... and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed....
Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male....
३ मे, २०१२
"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach..."
"... and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female..."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०३ टिप्पण्या:
super FIERCE!
The pastor is probably going to hell.
Well yeah. It's not being gay, it's being effeminately gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It's not being gay, it's being effeminately gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I don't have anything against someone for being gay. I have loads of problems with the flaming effeminates, as do most of the run-of-the-mill gay guys I've worked with in the past.
Come on, everyone! Conservative commenters are all presumed to be racist, gay-hating nutjobs! Let's all say why this pastor's views should be lauded, not reviled! Right? Help me out here.
Better to be effeminately gay that to turn out like that asshole bully, Dan Savage.
I have loads of problems with the flaming effeminates
Meh, they don't bother me - if you spend any time in theatre or visiting Ogunquit, you're bound to run into the queens - it's the militant "what do you mean you don't celebrate my fabulousness, you hater?!?" types that grind my gears.
I expect Hat will be along now any moment with his air of smug superiority. . .
Sheesh. Father's should be teaching their 4 year old boys to lick doorknobs. That's how social justice works.
A good gay wingman is always the BEST for pulling birds. He gathers them up. I take them home.
Do not discriminate against the pre-gay.
Not as good as having a guitar and being in a band (where women lose all sense of responsibility, reality and reason) but a pretty good second for all that.
One gay couple I'm friends with, the one does construction work, the other is an ex-marine. They are open about their gayness but not militant. I like them, they vote conservative. In every way nice guys. Why would I disparage them for being different?
I do disparage the ones that storm into churches mocking and ridiculing people that are different from them.
You treat everyone the same way, either as asshole or saints, but treat 'em the same.
I'm trying to picture Jesus doing this to his children. Isn't working.
I wonder if this pastor and Bishop Morlino are penpals. Two peas in a pod, from the sound of it, as far as telling their flock how to run their lives is concerned.
If God makes your child gay, maybe He's trying to tell you something.
Are you listening to Him?
You think a single person in the audience complained about a pastor advocating beating gay kids?
A fair question MadisonMan, but not consistent with a Christian world view. From our perspective, nobody is gay. Gay is activity, it is something people do. Some people are tempted by sinful gay sex, most of the rest of us by sinful straight sex. Sexual sin is sexual sin, the flavor is unimportant, it is the cure that is so important.
That cure is forgiveness through Jesus, something all of us desparately need.
Trey
You think a single person in the audience complained about a pastor advocating beating gay kids?
You have zero proof that no one complained. Why act like you do?
"Out of area man makes bad joke. Film at eleven."
"We need to drum up support before the vote. Dig up one of those nuts who's said something stupid and put out a press release."
"We need to drum up support before the vote. Dig up one of those nuts who's said something stupid and put out a press release."
You think this guy is one lone nut and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America that preaches violence and discrimination against gay people?
What is the outrage here?
That some nobody says some hateful things?
Or that national outlets like Huffington Post and Althouse give this nobody a national voice by repeating his hate?
He said it -- you repeated it, and in a louder voice. And now others are engaged in the latest outrage-of-the-day-over-what-someone-said.
You want to stop or minimize the hate? Then don't you give it life by publicizing it. That is on you, not on this nobody.
You think this guy is one lone nut and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America that preaches violence and discrimination against gay people?
Yes. As a member, I think, of what you're calling the "Christianist community," I can say with confidence that this man is not representative. I can also say with confidence that you know almost nothing of Christians given that you think it's the norm for them to "[preach] violence and discrimination against gay people."
You think this guy is one lone nut and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America that preaches violence and discrimination against gay people?
You mean the black Christian community, or Christians of all colors?
Your bigotry is matched only by the preacher in the linked story, Andy.
"You want to stop or minimize the hate? Then don't you give it life by publicizing it. That is on you, not on this nobody."
Sunlight, baby. The best disinfectant.
When speech is refuted simply by quoting it, quote it.
You think this guy is one lone nut
No. I'm sure there are plenty of other preachers like him. America is a land with a multitude of faiths, from Catholic to Santeria.
and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America
Define that "large and influential" community. Baptists? Seventh-Day Adventists? Mormons? Catholics? Orthodox? Or are you simply lumping anyone of faith under Andi Sullivan's loathsome "Christianist" neologism? Specifics, please. And how are they "influential?" Because they might pressure a politician to favor certain laws? Then every group in America is "influential," by that metric.
that preaches violence and discrimination of gay people
Specifics. Name the congregations. Give us examples.
