« The US and the UN: resetting relations
Great Musical Performances: Food Glorious Food from Oliver »
Human Sexuality and Christian Branding
From the very heart of fundamentalist Christian religious rightness — Donald Douglas at American Power — comes a statement I never thought I would hear from his lips (so to speak):
Life is what it is, and human sexuality is God-given.
Human sexuality is God-given??!! Cue the sound of trumpets and angels: Donald Douglas has seen the light. After all, gay and lesbian men and women have sexuality, too; and they are human just like Donald Douglas — so that surely must mean that homosexuality is human sexuality, right?
Actually, Douglas was telling a reader why it’s okay for him, a devout Christian who is very sanctimonious about his devoutness and very much a booster for the Christian religious brand — and who is married with children, to boot — to engage in paeans of panting for various “hot” female celebrities, very openly, on his blog (which he claims is a “family blog”).
And speaking of Christian branding, Brit Hume has doubled down on his efforts to sell Christianity as the superior religious product for achieving redemption and forgiveness.
Ta-Nehisi Coates calls what Hume is selling “the tonic of charlatans“:
I think the most telling part about Hume’s proselytizing (a word which he evidently doesn’t understand) is how it televises his lack of wisdom. We like to think about redemption in terms of getting past a sin, but we don’t really think about the process as teaching us something.
As someone who’s done his share of sinning, I think the striking thing about a serious process of redemption is how it humbles you. It isn’t simply a process of exoneration, or making amends, it’s a fundamental questioning of bone-deep philosophy. You learn about the ignorance of your certainty. Having been deeply wrong before, you come to know that as a flawed thing, you are subject to being deeply wrong again.
I don’t think Hume understands redemption anymore than he understands proselytizing. And I don’t think he understands the God he’s selling, like, at all. Hume speaks of the virtues of his savior, who for all his splendor, majesty and love, has not given Hume the kind of basic respect for people that we try to instill in five year olds. This is snake-oil.
48 Responses to “Human Sexuality and Christian Branding”
No, not all people against gay marriage are christian zealots. In fact great numbers of secular people with common sense and just a gut instinct for watching how people adopt behaviors like all manners of sexual deviances are against gay marriage.
Other people who are familiar with human behavior, imprinting and childhood development, as well as supporting studies in comparative psychology are opposed to gay marriage for good and solid reasons.
Many in the legal fields can see ahead of time using precident. They know the next ones in line for “normalcy” via marriage will have to be the polygamists and other deviants not now included under the incomplete “GLBT” umbrella.
Lots of folks for lots of reasons are against gay marriage. Some of them can't articulate exactly why and many of them can.
Nice try though.
And why the audible silence about the polygamists from the GLBT crowd? It is as if they want that whole issue to just go away. Could it be that they are prejudiced against “love” between more than two people? If so, why? Why indeed…..
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, The Seeker. The Seeker said: Human Sexuality and Christian Branding: http://bit.ly/8BskH3 [...]
Great…I finally get back from vacation and get to comment on this thread and of course find Sil doing her best to convince us all that the gays are taking over and doing their best to take over society as we know it. And what do you know, she goes down the line of comparative psychology to try to make herself sound smarter than she really is? Why do you rely on comparative psychology when it suits you Sil, and discount it when it doesn't? I mean seriously, you seem to pick and choose your authorities based on whether or not they agree with you.
Perhaps you can give us an eloquent post in reply to Kathy's actual post instead of just your typical knee-jerk reaction to anything that is gay-related. It would be nice if we could actually have a good conversation rather than your predictable speak about the “deviants” who just want to convert our children into their “fetish cult”. Oh, and I forgot, the AI industry puts all the food on my plate using your theories and nonsense…did I forget anything??
Peep be talkin bout my pee-pee again, so here I be.
Donny says: “Life is what it is, and human sexuality is God-given.” Stunning because it supports the idea that homosexuality is immutable and inborn at birth. Which is what we pagans have said for the last few millenia.
But preacher-man tricks, his own crotch bomb, and a fast buck show he means otherwise. Fake jesus science, never with love, is now the last refuge of a fading career.
Silhouette:
The words you use betray your own deep seated deviant bigotry. Ugly, ugly.
As for Landers, he is as much a Christian as David Duke is head of the ACLU.
I'm one of your deviants who wants the same rights for our people that you have for yours, and no more.
