Mary and Josephine?
And people will be offended because it’s offensive. I’m neither homophobe nor Christian, but I can see that it’s offensive and meant to offend Christians. To pretend otherwise is silly.
I hope they get their fun from it, because it clearly won’t benefit their ostensible purpose.
Gotta say the whole thing seemed rather juvenile and poorly thought-out. If this wasn’t just some exercise in flipping the bird toward people who get a bit queasy about gay males and drag/leather cultures, I’m afraid I don’t get the point.
Now, if they had worked out some way to communicate the idea of, say, a gay Jesus, that might be worth discussing. This, not so much.
Something like that. Just from a physiological viewpoint, if a father is not required because of divinely-inspired parthenogenesis, it doesn’t matter if Mary is straight or gay. But assuming that Jesus wasn’t an Alien-style chestburster, a male Mary doesn’t really work.
Obligatory Onion link.
I just want to say that I am totally against gay idiots.
Only one group is mentioned as being upset: “Christians for Truth.” Is this a particularly large or influential organization in Holland? Is it even a Dutch organization? I can see this being a really stupid idea in the US, where people take their religion a lot more seriously, but my understanding is that in most of Europe, people just don’t get as upset about things like this. If no one of any note is getting angry about this in their home nation, I don’t see any particular reason to call these people “idiots.” I wouldn’t be surprised to see some homophobe outfit over here (or up in Canada) pick this up and run with it, but I don’t think it’s fair to expect gays in Amsterdam to be concerned with how their actions play on the other side of the planet.
On the other hand, if you want to talk miracle births, you can’t get much more miraculous than having the Holy Mother be a dude.
Hmm.
I wondered why Californians, normally regarded as the avante garde of the left supported Proposition 8. I rest my case.
There is no group or category of persons that does not contain some obnoxious ass-wipes. Now, get out there and shop, like the Good Lord intended!
Oh, thank you!
What “case?”
Yeah, I’d have to agree with you there. I wouldn’t say it negatively effects my view of gay people, since its pretty silly to have a general viewpoint on all gay people. It certainly earns these particular gay people a big :rolleyes: however.
Alright, so what I gather from the article is that a bunch of gay people organized some sort of Christmas nativity event where the part of Mary was being played by a drag queen and Joseph wore a silver shawl, and passerbys were encouraged to take their photo with these guys. However, the silly person who wrote that article seems to have forgotten to include the horribly offensive thing that everyone is getting their panties in a twist about.
Edit: Oh, it’s the leather trunks, I guess.
Among whom? Those already homophobic, or tolerance-minded Dutch? Is this event - staged in the courtyard of a nightclub in the gay district - going to convince tolerant heterosexuals to think “Gosh, those homosexuals are a danger to society! I’d never seen how much of a threat they are!”
And again, look at the location where it was held:
Which do you think is going to offend homophobes more? The brief staging of a tableau on one day or a district where the gay lifestyle is openly lived and celebrated 365 days a year?
Honestly: save your condescending pity for the poor oppressed gays. They don’t need you telling them what or what not to do in order to gain acceptance.
Fine, if that’s the way you want it.
I admit it, I missed the location when I first glanced at it. It still earns a rolleyes for the general lameness, it still seems like an attempt to say “OMG everyone look how edgy and cool we are”. I wouldn’t say its offensive though.
But Jesus is still Caucasian, right? Right?
Oh dear sweet gay Jesus. You’re serious, right?
:rolleyes:
That kind of performance, even a lame one like that, has a long, long history in gay culture. It’s part of the meaning of the word “gay” itself, in the sense of not-to-be-taken-seriously. It’s what drag queens are all about. It’s what dressing up for Halloween is all about. It’s what gay pride parades are all about. It’s even part of what BDSM is all about. It’s rude and crude and in-your-face and frankly offensive, and it’s a part of what we are.
So the question is: Why should I have to become just like you in order to secure my rights? Why should my outlandish behavior be a barrier to equal treatment? Why should we be required to buy our freedom by selling out our identity? There are people who are offended by some black people being “too black” and by some Jewish people being “too Jewish,” and by some gay people being “too gay.” But what’s so wrong about celebrating the uniqueness of one’s culture? This is one of the things gay people have always done, and if we stop doing, the bigots have won.
That’s my thought as well.
Would the performance cited in the OP be okay if the people involved were straight? It just seems unfair that gay people have to be held to this higher standard if they want people to take them seriously. Maybe some of them would rather just be themselves.