Uh huh. Of course, she was born in Philadelphia and reared in New Jersey. She’s worked in LA and Seattle, and now lives in Maryland.
The point you miss is that otrher gay people are not trying to define your homosexuality. You can be your own unfettered self, a regular, masculine guy who likes other masculine guys. That’s how I live my life, and I’m reasonably happy.
But you can’t be a Christian and gay in most churches. Oh, sure, there are congregations and even a few (very few) denominations that will accept you if you stay celibate and alone. To most church-going Christians, however, you’re a filthy abomination, a disgusting freak and likely demon-possessed. They hate you, pure and simple. You are a loathsome, repulsive sinner who likes to molest children and subvert the good, white, Protestant values of America.
No, you need to date men if you’re a homo. You need to date women if you want to be an acceptably self-hating “ex-gay” pretending to be what you are not, so that Christians will (provisionally) accept you.
You see, tolerance and understanding mean allowing people their right to hold their own views as long as they do not interfere with my liberties. Pretending that the majority of Christians do not regard gayness as unacceptable isn’t tolerance, it’s delusion. Sure, there are some tolerant Christians, but they do not speak for their denominations; the election results on Tuesday do.
I didn’t coin the term “Southern Strategy” and I’m fully aware that racism exists throughout this country. I was pointing out that while the Republican party might not denounce their racist members, as they like the extra votes, and have made the anti-homosexual bigotry actually part of their platform, that we on the left have some of our own bigots among us, and I want them rooted out, as I have no desire to have their votes.
I think we’re getting into a semantic misunderstanding here. I know this is the Pit but I’ll try to address this with rational discourse.
“Christianity” has two distinct meanings that we are mistakenly using interchangeably. On one hand the word can mean the general body of beliefs, dogma, and theory about the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the proper way to behave towards God and other humans as a result of having faith in Him. That is the definition you seem to be using above.
On the other hand “Christianity” can also mean the community of people who claim to have faith in God and Jesus Christ, the social structures that support that belief, and the impact on society at large. On a wider scale this is called “Christendom.”
I believe, and gobear may correct me if I am wrong, that he was referring to the latter definition, not the former. I know I sure was in my relatively less nasty rant. It would obviously be insane to blame a list of concepts for hatred of gays, or for anything else.
While it may be true that many Christians support gay rights, the stark and brutal fact is this; Most Christians in the 11 states that passed anti-gay referenda either oppose the equality of homosexuals or are too apathetic to care. When I say “most,” I mean upwards of 95% in some cases and at least two thirds in all - not a slim majority. While you may argue that you are a true Christian who embraces the word of Christ to love our brothers and forgive their sins a thousand times over, truth of the matter is that the majority of American Christians - e.g. “Christianity,” insofar as it matter for the purpose of this discussion of the Nov. 2 votes - doesn’t. They oppose it, virulently and overwhelmingly, so much so that they are willing to impose their will on other people’s freedom and privacy.
That is an interesting point and comparison.
While it’s true that the Bible was trotted out from time to time is a relatively lame attempt to justify slavery, Christianity was not the driving force behind the institution of slavery in any meaningful sense. People didn’t enslave Africans or treat them like livestock because of their religious beliefs; they did it for financial gain. Slavery was an evil born of filthy lucre. Christian dogma was pulled out or invented as a post-hoc excuse.
In the case of the Eleven States of Hate of Nov. 2, however, Christianity was THE driving force and dogma behind those referenda. That just cannot be disputed; it was Christian groups who sponsored, created, and supported those initiatives. The votic bloc that passed them was overwhelmingly made up of the Christians residing in the jurisdictions in question. The justification was wholly Christian and there really isn’t any other reational reason why the referenda would even have been attempted. In the case of slavery, Christianity was a minor post-hoc excuse; in the case of 11/2/2004, Christianity was the REASON.
I am a Christian myself, albiet a Christian without a denomination, so it’s not like I don’t have a dog in this hunt, and I’ll tell you; I’m glad I’m Canadian, because I would be profoundly ashamed to be a resident of one of those eleven states. This is a problem with Christianity, and it’s time to accept it. The institution and its adherents, especially in the USA - but we have similar problems here in Canada - is largely dedicated to hatred of homosexuals and sexual repression of all sorts.
Ignoring this fact is not going to do Christianity any good; it’s precisely akin to one American saying “Our country has many problems, such as racial bigotry, increasing poverty, and environmental concerns” and another American saying “You’re wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m an American and I’ve never hated anyone or made anyone poor or dumped pollutants. You’re tarring us all with the same brush.” Isn’t that kind of insane? Isn’t it just flatly bugfuck nuts to say America’s problems are not yours because you haven’t personally contributed to them? (If you don’t like me picking on Americans, substitute Canada, we have all the same shit.)