Oh, I forgot - one caveat to the preaches violence and discrimination item: the Westboro Baptist Church is neither large nor influential, and insofar as they have any political leanings, Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.
From our perspective, nobody is gay
So God makes your male child predisposed to effeminate behavior. Is He trying to tell you something?
I think we can both agree that a child is not going to be tempted by sex of any kind.
Can we all agree this moron is the heterosexual Dan Savage?
Andy R. said...
We need to drum up support before the vote. Dig up one of those nuts who's said something stupid and put out a press release.
You think this guy is one lone nut and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America that preaches violence and discrimination against gay people?
If that were so, Hatman would be on the Endangered Species List.
PS And how does Hatman think Puffington came into possession of the vid?
PPS If that blurb at the link is about sodomy causing anal problems, it's true. The Blonde attended several cases where a guy needed to have a new one ripped for that reason.
Beat eggs, not children.
From our perspective, nobody is gay.
This is not a Christian perspective. It may be your perspective, and you may share it with many people in your congregation, and it may be canon in your sect. As far as opinions go, it does not comport with any modern understanding of human psychology or neurobiology and has no pragmatic value other than to fuel a smug sense of self-righteousness and stone-casting against people that you don't know and don't understand. In my opinion, as a theological matter, anti-gay attitudes lead to behaviors that are a far greater threat to society and your immortal soul than two people of the same sex loving or banging each other.
Yeah, you guys are right. This guy(he has already retracted his words)is representative of no political or religious demographic at all. Nobody but a few, stray, unrepresentative nutbags advocates violence against gays, none but an anomaly here or there advocates criminalizing gays, and certainly there is no needy to worry about actual violence against gays in America. we've only ever heard of any of that stuff in anti-bullying commercials, our own experiences are scrubbed clean of it.
Verily it is shocking that even one preacher, in all of America, can be found on record endorsing such things.
Impressive strawman, Harrogate. Your first?
I wonder what Rev. Wright's take on all this would be? He's my guiding light - if he's good enough for the President, he's good enough for me.
This "preacher" does get one thing right, though - you sure as sh*t don't put it on YouTube. Whether the kid turns out to be straight, gay or whatever, no school child needs that sort of thing on the web. Posting that sort of video is just another form of child abuse.
Ahhh, the sweet smell of Denial in Spring. Far more aromatic than ownership.
When you guys get over seeing and act of violence as the worst thing in the world that can happen to someone I'll talk to you. Until then, you're not rational to me. Lots of things are best solved by violence.
The emotional turmoil of discovering my wife's adultery and the divorce that followed was waaaay worse than any ass-kicking I ever got, and I've seen many people, here, defending that from a feminist/gay point-of-view, so who's really cruel here?
This post is just picking on the pagan's enemy again, as far as I'm concerned. Funny how there aren't a lot of posts investigating the downsides of gay and NewAge culture - for them and society.
Oh, wait, I forgot - most of you couldn't spot NewAge if it was a birthmark on your face.
My bad.
I'll let you he-hit-me-and-it's-the-worst-thing-in-the-world types carry on, led by flaming crooked hat guy.
He knows everything,...
"This 'preacher' does get one thing right, though - you sure as sh*t don't put it on YouTube. Whether the kid turns out to be straight, gay or whatever, no school child needs that sort of thing on the web. Posting that sort of video is just another form of child abuse."
Aww, holdfast. It's awfully cute what you did right there. but praytell, what "sort of thing" do you mean exactly? What "sort of video" is it again?
Come on, come on. Don't be afraid. Tell us.
Change "pastor" to "imam" and this describes a huge demographic worldwide, but it never makes the news or commentary, and Andy R speaks not.
"This post is just picking on the pagan's enemy again, as far as I'm concerned."
Crack, that is wonderful. The "pagan's enemy." Wheeeeeee.
Your outspoken unafraid honesty of course is more than many can possibly bear.
Complete agreement with Triangle Man @10:23. Very nicely said.
@Pogo
Diversionary blame. The last refuge of the guilty.
You make an excellent point, however. What the pastor suggests is barbaric, and has been used in barbaric cultures for millennia. We follow his advice at the peril of civilization.
harro thinks he's actually being devastating here.
The world is full of jerks, some on our side.
what harro doesn't appreciate is that what he says makes him poster child for the other side.
edutcher, it's not all in the world about "sides," red versus blue only on pay per view.
Here I am only noting that a lot more people than commenters here want to admit, share the preacher's sentiments.