Marriage is only a formal legal notice of who is responsible for the children and who owns the property.
We are entitled to participate in that notice as consenting adults who pay taxes, non-persuasive “studies” notwithstanding.
As for polygamy, it's very difficult to separate who is responsible for what when there are 3 or more involved. Linking gay marriage to polygamy is a red herring used by the fanatics, just as saying we are trying to take over the straight world. Why don't you get a report linking gay marriage to tooth decay while you're at it?
“In fact great numbers of secular people with common sense and just a gut instinct for watching how people adopt behaviors like all manners of sexual deviances are against gay marriage.”
Still trying to pretend you're being rational on this issue I see.
No, what you are is addicted to your own thinking, and the satisfaction you get from having figured out a part of the big scary world. The problem is that you make life worse for people you've figured out as part of “the problem” – and this makes you evil and a liability to society.
Do you want gay people to pay taxes for the sake of society? Do you expect them to obey the laws and raise hell if someone were to inflict harm on you?
You don't deserve any such help from them.
“Other people who are familiar with human behavior, imprinting and childhood development, as well as supporting studies in comparative psychology are opposed to gay marriage for good and solid reasons.”
No they are not. If they are, they are poor scientists.
More rationalizing and petty sophistry so that the bigot may continue to excrete his useless thoughts.
“Many in the legal fields can see ahead of time using precident. They know the next ones in line for “normalcy” via marriage will have to be the polygamists and other deviants not now included under the incomplete “GLBT” umbrella.”
But we can't illegalize gay marriage! It's a slippery slope that will one day lead to Christians being exempt from marriage as well!
The word “sexuality” as perceived here, is an over glorification of a natural and normal function. I suppose you could say that the word has been “Hollywood-ized” as a concept.
Some women complain about getting pregnant and the man leaves them with the child to find another woman to have sex with. However if you criticize their “sexuality” freedom, then crap hit’s the fan. So I would suggest not using the word “sexuality” when you really mean un-criticized “Sexual Freedom”. Women’s sexual freedom unmasked helps to socially legitimize men’s desire to have sex with every woman he is attracted too. Contraception makes that more possible by making multiple sexual relations far less problematic, but it does nothing to suppress emotional pain caused by it sexual freedom.
It is also painfully obvious that people that engage in unnatural, and, abnormal same sex sexual relations, are abnormally transfixed and unnaturally addicted to “sexuality” as a sexual freedom concept far beyond normal heterosexual’s unabated sexual behaviors. In other words; sex becomes their lives rather than part of it in nearly all same sex practicing people but by only a percentage of heterosexuals. Their “promiscuity” is well documented. I would describe people like this, heterosexual or not, “Sexually Oriented”, with sex being an abnormal part of their lives, while the vast number of humans on this planet are Normally Oriented, sex forming a much lesser part of their lives.
This Donald Douglas fellow is merely describing normal and natural sexual appetites and the discipline required to keep them socially, with regard to responsibility and human emotion, in check. It really doesn’t require religion to do this. Only intestinal fortitude and a true caring concern for other human beings.
[....that the gays are taking over and doing their best to take over society as we know it]
They like to think they are. Its one of their screwball fantasies of grandeur.
“Some women complain about getting pregnant and the man leaves them with the child to find another woman to have sex with. However if you criticize their “sexuality” freedom, then crap hit’s the fan”
Possibly because you are trying to blame the inexcusable behavior of some men on the lack of “proper” sexual behavior in women. This is why I dislike the right so much – it assumes, insults and demands conformity, and most of all it gets its nose into matters it's not read up on or thought about. This aching desire to judge and forbid without any prior learning or considerations of ramifications for other people shows that today's right is about making its favored classes superior and priviliged members of society. Meritocracy, decency and justice be damned – all the world must bow to the odious, otiose and thinkskinned christian families.
Today's right-wingers are meddlesome armchair analysts with an obsessive need to set their pudgy little feet down out of fear or pride. Very disgusting.
“Women’s sexual freedom unmasked helps to socially legitimize men’s desire to have sex with every woman he is attracted too”
Yes, a woman actually acting on her libido is the cause of despicable men cheating on their wives and breaking up their families.
NEVER MIND THAT MEN DID THIS *BEFORE* women started having “too much sex”.