Well, why isn’t it equally bugfuck nuts to deny these things as a Christian? You’re playing the “Don’t Blame Me, Don’t Generalize” card over and over, but guess what, folks? Christianity is still the force passing these laws. The problems are still there. It’s a lovely belief system, but the institution needs a LOT of work, and denying it is just really fucking stupid.
Maybe the battle is being won quietly, as you claim it is. Could be. I sure see most of the major battled going the other way, though, and what gobear saw on November 2 was the equivalent of a black person seeing eleven states pass new miscegenation (sp?) laws in which 90% of white folks voted Yes or didn’t bother to vote at all. Imagine if that were to happen.
My point being that her views aren’t really corollary with “Northern Values”… or “Southern Values” for that matter.
Spot on as usual, RickJay. IMO, Christianity in America has long since dispensed with the Biblical Jesus and His teachings about love and compassion. The Red state Christians like to talk about Jesus, but in fact they have become what I like to call “Wahabi Christians.” They pray to the OT God who smites his enemies and demands rigid obedience to His arbitrary rules, and woe betide anyone who steps out of line.
Look at the immense popularity of the Left Behind books, whose last volume, The Glorious Appearing, climaxes with the return to Earth of a literally fire-breathing Jesus, who appears from the clouds to wreak bloody vengeance on non-Christians, melting the flesh from their bones with his breath. Sad to say, that is the prevailing view of Christ’s role today, to be a celestial boogeyman who threatens to torture and kill those who do not pledge their allegiance to Him. The Hindu demon goddess Kali, with her red tongue and necklace of skulls, is a cuddlier figure than the Christ of Jenkins and LaHaye.
And that’s why I fear the Red state Christians, because they do not accept the principle of separation of church and state; they do not believe that they can or should share a nation with people they beleive to be unregenerate sinners. Like the Saudi fundamentalist clerics, they believe it is the job of the state to enforce the dictates of religion.
In effect they voted for Bush to be High Priest, not President.
I have to agree, too. This is a spot-on analysis. I know that there are many wonderful, loving Christians out there but they are in the minority. And it appears they’re a shrinking minority, too.
What really bothers me now is that the conservative Christians feel they have a mandate by winning the approval of those 11 state constitutional amendments, they’ll press for a federal amendment. With the change Congress, there’s a good chance they’ll get it, too. 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m the first to bitch about the various Christian denominations with their batshit approach to sexual morality in general, especially those in the United States. They’re frightening.
However, I really must object to literal, unqualified statements to the effect that Christians, individually and severally, are all our enemies, even the " ‘supportive’ " ones.
No, the " ‘supportive’ " ones would be our allies - some of them, very committed allies who are walking through fire for us.
Many of them are us.
Meanwhile, yet another Canadian province appears poised to legalize SSM by the end of the week.
America fucking sucks.
You rang?
Wow, I couldn’t even finish the first page.
I’m from Missouri. We had the Constitutional Amendment referendum to prohibit gay marriage earlier this year. I abstained. Curse me all you want, those who voted for the amendment against gay marriage got a freakin’ landslide.
But I abstained, because I can see & sympathize with the different sides:
-
If you’re not gay, how does this affect you?
-
Even if gay marriage is somehow a bad idea legally for unknown reasons, why not experiment with it & find out? If the fundies are right, it’ll blow up in the faggot’s faces, & then we’ll know it’s a bad idea, right? Change the law, prove the moral conservatives right, then change it back. We could even re-establish the sodomy law!
-
Okay, you know who it affects? Kids! Civil unions are one thing, but a court case could come down the pike that not only legalizes gay marriage, but prohibits discrimination against gay couples in all things! Now, there are a lot worse things than being raised by a gay couple, but as the son of a single mother, I know there is a sort of psychological difficulty in not having a parent of the same sex in the house. So damn right I’m leery of gay-normalization in the courts.
-
I don’t have to be a bigot to see that two different things are not the same thing. A black man & a white woman have the same nature of marriage as a white man & a white woman. The category of “miscegenation” was based on a fallacy. But a relationship between two lesbians is a different kind of relationship, & perhaps does require a different legal standing. But marriage has a theory of duty to one’s spouse & one’s issue which is confusing to try to apply to gay couples. I’m leery of it, I don’t blame others for freaking.
-
My state’s amendment didn’t ban civil unions, or I would have voted against it. At least I hope that’s the case, or I screwed up reading it.
And you know something? This amendment was there to stop a back-door legislation from the bench. Good! Legislation needs open debate. (If your legislators think that law is to be made by judges, & their job is to pork-barrel, replace them!) Legislating from court cases has a mixed track record in this country, & it pisses people off because it’s undemocratic. At least this was democratic, & you know where you stand. You are a long way away from getting Christian Middle America to redefine a worldwide institution from time immemorial for a 40-year movement. Get the bugger over yourselves!
Which just proves that there are a great many fools in Missouri. So?
