We Americans have been privileged to live in a country that respects religious freedom. That is ending. We are soon going to understand in a very personal way that the Christian life is an act of defiance.
That “loving Jesus means hating gay people” is “proclaimed in Christian churches and on Christian television and radio broadcasts.”
So declares Dan Savage in his review of Jeff Chu’s “Does Jesus Really Love Me: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America” – on Page 1 of the New York Times Book Review.
Who is foremost among those who have made “anti-gay bigotry seem synonymous with Christianity”? The Family Research Council and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
So says Savage. And who is he? A cradle Catholic who says he “was in church every Sunday for the first 15 years of my life. Now I spend my Sundays on my bike, on my snowboard or on my husband.”
One gets the point. And in handing this review to an apostate Catholic and atheist homosexual, the Times was nailing its anti-Catholic colors to the mast. Yet what Savage alleges and the Times published is a lie.
No true Catholic church can preach that Jesus hates gays. “Love your enemies” is the message of Christ. Hate the sin and love the sinner is taught as gospel truth in Catholic schools.
This has been Catholic doctrine for 2,000 years.
Yet, in contending that America is reaching a “cultural tipping point,” Savage is not all wrong.
Undeniably, the Christian view, though mislabeled “homophobia,” alienates millions.
Many of America’s young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated, and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.
Case in point. At George Washington University, two students have demanded that Father Greg Shaffer of the Newman Center be removed for creating an environment hostile to gays.
The priest’s offense: When Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, Shaffer posted a blog restating Catholic teaching condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral. In private sessions, Father Shaffer also counseled gay students to remain celibate for the rest of their lives.
One senior, Damian Legacy, says he was shaken by Father Greg’s admonition that he was risking his soul and by his ouster from the Newman Center after the priest learned he was in a relationship with a male student.
Legacy and his partner have filed complaints against the Rev. Shaffer with the university Office for Diversity and Inclusion, alleging his homophobia has had a detrimental effect on the emotional health of gay students. They are asking the Student Association to cut funding to the Newman Center.
Though a minor collision in the culture war, this clash at GW may be a harbinger of what is coming, as the homosexual community seeks to have its agenda written into law and fastened onto the nation.
For traditional Christianity’s view that homosexual acts are immoral and same-sex marriage an absurdity cannot be reconciled with the view that homosexuality is natural and normal and gay marriage a human right.
The issue is pulling the Republican Party apart. It is pulling Christian communities apart. It is pulling the nation apart.
Like abortion, it is an issue on which both sides cannot be right. Yet it is an issue of paramount importance both to devout Christians and to the homosexual rights movement.
What happens if the gay rights movement, as it appears it may, succeeds politically on same-sex marriage, but many Christians refuse to recognize such unions and continue to declare that American society has become ungodly and immoral?
Gay rights advocates often compare their cause to the civil rights struggle of half a century ago. But there is a fundamental difference.
When Martin Luther King Jr. called on the nation to “live up to the meaning of its creed,” he heard an echo from a thousand pulpits. Treating black folks decently was consistent with what Christians had been taught. Dr. King was pushing against an open door.
Priests and pastors marched for civil rights. Others preached for civil rights. But if the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection.
Prelates could be declaring from pulpits everywhere that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God’s Country, and the new laws are immoral and need neither be respected nor obeyed.
The issue is acceptance. We know of how America refused to accept Prohibition and, in good conscience, Americans broke the laws against the consumption of alcohol.
Imagine the situation in America today if priests and pastors were telling congregations they need not obey civil rights laws. They would be denounced as racists. Church tax exemptions would be in peril.
Something akin to this could be in the cards if the homosexual rights movement is victorious – a public rejection of the new laws by millions and a refusal by many to respect or obey them.
The culture war in America today may be seen as squabbles in a day-care center compared to what is coming. A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand.
We Americans have been privileged to live in a country that respects religious freedom. That is ending. We are soon going to understand in a very personal way that the Christian life is an act of defiance.
Lavender fascism is on the march, and this is going to get very ugly.
Buchanan's ramblings are irrelevant. Conservatives have lost this battle. Public opinion polls show steadily growing acceptance of gays and lesbians. It has reached 75 percent among young people (18–34). Homophobia has no future, literally.ReplyDelete
That's actually not what the article was about. Maybe you should read it again. With your eyes open this time.Delete
"Homophobia" can have no future because it never existed.