” In other words; sex becomes their lives rather than part of it in nearly all same sex practicing people but by only a percentage of heterosexuals. “
This right-winger apparently thinks he is god – obsequious and all-knowing. This is the goal of every right-winger these days – to reclaim the unquestionable power and dominance that white, mediocre men have had in past decades. To seize the godhead, in other words – megalomania. All one can do is laugh at their feeble attempts to define the world and judge others, and be even harsher if they try to act on their ignorance and self-obsession rather than mutter from their armchairs.
“It really doesn’t require religion to do this. Only intestinal fortitude and a true caring concern for other human beings.”
Says a man from the movement that has turned hysterical in the face of terrorism, wants to ban abortions and keep homosexuals as second-class citizens (I guess the humdrum lives of the ignorant plebeians needed some sort of class of citizen to diminish and belittle once black people reclaimed their dignity – gay people had to become the new blacks, a group of people one can discriminate and spit on from afar to escape the simpleness of ones life).
Amazing in this day and age just how difficult it continues to be for some people to break free of their backward reaching prejudices. Why can't people just get off their high horse (which is in reality a tiny pony) and treat other people with the same kind of respect they themselves wish to be treated? There is nothing psychologically convoluted, religiously confused or complicated about this concept at all. Let's all try to keep evolving! That's what we have these big brains for!
For a number of years right wing Christians dominated the political and sexual discussion, demanding litmus test conformity by one major party and blocking other voices, including those within more moderate variants of the braod swath of Christian faith. Beginning with the elections of 2006, followed by 2008 and several high profile scandals involving those of the religious/political right, that influence has begun to wane, though it continues to exert considerable influence.
Meaning no disrespect to anyone's religious beliefs, we are better for having at least begun to shake off the excessive influence of a single, often radical, religious perspective. One of the rewards of allowing other voices to be heard is a growing acceptance of “gay rights”. While still not a majority view, equal treatment, including gay marriage, for those of varying sexual orientation continues to grow in the public consciousness.
Our politics and our cultural influences will continue to move right, then left. But, historically when a movement gains momentum it cuts through the pendulum swing until justice is realized in spite of fierce resistance. The cause of equality for those of other-than-heterosexual lifestyles has gained that momentum and deserves to succeed.
To those of the religious right, and their secular allies who might vigorously disagree, it is my belief that you will need to adjust a new reality.
“Silhouette:
The words you use betray your own deep seated deviant bigotry. Ugly, ugly”
********
Yep, there it is. This is as standard of a meaningless retort as you can get. It's inflammatory and diversionary all at once and uses PC to browbeat the opiner.
Notice the respondant did not address any particular point I made with a lucid rebuttal. Bear that in mind. Instead s/he resorted to putdowns. And I'm the “hater”.?..When you're blinded by political correctness, this ruse [especially if it favors the side you represent] is totally invisible, totally “acceptable” and totally all this type of poster can come up with..
Has anyone above consdered that THEIR certainty is part of the problem?
Those who wish to believe that their views are so absolutely correct that these ideas should rule other people's lives are suffering the sin of pride. Your beliefs are like the old saw about your freedom of actions stops at the end of your fist. If you wish to believe that other people should live according to your lights, fine, go ahead; but don't try to implement that idea.
Hitler was absolutely positive he knew what was best for everyone else, and you can create a historic list of evil bastards that did the same. Do you honestly think that your condemnation of other people's nonintrusive way of life is yours to judge? I suggest you go back to the words of Jesus, “Judge not lest you be judged.” Do the fires of hell burn brighter for gays than those whose sin is theft? If you steal another's right to choose, you steal their right to learn of life through their own lights.
Rant complete.
“Yep, there it is. This is as standard of a meaningless retort as you can get. It's inflammatory and diversionary all at once and uses PC to browbeat the opiner.”
You're not being “politically incorrect” you warbling wannabe-martyr. You are being morally and socially incorrect. You are also inflammatory and diversionary, and you are definitely trying to make life worse for people (do you honestly think things would be better for gays in society if people like you were treated with deference and respect? I hate people like you out self-defense, not because I've been taught to by a book or some kiddy-fiddling preacher).
“Notice the respondant did not address any particular point I made with a lucid rebuttal.”
Points? Fear-mongering, assumptious and solipsist sophistry is what you offered up. What can one say about a “slippery slope” “argument” that compares homosexuality with polyamory (and calls this set of people “deviants”) other than that it sucks, is horrible and reflects poorly on the idiot who made it?