The people "shocked" by the HuffPo link being bandies around, after all, are only a smidgen of the American population. I can think of lots of otherwise seemingly decent people, myself, who would not only wonder what the big deal is about the preacher's comments, but would go so far as to say we are all sissies and part of "the problem," for condemning the poor guy. Honestly, how about you?
Here I am only noting that a lot more people than commenters here want to admit, share the preacher's sentiments.
That doesn't make them Christian or conservative. It makes them anti-gay. I have known guys that had never set foot in a church, nor voted, but were violently anti-gay.
One lone nut makes a threat against our hostess and Unions in general are blamed for it.
Many-many ministers are constantly making comments about homosexuals, and a lot of folks are quick to point out that those clergy members don't speak for the entire group.
*shrug*
One lone nut makes a threat against our hostess and Unions in general are blamed for it.
Many-many ministers are constantly making comments about homosexuals, and a lot of folks are quick to point out that those clergy members don't speak for the entire group.
*shrug*
Five guys try to blow up a bridge, but Occupy says they are only associated, not representative of, the movement.
*shrug*
We can probably do this all day, highlighting the point that your comment was vacuous at best.
"That doesn't make them Christian or conservative. It makes them anti-gay. I have known guys that had never set foot in a church, nor voted, but were violently anti-gay."
Scott M, fair enough. But I think it is disingenuous to deny that there is a significant presence of this sentiment in the religious right.
But FAR more importantly than the question of political affiliation, is the fact that these people and attitudes exist in substantial numbers. This fact is disturbing, and it ought not to be blown off with "ahhh, that's just a nutjob, he don'r represent nobody."
But I think it is disingenuous to deny that there is a significant presence of this sentiment in the religious right.
I was under the impression we were discussing violently anti-gay, not just anti-gay. I'm anti-gay in the sense that I do not have sex with men and don't want to watch men having sex. I'm not going to break people or things over it. Toward that end, there are a lot of men that feel exactly the same way. I doubt you meant to include them in your "significant presence" comment. This also COMPLETELY ignores that the most rampantly anti-gay segment of our population is black and male. To say otherwise is to be in denial.
But FAR more importantly than the question of political affiliation, is the fact that these people and attitudes exist in substantial numbers.
Again, are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay (see above).
Obviously I have not sampled every Christian's view on homosexual sin, but my theory is the reason homosexuality gets more attention than other sins the Bible lists (I mean let's be real, the Bible calls our EVERYONE, not just homosexuals), is because it's a sin most Christians can't relate to. Hate? Greed? Envy? Lust outside of marriage? Every Christian has probably experienced those, along with many others. But, many haven't been sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. Thus, in their eyes, because it's a sin they've never struggled with and probably will never struggle with, they view it as somehow worse than every other sin.
Again, are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay
This is a false dichotomy.
This is a false dichotomy.
Really? I'm anti-Andy R, but I'm not violent about it. That also makes me intolerant as I don't suffer fools. More the bigot, I, I suppose.
It sure would be helpful if those posters who suggest that, to use one of their phrases, "many-many" Christian pastors are suggesting violence against gays, children, or gay children would cite some actual examples. Folks, because you have the general impression that something is happening, like, all the time does not in fact mean it is.
This also COMPLETELY ignores that the most rampantly anti-gay segment of our population is black and male. To say otherwise is to be in denial.
Diversionary blame again. You and Pogo should form a club.
Diversionary blame again.
It's not diversionary at all. He made the point about this residing in the religious right. The religious right has some black men, but not the majority of them by any means.
It sure would be helpful if those posters who suggest that, to use one of their phrases, "many-many" Christian pastors are suggesting violence against gays, children or gay children would cite some actual examples.
It sure would be helpful if Christina Hendricks came to my bedroom wearing only a merry widow and a smile, Erika, but that won't happen, either.
This is a false dichotomy.
Really? I'm anti-Andy R, but I'm not violent about it.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
You obviously do not because there are an entire range of options aside from violently anti-gay and NMBB anti-gay. There might be angrily anti-gay (totally against it, willing to protest, but not violently). There might be somewant anti-gay annoyed, ie, probably wouldn't associate with or hire/work for someone who's gay.
For someone who claims to be gay, you certainly don't seem to know about being gay. Or dichotomies.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
How about the President's race as for example?
You obviously do not because there are an entire range of options aside from violently anti-gay and NMBB anti-gay. There might be angrily anti-gay (totally against it, willing to protest, but not violently). There might be somewant anti-gay annoyed, ie, probably wouldn't associate with or hire/work for someone who's gay.
