Happy Coming Out Day?
According to MSNBC, the gay community is divided on Obama, as he has given them nothing but promises so far. Earlier this week there were rumblings about The Powers That Be ending the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for gays in the military. At this very moment (I think), people are marching on the Mall in DC in support of gay rights.
I’m curious to know other peoples’ opinions. I have yet to make my own, for a number of different reasons. Is the gay community doing the same thing feminism did, where “equal rights” really meant “the same as”? In more urban/progressive places, are there really levels of discrimination that merit a march on the Mall (the ultimate form of protest)? Someone once voiced the opinion that feminism was a way for ugly women to feel important about themselves and get laid. Is all this gay activism a chance for, in a similar manner, legalized licentiousness? That same (gay) person opined that the only people who would benefit from gay marriage is divorce lawyers. Does the right to marriage (complete with white dress and cake topped with cheesy plastic figurines) constitute as a civil right?
Thoughts?
Let’s try this again. As Calvinist-to-the-rescue worded things:
I, like most of the posters here, am in no way an anti-Roman Catholic bigot. I don’t hate Catholics, not one iota. But (and this is probably most insulting to them), I have great compassion for them, great sympathy. The Roman Catholics I have known have been very sad folks believing in their false deluded anti-Christ sytsem, one of which comitted suicide recently. It “killed” me. (I know, I know, they will blame discrmination by real biblical Christians, ostracism, whatever) but I don’t believe a word of it. It’s like friends who take drugs, they are still my friends, I just can’t stand seeing them slowly killing themselves when there is a way out.
I certainly don’t think legitimizing their false religion through accepting it as a legitimate Christian sect is helpful–to the contrary, it is quite destructive — it damns their souls to Hell for eternity.
Now. Let’s say that one really did have a legitimate religious conviction based on what’s good faith understanding of the Bible and the Christian faith that Roman Catholics engage in a soul damning error. Is there perhaps a more civilized way to put it? Or is the way that Calvinist-to-the-rescue worded it a legitimate conviction or bigotry?
If you’re Catholic, they assume you’re against them. The Catholic Pope is the Anti-Christ to them–that’s child’s behavior and I can understand why the commenters just stopped trying to engage them….
You missed the point of the analogy completely. It’s not the gay left (or gay anything) that tends to note the Catholic Pope is the anti-Christ, but religiously conservative fundamentalists (often Calvinists) Protestants. And their conviction stems from long standing religious tradition where quotations abound from the early reformers demonstrating such.
My question is: Does the manner of voicing such conviction merit such a harsh (bigoted?) way of putting things? Or does civility demand something better?
To listen to the longstanding, traditional evangelical Protestant case replete with citations to the almost all notable early reformers and Protestant martyrs hear the following. Again, NOT the gay left that pushes this.
Personally I still struggle with what crosses the line from legitimately traditional religious conviction to bigotry. That’s one reason why I have engaged us in this thought exercise. Perhaps you all can help me with the following sermon:
http://tinyurl.com/ykdzcv9
Woe, woe, woe, cg, speak for yourself. I do believe that homosexuality is a “choice,” certainly in terms of homosexual lifestyle or activity. Some prediliction or affinity deep down–maybe there some biological component. But, even if so, that calling is something to be struggled against–not indulged,legitimized and glorified.
I also think the origin is multi-factorial. Sexual abuse certainly plays a role in damaging a young person’s sexual identity (I have seen that), and, yes, not having the acceptance, nuturing and example of a strong father can play a huge role. Those really aren’t choices, but, at some point, choices are made.
The 14 year old–this is how it works. Maybe he is not real masculine. No dad ever took the time to teach him how to walk, how to talk, how to throw a baseball, how to shoot a basketball. Because of that, he never is really accepted by the boys in the class. They are not mature enough (unfortunately) to reach out to him, be-friend him, teach him how to be a male.
So, he goes where there is no such pressure. He hangs around the girls. It becomes a self-fufilling prophecy–he is uncomfortable hanging around the very friends he needs the most.
A few years of this goes by, until, all of the sudden, he meets some guys who are not so macho and bullying (at least at first). They “accept” him as he is, no strings attached–at least at first. But he finds out there is a cost, an expection. A line is crossed. It’s painful at first and he knows it’s wrong, but he decides he’ll do anything to escape the loneliness and rejection he got from the regular guys. Then, he feels there is no escape. This is the life he has chosen even if it feels like a hell most of the time.
As he grows older and less attractive to them, he finds the “friends” he made are not so enamored with him anymore. The end is not good. I have seen it. I weep for my friends who have lived this life (choice or not). I have seen it and it is not pretty.
That should be whoa, whoa, whoa but it could work as written.
“Drone on, poor fellows.
“But do be careful: Psychosis is degenerative.
“God Bless.”
Good response!
“The 14 year old–this is how it works…”
That’s one steamy heap of armchair psychologizing. Where on earth do you get that drivel? James Dobson’s books?
I wish it wasn’t people I knew.
One quick story, then I gotta go. I met John about 8 or 10 years ago. It was at a gym. I was 30 something, he was mid-70′s (looked older), balding and rail-thin (almost sickly thin).
He was obviously very lonely. Not really working out. Just wanting someone to talk to. I befriended him, invited him to church the next day and to my home afterward.
What an interesting life he had lived. Accomplished pilot and veteran. Joined the AF at 16, lying about his age. Was a ball turret gunner in WWII, also was a crewman in Korea.
Never married. Never had children. Showed me his pictures of his “best friends” from WWII. I got the “picture” about his past and he later confirmed it.