Someone call a waahmbulance and get Sil some cheese with the whine.
“And I'm the “hater”.?”
Haters gonna hate.
Also, HemmD “wins the thread”.
And the put-downs continue unabated. I'm pointing out real facts. They are facts pro-gay lobbiests don't want to hear. That's all that makes them “hateful”. Denial does “hate” anything that challenges it's fortresses. I expect this sort of reaction actually. Yet where have I ever said I wish for gays to be persecuted? Never. If you say otherwise you MUST quote me in full context or be disbelieved.
What I have said is that we should not give the carte blanche of marriage to an incomplete group of sexual fetishes named “GBLT” [but not polygamists etc.]. A lucid rebuttal would be to tear that statement apart. First you must either assert that GLBT are not any of them sexual fetishes, or, failing that, you must assert that GBLT is an inclusive group that represents all “other than hetero monogamy” that will legally seek marriage under that precident/umbrella.
Now, those would be non-attacks and I would be forced to address them. Random name-calling and put downs will only be spotlighted by me as such. Go ahead, please. Challenge me on any of the points I made and I will happily rebut. Just don't resort to demonizing the opposing chair in the debate.
Their “promiscuity” is well documented.
This is a distortion. It is well documented that lesbians are LESS promiscuous than heterosexuals, and that gay men are more promiscuous. The problem here isn't homosexuality. It is men.
To those of the religious right, and their secular allies who might vigorously disagree, it is my belief that you will need to adjust a new reality.
Those crotchity old folks hate it when people say that. They start fuming and waving their canes!
“And the put-downs continue unabated. I'm pointing out real facts.”
Facts are that you are an average man trying yo put down others, putting their dignity and welfare in society at risk.
You apply adjectives such as “deviant”, “detrimental” or “abnormal” to behavior that is intrinsically incapable of being any of those things. There are no values in the realm of aesthetics, you trite lumpen.
“They are facts pro-gay lobbiests don't want to hear”
No one wants to be labelled immoral, you lunatic. Telling people like you that you can go play on the freeway isn't being “pro-gay”, it's self-defense.
“Denial does “hate” anything that challenges it's fortresses.”
You are the one in denial – you really really can't live in a world where your judgment about other people aren't taken seriously. Like a dog, you gargle and bark at anyone that rejects your asserions of superiority. The lives of others are not within your territory, little proto-fascist.
“Yet where have I ever said I wish for gays to be persecuted?”
“I don't want black people to be persecuted, but I'll scare people by saying the blacks are organizing an agenda that will infringe on our matters, and I'll spread lies and statistics about blacks being less upstanding, along with some nudge-nudge comments about them being “abnormal” and “deviant”. If someone is mean to blacks because of that – NOT MY FAULT WAAAAAH!”
“What I have said is that we should not give the carte blanche of marriage to an incomplete group of sexual fetishes named “GBLT” [but not polygamists etc.].”
Marriage predates religion as an institution and part of society – it's an instrument of social cohesion that seeks to make love officious, legally recognized and promoted. It was stolen by the parasitic christian amoeba.
Marriage belongs to society, not religions. And since society has recognized the validity of gay love and sex and recognized gay people as human, they must get marriage. Anything else is just as despicable as forcing gay people to sit in the back of the bus. Also, none of the “letters” in the GLBT community are fetishes – they are simply difficult for lower minds to appreciate as legitimate because they challenge pathetic and vulgar feelings about what is “usual”.
It *is* bigotry, motivated by a sense of superiority and desire to crush freedom – either among insulated Christians or intellectually mediocre people of varying degrees of trashiness and uselessness.
“Just don't resort to demonizing the opposing chair in the debate.”
This isn't a debate – you attack my life and human rights and that means I don't have to respect you in any way or form. This is a matter of life and death, and if other people bare their teeth at me (only to then act as if they want everyone to get along and have a nice, modern debate) they're going to lose them. Society is a jungle and there are plenty of insects and despicable parasites who want to group together and kill me. Like I said, I don't consider this a debate but a fight for my survival. If other Americans once again try for anti-sodomy laws or other humiliations of gay people, I'll resort to collectively punishing them. I am a human and I know what I am allowed to do to those who seek to prey on me.
