don't truly understand what the ramifications will be.''
So by this argument, married people who choose not to have children or can't have children or people who choose never to get married are just as bad as the gay sinners who "choose" a hedonistic lifestyle. Not only do these people tell me that I will be going to hell because I'm not part of their club, they are now telling society at large that even if you don't want to be part of their club, you're ruining it for them. Who gives a shit if everyone except for them is going to hell anyway?
People say the darndest things!
15 comments:
They certainly do.
Several years ago while engaging in an argument with my mother about her rejection of my brother and his gay partner-of-color, she came out with this:
"Well if he was with a woman and she was black or if he was with a man and he was white, I think I could manage but this is just too much. Maureen, You have to understand how I was brought up!"
Hmmm.
To me this article tried way too hard to make anti-gay activists seem sympathetic, without ever turning the microscope on them (e.g., why are they putting all this time into combating gay marriage instead of enjoying their own marriage or spending time with their own children?).
Its whole "conservative Christians are people too, and they fight the gays out of love" approach seemed like it was intended to make gay people and liberals feel guilty for despising the Christian right.
It didn't work on me.
If you (a) are too gullible or naive to realize that the Bible is a bunch of made-up B.S., not a history textbook, (b) don't even pay attention to what that book says about other "abominations" that are now commonplace practices for just about everyone, (c) spend more time thinking and talking about homosexuality than any gay person even does, and (d) can't grasp the concept that no one's sexual orientation is a "choice," I don't care if your bigoted activities are done out of "love," I still want you to jump off a 1,000-foot cliff with all your fellow zombies. You can give all your love to the cliff face as you bounce off it several times on the way down.
In the former NY Times public editor Daniel Okrent's column where he supported critics' claims that the Times is "a liberal newspaper," he said the paper's coverage of gay marriage approximated "cheerleading." I have found the opposite to be true. I keep seeing way more stories about anti-gay Christians than about actual gay people who are married or want to be, or, even rarer, about straight people who are pro-gay rights. I actually wrote a lengthy letter about this to Okrent a year and a half ago (and to ombudsmen at other papers), but I got no response from him.
These comments brought to you by the religion that insisted that the sun orbited the earth. The same confusion of cause and effect seems to be at play here too. This is my favorite bit of newspeak from above: "People feel liberated."
Much like the female residents of Kabul felt liberated from going to work when the Taliban arrived, or like the Jews of Spain felt liberated from their refusal to embrace Jesus when the inquisition rolled into town. This "persecuted majority under siege" complex is fascinating.
Yes, I've even seen this persecution complex up close in my family. A certain relative of mine said of the Chris Ofili-Virgin-Mary painting-with-elephant dung controversy, "They can get away with it because it's against Christians. If it was something against the Jews, it would be different, let me tell you." I can't ever make any headway in these conversations in my family, so I've stopped trying.
Nice generalizations. Not all "christians" follow christianity. I would go as far as to say most "christians" don't even read the bible. The bible is quite clear that all have sinned, and judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
I went to church last week, and had trouble listening through all the hypocrisy. I am looked at as an outsider to the church clique. Heck, my family is on the deacons "special needs" list. I'm just not a prideful person, so people don't know much about me. (people that read my blog replies know more about me, simply because my identity isn't revealed.)
Oh well, I agree on a lot of your points. I disagreee with, "These comments brought to you by the religion...", the religion didn't bring anybody these statements. The bible tells us that all sin is death, but in the new testiment, Jesus died for it all. He made no exclusions. Sin is sin, and we all do it.
As for your comment, "Bible is a bunch of made-up B.S.", have you read the bible? And your comment, "don't even pay attention to what that book says about other "abominations" that are now commonplace practices for just about everyone", is what "everyone is doing" the gauge of righteousness?
Whatever, nevermind, continue your one sided arguement, I'm sure you'll find enough lemmings to justify your homosexuality, or whatever it is you are angry about.
I imagine that "Psycho" is a Brendan-like person who will never return to this blog to read anyone's responses, but just in case, Psycho:
I have read the Bible. I had Christianity pounded into my head from birth by my parents and other authority figures. I truly believed in it all as a kid and teenager, only because people kept telling me it was all true. It wasn't until I was about 17 or 18 that I allowed myself to start thinking critically about religion and began to realize that it's all bullshit.