Hoo, your favorite tactic is to cite polls that show people agreeing with you. Rather than arguing that you are winning the debate because you are right, you argue that you are right because you are winning the debate.
I think you're winning the debate because the media and public schools are nothing but propaganda factories churning out nonstop Savage-style nonsense. The kids can't read or locate Afghanistan on a map but they know one thing: Gay is good, gay is good, gay is good. For those who aren't convinced, there's always intimidation. That has a way of changing public opinion. You've never been on the other side of that kind of treatment so you don't know that it really feels like a boot on your neck.
TRISH: No brainer. He's on the side of the homosexual bullies. It's easier to be on the side of the bullies because then you won't be the target of their bullying.Delete
I disagree with you about the non-existence of homophobia. One example will suffice to demonstrate its existence. Here is John Derbyshire, a well-known conservative who used to write for National Review, declaring himself to be a mild, tolerant homophobe and spelling out exactly what he means.
I can pull out hundreds of examples of conservative homophobia. They might be less explicit than Derbyshire's, but the polls show a consistent picture: conservatives' acceptance of homosexuality lags behind the times. It's growing, too, nonetheless.
Homophobia is a meaningless term. Objection to a certain behavior is not a "phobia."Delete
A meaningless term? Hardly. Look it up in a dictionary, TRISH. It is a well-defined notion.Delete
Yes, meaningless. A "phobia" is an irrational fear. I don't fear homosexuals, I object to homosexuality (I do fear the militant tactics homosexuals use to destroy people's lives, such as they employed against the priest at George Washington U.) Also, there's nothing irrational about it.Delete
Fortunately, the Associated Press gets it, and now avoids the term.
"Phobia means irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness. In terms like homophobia, it's often speculation. The reasons for anti-gay feelings or actions may not be apparent. Specifics are better than vague characterizations of a person's general feelings about something."
You're not a psychiatrist and I'm not your patient. You cannot diagnose me with a mental illness.
Did you look up homophobia in a dictionary or are you just making it up, TRISH?Delete
Now I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions.Delete
"Where does it all end, Hoo? When will the homosexual bullies be happy?"
I didn't need to look it up. A phobia is an irrational fear. I am not irrationally afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of them at all. I object to their behavior. If you can't see the difference, pity on you.Delete
I object to smoking cigarettes and no one calls me a smokerphobe. I object to divorce and no one calls me a divorceophobe. The term is meaningless. It is used to stigmatize and shut down debate.
It ends up in a more-or-less universal acceptance of gays and lesbians, TRISH. Like interracial marriages, which used to be frowned upon (and still are in parts of the South).Delete
TRISH: "I didn't need to look it up."Delete
Oh, I knew that you hadn't looked it up and instead just guessed. That's not how dictionaries define it, though. So be a good sport and look it up.
I didn't "guess" at anything. I know the meaning of the word "phobia." It means irrational fear. Considering the fact that I'm not afraid, I can't be irrationally afraid.Delete
It's already gone a lot further than "more or less universal acceptance" of any particular behavior. It's become a mandatory belief enforced with fear and deprivation of one's livlihood.
And you're telling me that what's happening in Canada, England, and Sweden will never happen here?
I didn't "guess." I know what the word phobia means. It means irrational fear. I am not afraid of homosexuals, and therefore my nonexistent fear cannot be irrational.Delete
"Acceptance" of homosexuals can't be forced.
By the way, I "accept" homosexuals. I don't accept what they do and I don't want them propogandizing my children.
Are you trying to tell me that what has happened in Canada, Britain, and Sweden can't happen here?
TRISH: "I didn't "guess" at anything. I know the meaning of the word "phobia.""Delete
Just do me a favor, TRISH, and look up the word homophobia. You might be surprised.
Hoo, you're a big, stupid bully. Jus' sayin'.Delete
But you do have a point. Homosexuals will not be happy as long as anyone does not accept them. Why on earth does anyone have to accept them? We have a right not to.