Then why did you ask "are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay" as if those were the only two options? It could be neither of those things.
There is also a range when it comes to violence, from people who hit their kids for being gay to people who oppose efforts to prevent gay bullying to those who support forced reparative therapy camps for gay kids to those who think that gay people should be excluded from the hate crimes laws that already exist and plenty of other similar things.
Then why did you ask "are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay" as if those were the only two options? It could be neither of those things.
This, Andy, is exactly what happens when you insert yourself (no pun) into someone else's back and forth without reading carefully.
Two bon mots come to mind: Don't judge me harshly because I sin differently than you, and Jesus asks you to repent of all your sins - even your favorite ones.
I can say with confidence that this man is not representative.
It's wrong to lump these wingnuts in with all Christians. Most Christians are good, decent people.
That said, I can say with confidence, having grown up in a 3,000+ member Southern Baptist Church that was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, that this kind of crap is the norm among Southern Baptist preachers. (Not necessarily among congregants, but certainly among church leaders.)
I constantly heard preachers spew vitriol like this growing up (luckily I had the sense to understand that I wasn't the one with the problem; they were). For them, it's all about how you shouldn't live your life, not how you should, which is a real shame. It drove me away from Christianity. I found my way back, but only through exposure to denominations and Christian communities who focus on the big picture and are not so consistently negative.
In the south, this kind of thing happens with increasing frequency when certain issues are on ballots, as in NC right now. I remember when SC (where I grew up) was debating whether to allow a state lottery. I heard lots of sermons about how bad gambling was around that time. "I'm not telling you how to vote, but gambling will lead you to hell."
Upshot: Southern Baptist preachers often have a hard time differentiating between sermons and stump speeches.
Scott M,
Some replies, admittedly more in rambling style than polished precise argument:
"I was under the impression we were discussing violently anti-gay, not just anti-gay. I'm anti-gay in the sense that I do not have sex with men and don't want to watch men having sex. I'm not going to break people or things over it."
I am not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is to our conversation. I mean, while some might worry about whether or not you are trying to watch men have sex, I think that would be a stark minority of people invested in gay rights.
To appropriate that great rhetorical move by Scalia, we're not talking about broccoli here. Broccoli might not be your "bag," but how much experience do we have with, how many stories have we heard about, people being persecuted, abused, run down, mocked (ok, maybe sometimes mocked), for eating broccoli? The casualness of your "it's not my bag" comment suggests you do not take seriously the very real problem that the preacher's rant reflects. I hope I am misreading you on this point.
I'm of course, on a broader scale, talking specifically about people who believe that homosexuals and homosexual behavior constitute a "problem." Who speak against it, worry over it, want to pass laws against it, etc. This is both historically and at present a huge issue in the United States, and I just don't see how it is possdible to deny the presence of that issue in good faith.
Post the obnoxiously anti-gay elements we all witnesed in high school, we'd like to say that the post Althouse links us to is an anomaly, but my own experience as someone who grew up in a fairly politically moderate part of the South, screams otherwise. And my experience in following the news, listening to people's stories, etc., proves otherwise.
"This also COMPLETELY ignores that the most rampantly anti-gay segment of our population is black and male. To say otherwise is to be in denial."
I didn't ignore the presence of rampant anti-gay sentiment in the black community. Although I do think too much emphasis on this can operate as a way to exonerate whites from the same issue. I do see your point that a lot of blacks who are rampantly anti-gay do not identify with the religious right. But these same people aren't exactly committed to social liberalism either, are they?
All of this is less relevant to me, btw, than the great value of calling out anti-gay rhetoric, condemning for the horrible dehumanizing bile that it definitively is, when we see it. And several posters on these boards do at least seem to be doing that.
MadisonMan, you are so correct! Nailed me on that one pal.
Trey
Justin,
It drove me away from Christianity.
And have you ever considered that, now, you can't think straight? Of course not, because "luckily I had the sense to understand that I wasn't the one with the problem" - how convenient!
Keep in mind, I'm an atheist, so I'm not defending the Christians, but they also didn't drive me away. I don't like NewAge, but I also wasn't driven away from it, you get me?
What I'm saying is you're being a reactionary, which has made you as easily manipulatable as any Christian is. The positions I've seen you hold are typical of the NewAge Left, and don't reflect any more thoughtfulness than those people/groups you dislike. Being gay doesn't mean you're any more right than my being black does for me. This preacher could be 100% correct but, if he is, would you be able to recognize it and support him? I doubt it - because you've been driven away from that, right or wrong. And you feel good about It. Because it makes you smarter than those hicks. Sure, you keep telling yourself that, you hear?