The Bible is no more valid than any other culture's system of mythology: it represents the struggling of one group of people in one tiny part of the world, a long time ago, to create meaning around things they didn't understand.
Now that we have 2,000 more years' worth of human knowledge, and a much greater understanding of the human mind and the universe around us, it's ridiculous that people still look to this antiquated source to figure out how to live their lives. You might as well believe that the Roman gods do live on Mt. Olympus, or that the Heaven's Gate cult was right about aliens coming in their UFO to pick up the true believers any day now. All religions are complete B.S. No person who has ever lived knows for sure whether there is a god, or many gods, and/or whether any such deities care how we live our lives or if they do, what they expect from us. All speculation on those topics is just that -- speculation -- and hence is not worth wasting every Sunday on, or building your worldview upon.
I am not angry about my homosexuality. I'm angry that people are so stupid that they fail to realize that homosexuality is a normal variance within the human sexuality spectrum, one that has no connection whatsoever to morality. I'm angry that instead of just living their own lives, so many American Christians seek to prevent me and people like me from living ours. Me having consensual sex with another man has no impact on other people.
My measure of morality is this: Are you hurting someone with your actions? Is there an identifiable victim? Such actions as murder, burglary, and rape clearly pass this test. Two people having sex with each other does not.
I don't use the word "sin" in discussion of things that happen in the real world. "Sin" is a construct. It requires a person to believe that there's a "god" sitting in judgment of every action a person does, which to me and a lot of other people is a ludicrous, laughable idea. As to righteousness, the common practices I'm talking about that are "abominations" in the Bible things on the level of wearing cotton/polyester blends and eating shellfish. For most people, being righteous doesn't enter their minds when they decide to take part in such activities, nor should it. Similarly, "sin" and "righteousness" should not affect a person's determination to live their life the way they were obviously meant to.
Dearest Psycho;
Not angry but sad.
My point was that the Christian religion has had a long tradition of finding itself on the factually wrong side of both scientific and social debates for a very long time indeed. The notable exceptions (Pastor Niemoller, William Wilberforce, MLK etc) are notable precisely because they were exceptions.
I'm not arguing with rank and file christians per se about their beliefs or various levels of adherence to their guidebook (although I do continue to shake my head at folks who stubbonly continue to believe in a creation myth so full of holes the Swiss could bang a price on it and sell it as cheese) but rather with the unerring tradition of the various christian denominations to allow the assholes to rise to the top. And as for the claim that christians are beholden only to a higher truth based on a series of dodgy translations of the Aramaic equivalent of the words of Bob and that this supercedes their loyalty to any temporal or church institution; well all I can say is that I'm always amazed when new age concepts about the personal right to a bespoke spirituality cross over to the Christian Right.
I notice you don't really tackle the main thrust of my argument (while displaying many of the symptoms associated with it- neat trick!), that many christians, especially those on the right, see to believe that they are a persecuted majority under siege despite being the dominant cultural force in the United States. Have you been following the controversy at the US Air Force Academy? Where the head chaplain told aspirant pilots to become christian or burn in hell? Where evangelical cadets adressed a member of the tribe training alongside him as a "dirty jew?" And when congress moved a motion to censure the academy for allowing this climate to continue unchecked, evangelical Republican congressmen attacked the motion as an assault on christianity? I'm surprised these assholes didn't bemoan the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen as an "attack on pastors, and christians, everywhere." Jon Stewart (you know- from the "Daily Show"- part of the jewish-gay liberal conspiracy in media alliance) said it very well last night when he deadpanned: "I dream of one day living in a country where Christians will be able to worship without fear."
One last thing. Your comment by its contradiction of comments by others here pretty much stops us from "continue(ing) (our) one sided arguement" by its very nature but I'm not surprised you don't acknowledge this; christians are very skilled at holding at least two intellectually contradictory positions at the same time.
Toodle-Pip
Weasel
P.S. "Justify Your Homosexuality" was the original title of that Madonna song but it wouldn't fit on the album cover.