Most homosexuals lie about this, saying something like "I don't care what anyone thinks about my being gay, I just want equal rights." The equal rights canard aside, that isn't even a true statement. They absolutely care what people think about their sexual proclivities. That's what this fight is about. They cannot bear not to be affirmed and they lash out at anyone who won't do it. They should be more honest and tell everyone what their real goal is--they are trying to prohibit a certain attitude. It may never work but that's their goal.
It looks like someone needs a hug.Delete
Hoo, the word homophobia may be in the dictionary but it doesn't mean that it has meaning. It's a political catch phrase that was picked up by reporters and reiterated so many times that it had to be put in the dictionary. It's a poorly fitted word, albeit a poorly fitted word that happens to be in the dictionary. Phobia means exactly what TRISH says that it means.Delete
Little John: "Hoo, the word homophobia may be in the dictionary but it doesn't mean that it has meaning."Delete
What are you LOLing about?Delete
The self-contradictory nature of your reply. A dictionary entry defines the meaning of a word. Connect the dots from here, Little John.Delete
Definition of phobia from Encyclopedia Britannica.Delete
"phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer. Phobias are thought to be learned emotional responses. It is generally held that phobias occur when fear produced by an original threatening situation is transferred to other similar situations, with the original fear often repressed or forgotten. An excessive, unreasoning fear of water, for example, may be based on a forgotten childhood experience of almost drowning."
None of that describes me. You're not a mental health professional and I am not asking for your diagnosis.
Little John: I think he's LOLing because he doesn't understand the difference between meaningless and defintion-less, which is really his problem, not yours.
Definition and meaning are not the same.Delete
You are stubbornly looking up a different word. What's up with you this morning?
Point out a term that is well-defined AND meaningless. Maybe then I will agree with you.
I looked up the word "phobia." Homophobia is a meaningless word because it is, as Little John said, poorly fitting. It is poorly fitting because "homophobia" is not a phobia.Delete
A well defined but meaningless term would be, for example, the moons of Venus.
Venus has no moons, just as I have no irrational fear.
What you have done is simply defined my objection to a behavior as a pathology. As far as I know, you have no credentials to do so. You don't do this for any other type of behavior. It would sound silly if you did. It would be downright...meaningless? Yes. That's the word.
I know you have looked up phobia. You refuse to look up homophobia. Is it against your religion or something?Delete
All right, Hoo. Take the above example of someone who is afraid of water. Fear of water is pretty irrational. It can't reach out in grab you. It's possible to drown in water but it still shouldn't send a person into panic attacks.Delete
Do you suppose that that's the emotion I feel when I sit down to Thanksgiving dinner with my homosexual brother in law? Are you seriously arguing that I have a panic attack? I'm not having an "emotional response" at all. I simply think that what he does is wrong, just as he thinks that my being a Catholic is wrong, and he thinks that my raising my children Catholic is wrong because I'm "teaching them to hate."
Neither one of us has a phobia. We just disagree.
you're really looking silly, hoo. everyone knows what a phobia is.Delete
Did you get a chance to look up homophobia in a dictionary? You seem to have an irrational fear of this word. :)
Yeah, I looked it up. Still meaningless.Delete
I guess you've conceded every other point. You also refuse to answer any of my questions.
Can I ask you a question? Are you a homosexual?
TRISH, you are not making any sense today.Delete
The term is not meaningless. In my Mac's dictionary it is defined as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." Aversion is not fear, so all your previous protestations that you are not afraid of gays make no sense whatsoever.
I do not think I conceded anything. If I did, perhaps you can quote my concessions.
As to my sexual orientation, I am straight.
the term is completely meaningless. notice that your mac dictionary's definition of the word clashes with the actual psychiatric definition of the word phobia. look it up.Delete
You are a hilarious little nutter. I have been trying to get TRISH to look up homophobia precisely because it does not fit with the psychiatric phobias. She, not I, insisted on lumping them together.
And again, meaningless it is not. You fully understand what the term means and in what way it differs from a typical phobia. Sorry, pal, can't have it both ways.
Atheism was "winning" in the USSR, too ... until everything collapsed -- and for much the same reason, if more explicit, that 'Hoo' asserts his leftists are "winning" on this issue: people are afraid to openly express their true opinion.ReplyDelete
Fear is their tactic. I know I'm afraid to say what I believe. Why does fear reign in the supposed land of the free?Delete
Ah, a conspiracy theory to explain away the data you don't like? So clever.Delete
Your other tactic: call everything a "conspiracy theory." I don't see a conspiracy or a theory in Ilion's reply.Delete
Let me spell it out for you, Ms. TRISH.Delete
"people are afraid to openly express their true opinion."