Your humanity is so much greater because you can now suck dick or whatever in the peace of your own acceptance - that's how it works, every time. Silly boy.
You know, this "thinking" thing - when you really get into it - it's sure to surprise you,...
I go to a nondenominational, conservative, evangelical church. I'd bet it went 85%+ for McCain in 2008. I have never once heard a sermon encouraging violence or hatred against gay people. The church has active members who are gay and trying to live celibate lives. The only sexual sin I hear warned against semi-regularly is pornography, which is appropriate as it's certainly the most common one. The sins most commonly preached against are not sexual at all but are failures of grace and charity in dealing with one's fellow men.
My church is not uncommon in these ways.
Yes, there is a slice of fundamentalism that's strongly fixated on gay issues, but they could hardly be called influential. And even among them, preaching violence against gay people is a stretch.
As for bullying, we had out and proud gay people at our high school, and there was no bullying problem for them. That was over fifteen years ago and in Arkansas! The people who got bullied were bullied for other things like not having the right clothes or whatever other common things dumb young people generally fixate on.
So yes, this is silly. Some random dude who has a problem with gay people is not news.
"This is not a Christian perspective."
Actually, it is. I could give you a list of books that support that completely mainstream Evangelical theology or you could just google the terms and ignore the haters and read it for yourself. Mark Driscoll is on youtube and is pretty mainstream Evangelical on many issues, you could watch him a bit if you wish.
"As far as opinions go, it does not comport with any modern understanding of human psychology or neurobiology"
Actually, the born gay movement is much more political than neurological.
"and has no pragmatic value other than to fuel a smug sense of self-righteousness and stone-casting"
Dude, I cast no stone. I have no right to. You missed the entirety of the point. Scripture says that sex outside of male/female marriage is a sin. I have had sex outside of marriage. I am guilty. So you are confused there bro. Evangelical Christianity holds to the Biblical creed ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You and me both. The creed eliminated the ability to cast stones. That is a Jesus thing, not casting the first stone, and Evangelicals are big on Jesus.
"In my opinion, as a theological matter, anti-gay attitudes lead to behaviors that are a far greater threat to society and your immortal soul than two people of the same sex loving or banging each other."
I read that. But then, that is YOUR theology, not Biblical theology. So you are not an Evangelical, not a Bible following Christian in that area.
Since I am an Evangelical, I do not consider homosexual behavior as any more a threat to our culture than lying or stealing or adultery or any other sin that human being commit.
Now I completely understand how your experience with judgmental assholes who call themselves Christians has confused the issue, and I am so, so sorry for that. Those types of self-righteous people are the only people that Jesus condemned.
So I understand the confusion, but I am not one of those.
Trey
harrogate wrote: "But I think it is disingenuous to deny that there is a significant presence of this sentiment in the religious right."
Indeed. It is. And it is a horrid sin. Jesus died for gay people and straight people. Mistreating His children is mistreating Him and will not be looked upon with favor.
Trey
Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time.
The positions I've seen you hold are typical of the NewAge Left, and don't reflect any more thoughtfulness than those people/groups you dislike. Being gay doesn't mean you're any more right than my being black does for me.
For the record, I'm not a member of the NewAge Left. Being gay may not make me any more right about gay issues than others, but it does give me an insight that other people don't have. I'm sure you can appreciate that. My positions on these issues aren't based on thoughtlessness or some idea that my "humanity" is greater or better than others. They're based on my experiences.
This preacher could be 100% correct but, if he is, would you be able to recognize it and support him? I doubt it - because you've been driven away from that, right or wrong. And you feel good about It. Because it makes you smarter than those hicks. Sure, you keep telling yourself that, you hear?
Actually, I thought (and prayed) long and hard about it at the time, and concluded that I was right and they were wrong. It was not an especially easy situation for me given the circumstances. I was not out, although I knew I was gay, and was living in a place where being gay can get you killed and where most people wouldn't be saddened that much by it because you're going to hell anyway.
I wasn't driven away; I made the choice to leave. (Perhaps that's two ways of looking at the same event, I don't know.) I don't think that makes me better than anyone. I just think, with respect to this particular issue, I am right and they are wrong. You are an atheist, so surely you understand what I mean.
As for your hypothetical, I don't really know how I would react if the preacher turned out to be "100% right." I just don't think that's within the realm of possible outcomes on this issue.