And although flattered by your suggestion (it would mean I finally have flair and style), I'm not gay (I am English; maybe that's where the confusion comes from?), but merely one of those odd people who frankly doesn't care what consenting adults do to each other and would prefer those who preach "conversion from perversion" to spend a little more time on fixing human rather than existential problems.
PPS: Did I mention that I'm a raging atheist?
man, i leave town for a few days and everybody starts slinging mud.
i love it- come to think of it- the last time i went out of town was when i also created a controversy about religion on my blog.
i love the fact that jim and weasel both wrote at the same time convinced that mystery writer was writing about him.
one other thing though about the article. jim thought that the article wasn't harsh enough on the anti-gay crusaders. i thought it was very biased against them. i thought the writer let them hang themselves with their contradictions. little things like pointing out that one of the guys has confederate stuff in his house wasn't really necessary to put in other than to make the people look like the bigots that they are.
the writer didn't get on a soapbox or anything but i would guess that most anti- gay marriage people would have found that article incredibly biased against them.
"i love the fact that jim and weasel both wrote at the same time convinced that mystery writer was writing about him."
Writing about us dear boy, writing about us: the great diverse amorphous cloud of Northeastern liberality with a transatlantic twist. I could only answer him with reference to my specific points however as I do not to assume to speak for Jim, Maureen, or yourself.
Hope your baseball trip was splendid; can't wait to see the TV movie starring Hank Azaria and the late Jack Lemmon.
Dan, regarding your comment that you thought it was biased against the anti-gay people...at the end, the writer relates this anecdote of hearing the same story from both sides. A lesbian who testified for expanded gay rights (or against limitations on them...I don't feel like going back to the article to check the specifics) told the writer of a confrontation she had with one of these Christian activists, who she said condemned her harshly and yelled at her with some "What about my children and grandchildren" B.S. comment. That anti-gay woman apparently also told the writer the story, but said she had hugged the gay activist and told her she loved her. Assuming that that woman's version was true, the writer said something along the lines of, 'We have a long way to go, when what is expressed is love is interpreted as hate.' How does he know it was expressed as love?! Maybe that woman lied about hugging the lesbian. Maybe she yelled at her with hate in her eyes. By assuming that the Christian woman's version was the definitive version, he implied, in effect, that gay people are too quick to interpret "love" as hate. That's when he really lost me. But even before that, I was wondering why he brought in the pro-gay rights side by throwing in that example of the one lesbian couple, which just seemed like an afterthought. Either just stick to the wacko Christians and leave the gays out of the article completely, or strive for a real degree of balance, but don't try to make it seem balanced by talking about one solitary couple on the gay side.
you make a good point. i guess since i read it with the bias that these people are nuts, i took the ending anecdote as more evidence at how these wackjobs only see things the way they want to see them- not the other way around.
okrent's point in his column on this topic was that both sides feel like the times is biased against them. i still feel like most anti-gay marriage folks would find this article biased against them.
Listmaker: Okrent did assert that on most topics, people from both sides complain about the Times' coverage and allege bias in the opposite direction. But when he wrote about gay marriage in that column he argued that the Times was too pro (and in doing so, cited articles in other newspapers that didn't even do what he implied they do re: exploring potential negatives of legalizing same-sex marriage). Here is the relevant passage:
"But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine (''Toward a More Perfect Union,'' by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that ''For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy'' (March 19); that the family of ''Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home'' (Jan. 12) is a new archetype; and that ''Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes'' (Jan. 30). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.
Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.
This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles (''Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles,'' by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.
The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.
On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast."
okay. fair enough.
but you don't agree that the times has covered both sides? you disagree with okrent that they covered the pro gay marriage side?
i'd be interested to see the letter you sent him.
the dude invented fantasy baseball but clearly he hates gays!
Okrent invented fantasy baseball?
My letter to him was supposed to be Don't Blame the Gays, Part 2 on Fightin' Words, but then I decided to abandon that blog (is Jamie still doing it?...I will have to check). The implication being, more or less, blame the media instead (Part 1 was blame the politicians) for letting the debate on gay rights focus on the wrong points. I will e-mail you the letter.
Post a Comment