Being afraid to express their true opinions isn't a phobia, and it certainly isn't a phobia of homosexuals. It's a well grounded fear that there will be repercussions for speech, such as losing your job.Delete
I am not saying that being afraid to express an opinion is a phobia, TRISH. I am saying that Ilion's theory that people are afraid to express their opinion in a public opinion poll is silly.Delete
I agree that public opinion is changing. I think Ilion is too hopeful that these polls are bogus. That is not, however, a conspiracy theory. In order for it to be a conspiracy theory, respondents would have to be conspiring with one another to rig the poll.Delete
I've noticed that you dismiss all opposing everything a conspiracy theory, a sure sign of a supremely lazy mind. I'll bet you consider yourself a genuine deep thinker, but I do not.
I noticed that you played the conspiracy theory card the moment anyone dared to question the Obama Administration on the Benghazi terrorist attack. News flash: everything they told us turned out to be wrong, and most of it they knew to be wrong at the time. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just knowing better than to trust lying politicians covering their behinds two months before an election.
TRISH: "I think Ilion is too hopeful that these polls are bogus. That is not, however, a conspiracy theory. In order for it to be a conspiracy theory, respondents would have to be conspiring with one another to rig the poll."Delete
Agree with the first two sentences but disagree with the third. A conspiracy can also involve the press that intimidates respondents and they provide fake answers. That's what Ilion seems to imply.
That would only be a conspiracy if they were all coordinating their efforts together. I don't think that they are.Delete
I don't think so. A conspiracy that involves the press, but not the respondents is still a conspiracy.Delete
The "they" in the previous sentence was referring to the press.Delete
FOX News is probably not on Ilion's list, so this is not a conspiracy theory, I guess. LOLDelete
“Lavender fascism is on the march, and this is going to get very ugly.”ReplyDelete
These thinly veiled threats of violence are all the bigots have left.
“…a public rejection of the new laws by millions and a refusal by many to respect or obey them….The culture war in America today may be seen as squabbles in a day-care center compared to what is coming. A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand…and this is going to get very ugly.”Delete
Sounds like a threat to me considering abortion clinic bombing, arson, and murders are “squabbles in a daycare compared to what is coming”.
Good luck with that. I’m sure massive civil disobedience in defense of bigotry will make Christianity more popular than ever. Homosexuals aren’t damaging the church; the bigots in its ranks are. If your god commands you to be a bigot, perhaps it’s time to find a new god.
Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council is on record saying that homosexuality should be outlawed.ReplyDelete
Homosexuals desperately crave approval. From where I'm sitting, it seems that they're getting it from all quarters. And yet it's never enough. Never. They want everyone to celebrate what they do, and for the most part they're getting their wish. But as long as there's one dissenting voice, or even a person who won't join in, blood must be spilled. (Figuratively speaking.)ReplyDelete
speaking of straw men....Delete
No, Dr. Egnor, it is about acceptance. The problem is that acceptance of one's behavior is not a right. In fact, not accepting another's behavior is a right.Delete
You're a Catholic and you have every right to believe Catholic teachings on anything. They like to pretend that they don't have a problem with that, they merely want to be "tolerated" and have "equal rights." Bullshit in both instances because they are tolerated and they do have equal rights.
But that's not what they want! They want a pat on the back. They want everyone to hug them is say, it's okay, this is a positive good. Most people do that these days. Look at Jason Collins, a no-name basketball player who suddenly became a hero when he announced that he enjoys anal sex with other men. How "brave!" Everyone from Sports Illustrated to Michelle Obama thinks this is just great.
Acceptance is what they want, at the expense of your and mine right not to accept.
Totally irrelevant to Joey's comment. That zinger failed.ReplyDelete
It establishes nicely that there are conservative Christians who would like to outlaw homosexuality, doesn't it?ReplyDelete
Some. But that's quite a different thing than saying "loving Jesus means hating gay people."ReplyDelete
You're as bad as Savage. You simply can't argue with anyone except a straw man.