Discrimination affects everyone. Marriage and stable family units are good for people’s health. They’re good for the economy. You have a vested financial interest in promoting marriage. And frankly, you should care about fellow Americans being discriminated against because it’s not a precedent you want set.
Um…
There WAS open debate. There was debate ABOUT THE REFERENDUM TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE! This “backdoor legislation” line is utter bullshit, used only by fools who don’t like it when the courts rule against what they want, and ignored when the same fools get a court ruling they support. The voters had their say, like they always do, and in Missouri they chose to hate. Courts overturn legislation every week. In case you failed Civics, that is one of their purposes, and has been in the United States since 1789. If the people dislike what the courts have done they can elect governments that will initiate constitutional amendments or they can vote in ballot initiatives. Missouri voters chose the path of discrimination. Be proud. You showed me, alright.
Well, God forbid the courts execute their duties in accordance with the Constitution. It’s a shame how back in the 50’s the “Activist courts” ruled on all those cases in favour of them uppity nigras. If the courts had known their place maybe white folks could still have a meal in a restaurant without having to look at coloureds. Unless they’re bussing the tables, of course!
I guess gay folks do know where they stand; lots of Missourians hate them, and you don’t give a shit.
I agree with what RickJay wrote, but want to address a point that he left unsaid, which is very important, especially as gays consider alliances with straight Christians, or even just seek to understand them. After all, the results in the eleven states shows that it is necessary to engage the opposition if one wants to change them.
“Love and compassion” does not encompass or summarise the belief system of many Christians, certainly not me. Of course, it’s part of it, but you don’t need to believe in Jesus the Christ to make love and compassion the central focus of your life.
Many Christians (and probably virtually all of those who “voted against gay marriage” on Tuesday) believe that if you follow Jesus you must also obey his commandments. And yes Jesus never commanded his people that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman, and yes many of the commandments that many Christians feel bound to keep never issued from Jesus’ mouth, but pointing this out will not help the gay cause. It’s about engagement, alliances, changing minds.
I believe that engaging Christians with a love-and-compassion ticket is not going to work. Swinging from that to outright hostility, sarcasm and accusations of hypocrisy is obviously not going to work either.
What I think might work is to do as many other here have suggested - the merit of my post, if there is any, is in promoting understanding of the “enemy” - and point to the separation of church and state. It’s ironic that in a country that was founded on that pillar the job of getting people to put the principle into practice is so difficult. So distorted has many people’s understanding of Christianity become! Things have indeed come to a pretty pass when the President embodies quasi-Christian characteristics.
But you can only work with the raw material at your disposal. The example of Canada, though inspirational, is sadly irrelevant. Many Americans are deeply religious, where “religious” does not always equate with a reasonably true and full understanding of Biblical Christianity. (None of us, least of all me, have reached the final goal in this regard.)
A cornered or wounded tiger always fights back, and those who voted against gay marriage are as powerful as a tiger, difficult as it might be to recognise this. They are a formidable opposition. Patience, calmness and above all strategy are needed to win them over.
You have a remarkable Constitution. Now is the time to remind these people of what it means.
You’re a complete fucking idiot. I mean, really, 100% complete and total, no margin for error moron.
Roger, most of us probably were raised in christian families, either Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran whatever. We do understand Christianity in its various forms and mutations. There is no reason to spend more years contemplating our navels waiting for “understanding”. Maybe it’s high time to demand some “understanding” from them. There is a thread going now, in which one of the “resident geniuses” thinks it is OK to keep up the discrimination because “I don’t understand gays”.
I don’t want or need any understanding. I simply want people to stay out of my personal business, leave me alone, and not try to cheat me out of the things I’ve earned because they “don’t understand” me. Little things like being able to keep a job, live in peace and not be hassled.
I also have a BIG problem with the idea that many of the talking heads and politicians who push “morality” are some of the dirtiest bastards on earth. They cheat on wives, have illegitimate children, one very famous radio guy was busted for drugs and another was accused of sexual harrassment, every few years another fire breathing preacher gets caught in a scandal, etc etc etc.
Anyone who doesn’t “get it” can rot in hell.
You’re a Republican mole, aren’t you.
And still another province is being taken to court over the issue: Newfoundland and Labrador. This will be the eighth province or territory to be sued for marriage licences.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
The same way not being black affected you when there were white and colored water fountains. The same way not being Christian affects you when certain Dopers condemn all Christians. The same way not being a Democrat or Republican affects you when third parties are denied fair participation in the electoral process. You lose a part of the nobility that you could have achieved as a human being by standing up for what’s right and condemning what’s wrong. If the only way you can appreciate success is to savor the failure of others, then you are a failure. If the only way you can feel superior is to create an inferior class of people, then you are inferior. If the only way you can demonstrate your righteous to God is by pointing out the sins of others, then you are a sinner. If you stand by and do nothing while good men suffer oppression, then you are the oppressor’s right hand.
Gosh, that was well said. I wish I could have said it with as much eloquence.