For about two years, I tried my best to make him part of our family. He joined our church, became very active in it, got settled in a good Sunday school class of older gents. I got him to tell my kids of his military experiences. He ate with his often, and cooked for us at his home. He came to every party my wife and I threw. There would be twelve families with kids and this 75 year geezer who was just happy not to be alone anymore.
One day I heard he had fallen down, broken his hip and had been found by a SS friend who was bringing him a cake. He died within a month or two.
He had very little family and almost no friends outside of me, my family and our church. So we planned a funeral we thought he would like. We had the Air Force place taps, got the flag-draped casket, the military headstone, I read “High Flight” his favorite poem and did the euology. Our pastor performed the service.
Once I asked him about his father. At 75 years old, the only thing he could say was how hurt he was that his father had rejected him, had never spent time wtih him. He remembered seeing other dads tossing their children in the air and catching them, never his dad. At 75, this brought tears to his eyes.
I know, I know, “it’s just one guy. One story. It’s not that simple.”
Maybe you guys are right. I just know what I have seen and what I have been told.
“Drone on, poor fellows.
“But do be careful: Psychosis is degenerative.
“God Bless.”
Good response!
Yes, that is a good response, Grover. And the truth. Beats the drivel that most of you are trying to shovel out.
“Woe, woe, woe, cg, speak for yourself. I do believe that homosexuality is a “choice,” certainly in terms of homosexual lifestyle or activity. Some prediliction or affinity deep down–maybe there some biological component. But, even if so, that calling is something to be struggled against–not indulged,legitimized and glorified.”
My apologies for not being clear enough–I completely agree with you here.
Of course: everyone misses your deep, so difficult to grasp, ethereal point, Jon Rowe.
Oh, the poor, poor gays. They’re so abused, so misunderstood, so unloved. The Pope hates them; the Catholics hate them; the religious are against them. Nobody can possibly understand how they feel, or their pain.
If they could only marry; if they were considered equals; if they could just be treated like every other couple; like all other people, they’d be so much happier.
No. You will never be happy until you honestly confront yourselves. And we’re all waiting for you to do that. Before that day, you can argue, stomp up and down, spit back witticisms and bile to every argument and every comment; change every law to suit yourselves. None of it will matter.
AND YOU KNOW THIS. WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU DO.
And I’ll tell you something else you all need–manners. I wasn’t talking to you, anyway.
“it’s just one guy. One story. It’s not that simple.”
That’s a sad story (though certainly nice in terms of your support for him), and probably quite simple, in some ways. It is not untypical of gay men of your friend’s generation. Being openly gay was simply not acceptable. Having a public relationship with another man was out of the question.
Do you think his experience might be different today, when it’s far more common for young gay men to have relationships and grow up in an accepting environment?
Was John gay because his father rejected him, or did his father reject him because he was “different” from an early age? One is just as plausible as the other.
But there’s something more here, I think: Did you ever ask John if he was lonely because he was gay? There are a lot of lonely old people out there. There are also a lot of older gay men, even some of John’s generation, who are *not* lonely because they risked whatever disapprobation society chose to throw their way in favor of being themselves. They have friends and rich social lives. Some of them even have life partners.
I guess what I’m saying is that you were kind to take pity on John because he was lonely. I’m not sure you needed to pity him because he was gay.
“I wish it wasn’t people I knew.”
I have no doubt that you know people like that. Your scenario is not uncommon, but neither is it the case across the board. The fact is, there is no strong evidence of a correlation between family environment and homosexuality.
If people here really believe gays are all a bunch of tormented, self-loathing basket cases, wouldn’t letting gay marriage flower be a good idea?
If they really are all so dysfunctional, it will be apparent soon as they slather the pink glitter on the exterior of their suburban colonials and shock the decent townsfolk by wearing cut-out leather chaps in line at the Safeway, all the while constantly offering Roofie-filled “cookies” to the toddlers.
If, on the other hand, it turns out they can live normal lives, be happy, own homes, rake the leaves, raise well adjusted kids, serve on the City Commission on Curbs and Storm Drains, and have dinner parties that are SFW, then your theories would be pretty much bunk.
The experiment is already being conducted in places like Massachusetts. I’d be optimistic about chance for an empirical resolution to this issue, but of course there are some people who won’t accept an empirical resolution to the question of the Earth’s age.
Sorry Max,
But YOU are the one on an uncivil rant, not me.
You further dishonestly read accusatory things into my arguments that I didn’t say.
I never said nor do I believe:
“The Pope hates them; the Catholics hate them; the religious are against them. Nobody can possibly understand how they feel, or their pain.”
I’ll let the readers decide who the one who is spewing bile is; I think you need to look in the mirror.
And btw, you’ll be happy to know that two members of Southern Appeal are my blog-brothers at the website to which I linked AND that I have proudly written for First Things magazine despite any political-religious or moral differences I have with them.
Muskrat, you raise some interesting questions. I do not necesasarily link my opposition to gay marriage to the issue of what would make gays happier or whether gay marriages would produce a net gain of positive societal good.
I think a state can decide what moral behavior they condone and facilitate versus what moral behavior they disapprove of and refuse to facilitate or legitimize. I do not think every public policy decision can be boiled down to a sociological study.
Make your best case to the people in the various states that gay marriage should be legal and let the people decide. However, in each referendum, the people have said no, even in California and so-called liberal, progressive or enlightened states.
If a state chooses to make gay marriage acceptable there (though I would vote against it), I say fine.
Never mind, everybody. Homosexuals and lesbians: have at it. Everyone else: don’t bother with them.
Evidently, we’re all wrong!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
AND:
Stanford Study–check it out.
“…You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community….”
And yes, this is pointedly aimed at those ‘in favor of’ and their equally unenlightened supporters.