Assuming homosexuality is, in fact, genetic (as the gay lobby insists), there's not much to worry about from a practical perspective. Homosexuality, unaided by morally deranged reproductive technology, is both an evolutionary dead end and (unless participants are protected from one another by latex barriers) a significant source of serious disease. Hence, it's a self-limiting sexual trope.ReplyDelete
As Egnor notes, though, the real issue is not homosexuality per se, but the "Progressive" political/amoral agenda with a homosexual ("lavender") spin. Homosexual politics are just a part of a larger effort toward totalitarian politics. Homosexual activists have wisely leeched on to the identity politics, group rights, and "Progressive" thought crime legislation bandwagon to amplify their message far beyond what raw numbers would otherwise allow.
But the situation is also not as simple as Pat Buchanan would have you believe. You see, Damien Legacy is a... "priest". In fact, he is a "recently ordained" priest in the "North American Old Catholic Church" (an oxymoron if there ever was one, and fittingly so, if I may be so bold). So, you see, it's not just a matter of "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" (Henry II on Thomas à Becket). It's also a matter of eliminating the competition.
Excellent observation about Legacy.
This gay movement is deeply evil-- beneath the pablum about "rights" and "respect" there's a really satanic core.
And "satanic core" presumably means that such people should be killed? Or am I misreading the good doctor?Delete
"Satanic core" is a theological assertion. What on earth would make you claim that I meant that people should be killed?
The killers in the gay tumult are those who condone deadly sex practices. Those of us who advocate chastity are trying to save lives.
Sometimes I wonder if liberalism is an intellectual disability, and not just a moral one.
It's classic Progressivism:
To eliminate oppression, all dissenting opinion must be punished.
OK, I am misreading the good doctor.Delete
What sorts of measures do you propose to rid these people of their satanic core?
"What on earth would make you claim that I meant that people should be killed?"Delete
It's how they think, Doc. Hoo is one of those slimy little bootlicking informers that thrive in the sludge at the bottom of the human cesspool. What else can you expect?
[What sorts of measures do you propose to rid these people of their satanic core]
One measure: Christ.
You don't really get the Christian thing, do you Hoo?
Oh, I appreciate "the Christian thing," doc, I do, as I appreciate much of the human culture. I don't believe in the Christian God, though.Delete
" I appreciate 'the Christian thing'"Delete
Yes. Your appreciation of the literature has been on display here. All it lacked was a bulbous red nose and floppy shoes.
"Assuming homosexuality is, in fact, genetic (as the gay lobby insists), there's not much to worry about from a practical perspective."
Also there is not just the natural limiters. One can easily envision these dupes painting a huge target on that hypothetical genetic marker. Think: Elective abortion. Gay 'markers' could one day soon (if indeed they exist) be yet another decisive factor in killing the unborn.
Yes, you're right. I hadn't considered that. It's already a problem in some cultures with girls. Some parents would simply nip what they anticipate to be a problem or an embarrassment in the bud, as it were.Delete
Homosexuality may not be entirely genetic, so there may not be a specific marker for antenatal testing to target and eliminate. In studies of identical twins, if one twin is homosexual, then the probability that the other will be also homosexual is 20%, not 100% as would be expected.
It's possible that it may be partly epigenetic. Humans like other species have a large number of transposons ('jumping genes'), which are capable of moving around in the genome, turning off or on genes or altering gene function. And not necessarily just in the germ cells of the parents (in which case all the individual's cells would be genetically identical), but also after conception, in which case the individual is a mosaic with different body cells having slightly different genetics.
It's possible that a homosexual twin might have neurons concerned with sexual orientation in his or her brain switched towards same sex preference and be innate, but not purely genetic or environmental.
It's also likely to be like autism, with there being no one 'gay gene', as the popular press has popularized.
What makes you say that science demands a 'cure', particularly with something as complex as homosexuality.
It's certain elements of society that want a 'cure'. Egnor wrote a thread a while back criticizing the state of California requiring that counsellors treating minors to 'cure' them of homosexuality should be accredited, preventing ministers of religion from that role - unless qualified.
All treatment involves informed consent. Even if there was a 'cure' for homosexuality, it wouldn't be allowed in a liberal democracy. Not compulsory or coerced that is.