No, but you are going to have to read it all before you knee jerk a response.
All this condemnation from you is childish.
Agreed, but your overall analogy is short sighted.
Read it again and again until you get it.
Except when it comes to creating Law that DOES rule over everybody's lives.
Gay rights is NOT civil rights. It's additional rights that cannot be allowed to dominate over everybody else.
On Hume, his comments were out of line for a journalist and deserve criticism.
On Donald Douglas (who I know very little about) I read his post and don't see the problem. Trying to tie this to homosexuality is Kathy's creation as he doesn't talk about it in his post. I think open discussion of sexuality while maintaining fidelity is a good thing, not bad. Looking at Douglas political views though he is way out in right field and I doubt I will read him again.
Apparently the Lord giveth, and Donald Douglas taketh away.
Sil is my favorite candidate for turning out to be a deeply repressed and ashamed lesbian. It's ok, girl, we more rational, comfortable and confident heteros aren't threatened by either the gays or the virulently anti-gay. No one did, would or could have convinced my son to prefer men. He's not wired that way and no clever seduction like you imagine is possible. Get out of other people's bedroom. It's their business.
Now back to the point of the post, I think “finding the Lord” is THE way to bury your sins with a big chunk of the population. Drug problems? Promiscuity and adultery? Crime? Imprisonment? No problem. A teary eyed assertion that you've found Jesus and been forgiven is your “get out of trouble” card in America today. Every politician, preacher, actor or sports figure who seeks public forgiveness uses this “redemption.” Ultimately, Tiger probably will too. It is “the way”.
And the second retort as if on cue..lol..
The old “you're a closet homosexual” if you disagree with gay marriage. Will the diversions never end? The machinations and contortions on behalf of the denial system presenting itself here in the form of pro-fetish advocacy is fascinating to say the least.
Father time, who I don't always agree with, makes an excellent point about the issue when he says this:
“Gay rights is NOT civil rights. It's additional rights that cannot be allowed to dominate over everybody else.”
*****
There are two parts to this statement. The first is that gay rights are not civil rights. This is true because first of all, GLBT does NOT include all the fetishes that will seek marriage under the new precident and also because this short-list of sexual fetish adopted identities stem from behavioral roots. A behavior does not a minority group make.
The second part of his statement is that gay marriage, if allowed, would rule over us all. This sounds absurd at first glance but in reality, given society's approval to homosexual couplings for children to emulate [and they will, it is guaranteed] in exploratory play where they form their identities at a FORMative age, the numbers of homosexuals in a given population will begin to rise proportionately. They most certainly will if homosexuality is an aquired fetish learned by environmental pressures or cues after birth.
So if you approve of gay marriage and stalwartly think that it won't affect society as a whole, you are banking that the studies that support that sexual-preference is learned are completely wrong. If these studies in comparative psychology are true from their findings however, we are playing with fire. And with all human decisions we will undoubtedly err on the side of PC and throw caution to the wind.
The ruthless push is certainly felt in that direction on this thread at least. But the one hope is that people cannot be browbeaten behind the voting curtain and on issues where it is obvious there are strong feelings on either side, political-correctness will be thrown by the wayside in favor of gut-leanings if not learned conclusions.
Father_Time (past)
“Except when it comes to creating Law that DOES rule over everybody's lives.
Gay rights is NOT civil rights.”
You demonstrate my point exactly. Freedom for all, except gays of course, or radical thinkers, or poets, artists, and while you're at it, don't forget the Jews. It has been less than a generation since the last anti-miscegenation laws were repealed. Lots of good Christians quoted the Bible to rationalize their prejudice then too. What two adults decide to do with each other is not your concern or within purview.
Who marries who is not your business. Who loves who is not your business. Limiting other people's individual actions when they have no personal effect upon your life save your blessed certainty that they are wrong is your problem, your pride, and your lack of understanding.
The mediocre whites had to give up on treating Jews and Blacks as lessers. But Washington's chosen volk need some clique they can distort and humiliate at will in order to feel better about themselves, so they went for a minority that has been hounded for milennia. They are like the obedient Russians who gladly surrendered their own dignity and liberty as long as they could torment and objectify some rich farmers. Canis canim edit.