What if science conclusively proves that being gay is genetic? (Probably won't happen, but what if?) Do you think this preacher would be able to to get behind that? Nope. He'd just attack the science.
Please don't presume you have a monopoly on the correct way to "think" about things.
Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time.
Just out of curiousity, where did you live? And in what decade were you in high school?
Arkansas in the 90's.
Since I am an Evangelical, I do not consider homosexual behavior as any more a threat to our culture than lying or stealing or adultery or any other sin that human being commit.
You may not, but I think a lot of Evangelicals do. At least in the church I grew up in, there was a propensity towards ranking sins, and homosexuality -- not just gay sex, but being gay -- was near the top.
Arkansas in the 90's.
You must have been in Little Rock then? I think we're about the same age. There was one openly gay kid at my high school and he was endlessly tormented. Maybe it's a matter of safety in numbers.
No, I was not in Little Rock. I was in Bentonville, in the northwest corner of the state. Also, Hot Springs. Little Rock would probably have been less gay friendly. Little Rock is less friendly, generally speaking.
There wasn't a lot of bullying in general at our school by high school. This coincided with a religious resurgence at the school. Tough to be a bully when your youth pastor might show up at lunch.
Trey,
"Mark Driscoll is on youtube and is pretty mainstream Evangelical on many issues, you could watch him a bit if you wish."
Sorry, Driscoll is not mainstream. Yes, some of theology is mainstream, but he's made his mark by being a ridiculous bomb-throwing attention seeker, combined with a totalitarian leadership style that bodes very ill for the long term health of Mars Hill Church and its members.
Freeman,
What? The home turf of the evil Walmart, and it wasn't an unbearable situation??? Go on, pull the other one...
The home turf of the evil Walmart, and it wasn't an unbearable situation???
I know. Maybe it was the forced labor in the mines that brought us all closer together.
"Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time."
Oh, this changes everything. Why, I wonder, weren't you consulted before the "It Gets Better" campaign? What we needed were videos of smiling girls from Arkansas saying into the camera, 'I don't know what these people are talking about, I've got gay friends and they've never been harrassed. NOT ONE TIME.'"
I hope you have the capacity to see how insulting your cavalier, pollyana attitude is to people who have experienced the fruits of Mr. Pastor's rhetorical screed.
Or maybe the answer is, we forgot about Arkansas. Arkansas is the oasis. It is the place in America where gays have not, do not face persecution.
@harrogate
Aww, holdfast. It's awfully cute what you did right there. but praytell, what "sort of thing" do you mean exactly? What "sort of video" is it again?
That's an easy one: a video capturing a kid acting in ANY way that could easily be mocked by his or her fellow students. Because, you know what, a little kid running around in drag is odd, and maybe funny, but in school that equals fodder for taunting. Because lots of kids are cruel - they're cruel to kids who are gay, they're cruel to kids who are accused of being gay just because they cant' get get a girlfriend, they're cruel to kids who are skinny and weak, they're cruel to kids who are fat, they're cruel to girls who put out to much, and they're cruel to girls who are "freezes", and they're cruel to pretty much anyone for any reason, and if only to make sure they are dishing out the cruelty instead of receiving it. So what decent parent would want to give the bully ammunition. Are you are parent? Didn't think so.
Maybe the kid's gay, maybe he just went through a phase after seeing a Bax Lurhman movie - who knows? But nobody needs the extra weight of having some stupid video following them around for all of their school days.
Harrogate, you're going overboard. The point is not that no gays are bullied. I'm sure there are gays who are bullied.
But I don't believe it's an epidemic. And I don't believe that gays get bullied any more than nerds or poor people or homely people or pretty people or anyone else who is different in some way.
And my point with Arkansas is that it is most certainly not an oasis of gay tolerance, and yet gay people live quite happily here and do not face widespread persecution.
Or maybe the answer is, we forgot about Arkansas. Arkansas is the oasis. It is the place in America where gays have not, do not face persecution.
That actually sounds plausable, and also reveals your obvious contempt for "flyover country."
chickenlittle writes,
"That actually sounds plausable, and also reveals your obvious contempt for "flyover country."
In the true spirit of talking pointed jackassery that we have all grown to know and love on these commenter boards. Hey, guess what: Life is not a Fox News story. Nor is it a series of Palin sound bites about "real Virginians." I have never actually used the words "flyover country" and never lived in a major city either, though I did spend some time in Charlotte at one point.
The idea of Arkansas, or anywhere else in America, as a place where gays have no need to fear persecution, could only be earnestly entertained by a moron.