Also, if there was an antenatal screening test for homosexuality (there won't be, just because the genetic basis is too unclear) based on the concordance rate of homosexuality in identical twins, genetic tests would predict only 20% of homosexuals. Meaning 80% would be normal, and potentially aborted for no 'reason'.
A far cry from doing antenatal screening for trisomy 21, which has serious consequences in 100% of cases, and aborting if it's detected. There's no point in having antenatal screening if the parents are opposed to abortion in all cases.
I suppose antenatal screening might develop so much that an enormous number of genetic conditions might eventually be screened for. Including ones that appear in late adult life. Such as Huntington's disease (a nasty neurological condition causing dementia after the age of 50 or so). Or BRCA1 (associated with breast and ovarian cancer in women over 40).
Whether parents should be allowed to abort fetuses carrying genetic abnormalities causing effects so distant (a cure might be discovered in the meantime) is a question for which I don't know the answer.
You are quoting Savage out of context. Here is the full quote: "Those ideas — loving Jesus means hating gay people — are proclaimed in Christian churches and on Christian television and radio broadcasts." He does not say that all Christians proclaim that. He says that some do. Precisely what I meant.
“I love you, but I’m going to do everything I can to discriminate against you, including civil disobedience, in an attempt to prevent you from happily enjoying rights and privileges that come from marriage.”ReplyDelete
“Love the sinner but hate the sin” is bullshit. To paraphrase Forrest Gump “bigotry is what bigotry does”.
Why don’t conservatives be honest for a moment and admit the real issue is that they can’t stand the thought that their children becoming openly homosexual, and that the right way to deal with the urges is to secretly get blowjobs in airport restroom stalls and then feel guilty afterwards.
"Lavender fascism is on the march"ReplyDelete
The Brownshirts were heavily into homosexual behavior, too.
Very true, and a point almost always ignored by historians and commentors on Nazism. The SA was essentially a homosexual organization, especially at the leadership rank.
The Nazi repression of homosexuals was of effeminine ones, not masculine ones, who were highly represented in the SA street gangs.
The fact that historians have ignored that the Sturm Abteilung was a largely homosexual organisation is because it wasn't true. Ernst Roehm was a homosexual. It was well known to Hitler. The crackdown on the SA was entirely for political reasons. The homosexuality was publicised to shock the public and discredit the SA, not because it was rife in that organisation.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, then you should cite it. Not just make your usual unsupported assertions.
"Sometimes I wonder if liberalism is an intellectual disability, and not just a moral one."ReplyDelete
Leftism is willfully chosen dishonesty, a moral failing -- in fact, an active revolt against morality -- so, being freely chosen (initially and minute-by-minute), it can't be a disability.
Off-Topic: Hate is a verb...ReplyDelete
I've done some commenting here about the tendency of Progressives to become informers, cowardly little anonymous liars that sneak around seeking punishment and pain for people who disagree with them. We even have one or two who skulk around here.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.
Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups...
"The IRS would like to apologize for that," [Lerner] added.
Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati...
But wait... There's more!!!
...and was not motivated by political bias.
A rather straighforward civil rights violation-- conspiracy by government officials to deny Constitutional rights. An easy prosecution.
I'll keep dreaming.
"The Nazi repression of homosexuals was of effeminine ones ..."ReplyDelete
Even that "repression" didn't happen in the manner "liberal" myth-making would have it.
I'm not quoting anyone out of context. Other than the much maligned Westboro Baptist Church--of which there is only one--I know of no churches that teach any such doctrine. You didn't locate me an example of a church that teaches anything remotely similar. You found me an example of someone who thinks homosexuality should be punished under law.ReplyDelete
I repeat: You're as bad as Savage. You simply can't argue with anyone other than a straw man.
Dan Savage's usual witty repartee to well-considered arguments is simply to say, Oh yeah? Suck my dick!ReplyDelete
He's done it to a Canadian MP named John Cummings, and to Herman Cain.
Like truthers (9/11 was an inside job!), birthers (Barack Obama was born in Kenya!), and deathers (Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in West Hollywood!), choicers would appear to be just another group of deranged conspiracy theorists who can't be dissuaded by science or evidence or facts. And John Cummins isn't the only choicer out there. We have lots of choicers right here in the United States (Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, "Stephen Colbert," et al.).