Its not me who doesn't get 'it'. I'm a lesbian who has been in a monogamous, quiet relationship for almost 10 years. We had a wedding ceremony a couple of years ago in front of friends and family. Like any normal couple, we were only obsessed with sex in the beginning of our relationship. In fact, the only thing really shocking about us (to someone like you) is how entirely ordinary our lives are. I recognize that I won't change your mind on this issue, but I don't really care. I've changed plenty of peoples minds in my life, not from arguing with them on the internet, but from living my life honestly. Attitudes about this issue are changing throughout American society and other parts of the world, because of good people living honest lives. You can rant, fume, and moan all you want about the evils of homosexuality. The world is already changed a lot and is changing more. Folks like you and Sil are speed bumps, not road blocks.
“Gay rights is NOT civil rights.”
You demonstrate my point exactly. Freedom for all, except gays of course”~ HemmD
*****
We are talking about freedom within the confines of marriage. Please do not spread the pity-blanket so widely as to make opposition to gay marriage equivalent to persecution. In that case, gays themselves are guilty of “persecution” in that they seem to not want anything to do with promoting, say, polygamists to be married as well. When you're using sex=love as your platform for launching your campaign, do remember that other forms of sex exist outside “GLBT”. Try to put your thrust behind all “other than hetero monogamy' instead of just a prejudiced and select few.
We have laws against certain people getting married for a reason. Children may not marry one another. Brother may not marry sister, nor father daughter and so on. And yet if you use human sexuality to define these unlikely couplings, don't they all also fall under the category of “queer” or fetish? Just where exactly do you close the barn door and why? Specifically why?
Very well said, Zzzzz, and far more persuasive than those who insist on sprinkling their opinions with hatred and verbal abuse.
Watch out for those waving canes.
Kastanj: Your comments are edited, removing your personal attacks on others. You can argue your facts, debate away, but you may not attack other commenters. We have had and will continue to have at TMV, civil discussions.
Thanks.
Dr.e
But, historically when a movement gains momentum it cuts through the pendulum swing until justice is realized in spite of fierce resistance.
In other words, the times they are a-changin.
Wow, he nailed you perfectly! You're a right-wing socialist and religion-bashing Christian.
I agree with an earlier commenter, HemmD OWNS this thread!
Is that because Hemm D is the most visible one trying to claim that anyone against gay marriage is “also” “therefore” for persecuting homosexuals?
Here is the pro GLBT [but not polygamists etc.] take on the issue:
“If you are against gay marraige, you are automatically a persecutor of gays, you hate/fear them or you you have latent gay tendencies that you are in denial of”
That's it. There is no gray area, no room for lucid rebuttal. All opposing viewpoints to gay marriage are “positions of hatred”. I think that accusation speaks much more loudly about its origin than it does its intended target[s].
Silhouette
“Is that because Hemm D is the most visible one trying to claim that anyone against gay marriage is “also” “therefore” for persecuting homosexuals?”
Not at all. My only point has nothing to do with Gays, it has to do with some people's certainty overriding the freedom of other's. You clearly believe that gays are some sort of unintended biological/psychological “mistake” in human evolution. If you want to believe that, it is your right to do so and to live your life according to that belief. My problem with you is that isn't enough for you; you wish to restrict other people's actions according to your understanding of what “gayness” is. Your certainty is without internal question, you quote selected texts that “prove” you right, and you never realize that is in no way the question before you.
The question you fail to have considered is this. By what stretch of your imagination do you think you have the right to tell adults how they may be affiliated with each other. You fail to consider that the laws against blacks and whites marrying employed the same self-important logic.
The minute you decide you know what's best for how other people should live, you give up that same right for Yourself. I don't know you from Adam, but I'm sure I could devise a law against one of your ingrained characteristics and quote “authorities” to back up my limitation of your rights.
When I was younger, I used to believe being right was the most important thing. In age comes a modicum of wisdom and humility, I only now need to be right for myself. Live by your developed integrity,but don't think for a minute you know anything about the drives, needs, and limitations of others.
If you are against gay relationships, don't get into one. If you want others to respect your choices in how you live your life, respect theirs. We're all learning the lessons in front of us, and each lesson is tailored-made to our level of understanding.
Sil, “Is that because Hemm D is the most visible one trying to claim that anyone against gay marriage is “also” “therefore” for persecuting homosexuals?”
Hellooooo….. Anyone and everyone against gay marriage IS persecuting gays and lesbians. The definition of persecute is, “to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve or afflict.”
denying gays and lesbians the right to marry dies just this.