Meanwhile, Freeman writes:
"I'm sure there are gays who are bullied."
To which those who are either gay, or who were thought to be gay and who have been and continue to be bullied and harrassed and attacked and run down--and their loved ones--all in one voice would, if they knew of your generous concession, I am sure offer up a thank you for your generous recognition.
Oh, but wait:
"But I don't believe it's an epidemic. And I don't believe that gays get bullied any more than nerds or poor people or homely people or pretty people or anyone else who is different in some way."
Well, if you don't believe it, then never mind. Like I said, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you were not consulted by the "It Gets Better" people.
I am not so sure that we are yet at the point where "nerds" and "pretty people" are accused of being engaged in mortal sin for being what they are, for going o hell, being of the devil, etc. For being unnatural, disgusting, etc. Not sure they must struggle to the same extent before "coming out" to reveal they like Math or are Pretty. But you might be right.
You're damned right that the poor are persecuted in this country but that is another story, the pursuit of which in this thread is only a study in red herringism.
I mean Christ on a Crumb Heap. Freeman. OF COURSE gay people are not the only people in America who get persecuted. But they are a group whose persecution persists on physical, pyschological, and legal fronts, and persecuting them still enjoys very broad sanction among the sorts of people to whom Althouse's actual post points like a neon arrow.
Cavalier dismissal of real problems because they do not affect you is an ugly thing to engage in. No matter how happy sounding the prose.
harrogate,
I hope you have the capacity to see how insulting your cavalier, pollyana attitude is to people who have experienced the fruits of Mr. Pastor's rhetorical screed.
Oh, you're as bullshit as all those blacks, still claiming to be experiencing racism every single day of their lives. Nobody takes it as the truth anymore - we've all got eyes, and our own life experience, y'know? I've seen crimes against gays - even participated in one in my 20s - but anything to the extent being claimed? Nonsense.
So gays get bullied. Who hasn't? I got bullied at black schools (too intellectual) and white schools (too black, poor) and in the Foster homes (just isolated) and the Navy (because there was opportunity) and it always taught me a valuable lesson - fight back. Then the bullies respect you. This idea you're going to get it from screaming, "Stop!" is laughable.
Welcome to "the land of the free and the home of the brave," tough guy.
Now stop lying and take your lumps like everybody else,...
Righteous indignation is not an argument.
Are Christians a bunch of gay haters? No. Is this random guy important? No. Are gay teenagers specially victimized? No, based on a good deal of experience, I do not think that they are.
I was an atheist in high school and told I was going to hell pretty much every day. Big deal. Everybody's got an opinion. I thought all the people telling me that were a bunch of fools, so I had my opinion too.
Freeman Hunt,
I was an atheist in high school and told I was going to hell pretty much every day. Big deal. Everybody's got an opinion.
Freeman, you're going to atheist Hell for changing your mind,...
Freeman, you're going to atheist Hell for changing your mind,...
Heh.
I do find it interesting that gay couples end up taking on traditional gender roles. Wonder why? Why can't they just be two gay dudes/chicks?
Re: Freeman Hunt
Why do atheists get mad when people tell them they are going to hell? I don't get mad if a kid tells me I won't get to go to Candyland or Santa's Workshop. Never made sense to me.
Freeman, Crack: you guys ought to do a Bloggingheads together. :-)
You observe, Freeman, that "righteous indignation is not an argument." Fair enough, it surely is not. It is clear you yourself stand against anti gay bigotry and are generally well intentioned and decent, and though I could see that I didn't recognize it. I apologize on that account and for my general tone upthread.
Some additional rejoinders. You write:
"Are Christians a bunch of gay haters? No."
I did not say they were. it is possible that, given the topic, this attitude could be inferred from my comment about the religious right, but I never drew the definition brush and started painting such rigid lines as all that. As someone else noted, plenty of anti-gay hatred exists in Islamaland, and outside the religious community entirely, to name a couple examples.
And however many Christian gay haters there are who use the Bible to defend their position, I do not blame the religion for this, seeing as how there are plenty of practicing Christians who have no hatred or even concern about the subject one way or the other.
"Is this random guy important? No." I beg to differ here, strongly. He's not important to you and what you are interested in, perhaps. But seeing as how he is articulating views that many do hold and articulate in the country--views that dehumanize people, in myriad ways, then he is worth talking about by my lights.