But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they're right and everyone else is wrong... actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they're right!
I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.
Suck my dick, John.
I'm completely serious about this, John. You're not my type—you're about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I'll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it's done. You can demonstrate how this "conscious choice" is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you've swallowed my load, John, we'll upload the video to the internet and you'll be a hero to other choicers everywhere.
It's time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it's done.
Suck my dick.
Say that to a woman in most states and you'll be arrested.
This is the tolerant left we're dealing with.
Chai Feldblum, an "out" lesbian appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.ReplyDelete
There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty. But in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.
Wow. There's more honesty in those sentences than I have heard from her movement in a very long time.
Religious liberty is protected by the highest law of the land. Sexual liberties, some of which may be nice to have, are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Our rights must take a back seat to her "rights."
So, Little John, you see no problem with Sprigg's proposal to make homosexuals outlaws?ReplyDelete
No, I do. I assume you'll get to your point in the next comment.ReplyDelete
So you agree that Gregg's words do not exactly express tolerance toward gays?ReplyDelete
Intolerance and hate are two very different words.ReplyDelete
As I said, no church that I know, with the exception of Westboro, preaches anything remotely similar to what Savage said. You can't find an example and so you've stooped to this. Show me someone saying, "Loving Jesus means hating gays."
Lawrence v. Texas was however, a poorly decided case. I'll bet you can't get your mind around that nuance.
A picture is worth a thousand words.ReplyDelete
Spot the hater this photograph.
I think the image about summarizes the state of the culture wars. If you want to know who's hating and who's the object of hate, have a look.
"the term is completely meaningless. notice that your mac dictionary's definition of the word clashes with the actual psychiatric definition of the word phobia. look it up."ReplyDelete
That's because it's wholly-political a made-up term; its purpose is to give the leftists a means to silence the opposition not by superior reason, but simple by defining them out of the "debate".
Consider: one doesn't *condemn* a person who has an actual phobia as being:Delete
4) beneath contempt;
5) worse than Hitler;
6) someone who had better shut up, if he knows what's good for him;
The term "homophobia" is intended to silence we who oppose "the homosexual agenda" in teo main ways:
1) by declaring us to be immoral -- by definition -- without actually presenting a moral-and-rational case as to why our position is immoral;
2) by declaring us to be insane -- by definition -- without actually presenting a ration case as to why our position is insane;
Just keep in mind: leftists are *always* liars and hypocrites.
Homophobia is the only visible side of a false dichotomy.Delete
If we are to accept homophobia, we must refer also to homophilia - a term that implies homosexual tendencies or an admiration of them.
So it is one of those terms like 'Islamophobia': You're either for Islam or against it. No room for apathy or mild tolerance.
The false choice with homophobia is: If you are not attracted to homosexuals and promote their lifestyle as 'normal', you must therefore be repelled by them and hence a total bigot.
Simplified, this means you must choose to be pro (or actually) gay or you are a bigot.
I can be morally and physically repelled by the act (ie heterosexual) and still be apathetic or at least tolerant to the actions of others in their bedrooms.
In reality that is exactly how I am; so long as those actions do not impact the well being of myself, my family, or culture in which my family must live.
I do not want my sons instructed that being gay is 'natural' and that 'experimentation' is okay in SCHOOL for example. I would like them to be able to come to their OWN conclusions about morality and sexuality.
That does not make me a 'homophobe'. But, I would be labelled as such.
But, God willing, I will never be a labelled a homophile.
I did not come up the ridiculous terms, hence I did not invent the dichotomy. The language/terms I would use are tolerant (as you and I - and many people on this blog are, at least in the form of actions taken), apathetic but politically motivated (one way or other, as their partisan 'team' decrees), and outright bigoted by nature. If I had to break them down into numbers I would say most folks are 1, many in 2, and less again in 3.
I think it fair to say you will find people of all three classes on both sides of the homosexuality issue.
No need to invent new terms as far as I am concerned.
But then, I do not go around howling 'homophobe' or 'Islamophobe' at people who disagree with me.
(Please note: I am not accusing you personally of that kind of theatre, either).
No disagreement with this, crus. One can be tolerant of others' views without either endorsing or discouraging them.Delete