So stop persecuting us. You don't have to like us or agree with us, but to deny us rights which you enjoy is wrong. And it goes against what America is about, just like it was wrong 50 years or so ago when most Americans did not believe in mixed marriages.
Get off my lawn!
(why am I so tickled by thinking about the group of offending people on Sil and F_T's lawns? Tee-hee!)
Sil advised that “…not all people against gay marriage are christian zealots”. That's for sure… For better or worse, many 2009 polls still show that the majority of American's do not support “gay marriage”. (USA / Gallop link below for example) I cant imagine the nay votes are all Christians. (Polls also show that a plurality of Americans are in favor.) I would respectfully add that not all Christians are against gay marriage or are rightists for that matter. Many Christian clergy, churches, denominations, and congregants have stood-up for the rights and liberties of their gay brothers and sisters. And many have not. There is a wide range of opinion and attitude among practicing Christians on the matter including, for example, some large mainstream denominations recently allowing gay ordination. I would argue that attitudes against or in favor of gay rights are neither typical nor atypical of Christians. There is indeed a vocal and active community of fundamentalist Christians that are against gay marriage, just as there are others on the right of many faiths or secular that are actively and vocally homophobic or against gay marriage for a myriad of reasons. Focusing on those Christians who oppose gay rights does make for good copy however. That's for sure…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-amer…
Yes, “advised” is an excellent word to use. Thanks for the other info too keelay. Killing the messenger doesn't do their cause any good at all. But that will be our little secret OK?..lol.
Adding to your polling info I will repeat what I posted elsewhere about party affilations, trends in thinking and actual voting practices. The more rabid and abusive the fringe elements become both on the left [as with the pro-gay crowd] and on the right [party cleanser crowd], the more people will say to pollsters what they think people in the environment standing around them will see as “normal”. Then in the privacy of the voting booth they go ahead and do what they really think.
That's why I'm always talking about how polling isn't very reflective in an informed public surrounded by fringe pressures. We all know we have the privacy behind the curtain. And thank goodness for that.
Silhouette – “Advised” was just a word I used without much thought… but I'm glad it reflected your intent.
I am hardened liberal and a practicing Christian, but my views on the subject stem not from the Old Testament but instead from my liberal social beliefs (and many friendships) which I believe are wholly consistent with my religious faith and teachings of Christ. (Please no one start quoting Bible passages… I'm not a literalist.)
But, for what it's worth, I am concerned that too much blame and attention for the opposition to gay marriage is dumped on fundamentalist Christians that are neither representative of the overall Christian community nor do I think they much represent the majority of Americans who remain opposed to gay marriage. I figure most folks are in support or opposed for their own myriad of reasons — be they ethical, moral, homophobic, religious, social, legal, civic, bigoted, empathetic, fearful, personal, or otherwise.
I would argue that proponents of gay marriage would be better served if they work to understand and debate secular opposition to gay marriage instead of showcasing religious fundamentalist opposition. These folks aren't going to change their minds unless at least seven passages of the Bible are heavily edited or redacted. The undo attention placed on folks like Donald Douglass plays into their hands and leaves too many issues and concerns off the table.
“Freedom for all, except gays of course, or radical thinkers, or poets, artists, and while you're at it, don't forget the Jews.”
The most rigid as well as militant proponents and enforcers of political, ideological, and social conformity and coersion, which does no abuse to the words “purity” and “purists,” , and which exceeds that of the stereotypes often hurled against the Religious Right (the source of the stereotypes and the hurlers being the truly noteworthy ones here) are the PC brown shirts on the Left.
Checkmate.
If Christians have no problem with people in other religions very different than Christianity, such as Buddhism or even atheism being married, then Christians should not have a problem with gays getting married. In other words, why do people think it's fine to meddle in the affairs of some strangers, and not meddle in the affairs of other strangers?
Some Christians have a problem with other religions and some don't just like some Christians have a problem with gays and some don't. Some secular folks have a problem with Christians and some don't, just like some secular folks have a problem with gays and some don't.
Yeah, but secular folks aren't trying to take away the rights of religious folks. So “having a problem with” isn't necessarily the correct term here…
OK. But both secular and religious folks are voting on both sides of the issue. “Have a problem with” was stockboy's language, so I stuck with it in replying.