It seems to me that you are invested in denying the presence of rabid anti-gay bigotry in the country. Comparing this to the treatment of nerds and beautiful people--and even more truly marginalized folk such as atheists--cannot but seem callous from the point of view of those who are marginalized systemically, but it just seems you cannot or will not see that. We have a history of laws in this country aimed specifically at homosexuals. Some, including our last President of the United States, have not given up on using the law to this end. That in itself is not without significant.
Things have gotten much, much better better, though, on the gay rights front. Some of the things Romney and, for that matter, Obama, have both said about the issue in the last two years would have been unthinkable from such high level assholes ten, fifteen years ago. Who would deny this? Indeed, there is almost universal agreement even on these boards, that the fellow in NC is a garden variety bigot. Except for Crack, of course, who chimes in with the usual "back when men were men" dime store wisdom. Ahhh the softening of the culture, how hard the misunderestimated warriors do take it, eh Crack?
This just in - and it says a lot:
“[B]efore [Grenell] left the Romney headquarters [after his job interview], he felt compelled to say that he is gay. “It could be an issue,” he volunteered.
“It’s not an issue for us,” Mr. Fehrnstrom replied firmly.
Discuss,...
There is almost universal agreement even on these boards, that the fellow in NC is a garden variety bigot. Except for Crack, of course, who chimes in with the usual "back when men were men" dime store wisdom. Ahhh the softening of the culture, how hard the misunderestimated warriors do take it, eh Crack?
Hilarious - you just had to drag me back into it, didn't you? I keep telling you poofs I deal in reality. Do you know what that is? It's that layer of thought, two or three down from wherever the rest of you like to exist, that only gets to make an emergence when shit gets so bad your dumb, and ultimately cowardly, asses are finally speechless.
I ask you, where were all the gay speakers, on 9/11? Cowering, while the men laughed, beat our chests, and planned for blood. That's "back when men were men," my friend. Let any semblance of civil society crumble and your "softening of the culture" will be revealed for the lie it is, and, I guarantee you, few gays will be at the forefront of whatever leadership emerges. This is as it should be, and even you know it, your mockery under these false circumstances be damned.
None of you fool me. I have been to "Hell" and back, several times, and that's why I know gays so well - they live there, insisting they were done wrong, when so few of them will stand up for right it's practically a punch line, delivered with a-wink-and-a-smile, at this point. Like convicted murderers, caught smothered in blood, declaring their innocence. Their own worst enemies.
Hard to take? Please. You're no threat. You are, and have historically always been, an annoyance. I have heard your claims for years now and, despite appearances, you've been losing ground consistently. Obama was supposed to have been the end of conservatism but, instead, we cleaned his clock in 2010 and threaten to do so again this year. Gay "rights" haven't made any major strides. Abortion? Still on the table. Basically, across the board, wherever you look, my creation and adoption of the phrase The Macho Response so many years ago - when that was the last thing anyone seemed to respect - looks prescient. Because it was. Because it is. And because I am.
I deal in reality.
Like that "consensus" we were assured could be found around climate change, what "almost universal agreement" the rest of you think you have is about as relevant to me as ice cream to the sun.
It seems to me that you are invested in denying the presence of rabid anti-gay bigotry in the country. Comparing this to the treatment of nerds and beautiful people--and even more truly marginalized folk such as atheists--cannot but seem callous from the point of view of those who are marginalized systemically, but it just seems you cannot or will not see that.
See, I would argue that you seem invested in the idea that gays are especially horribly treated. It simply has not been my experience that they are. Lots of people have a bad time in school. I'm rejecting the idea that gay people are a special class in this. I also reject the idea that the solution is any different than for any other ill-treated group. (1) Bullying shouldn't be allowed for any reason in school. (2) If you're bullied, you need to stand up for yourself. If that means you pop a guy in the mouth, then pop him in the mouth, and let the whole thing be done.
(I also notice that you keep harping on the inclusion of pretty people in the list of havers of bad times in school and that its inclusion seems to offend you. Clearly you have not witnessed the viciousness and social ostracism that can be wrought by jealous girls. I saw a new girl a year younger than myself utterly shunned by nearly all of her female junior high classmates simply for being too pretty.)
But just to be clear, yes, I agree with you that there is a segment of the population that is rabidly anti-gay. And shame on them for it.
I had a post up, but I guess it got lost in the filter, or Meade got it, or something.
Whatever.
I thought it was a good one,...
Gay "rights" haven't made any major strides.
Um, Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Gay marriage is coming to more states each and every year. The world is going to note who the bigots were, standing on the sidelines screaming in hate, just like when school integration came to the south. You're welcome to be one of those people.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा