Posts Tagged teh gheyz
I know he’s low-hanging fruit, but this is reflective of a fascinating disconnect in homophobic Christian culture: either he hasn’t read the text, or he assumes his followers haven’t read it.
“If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ,” Broussard explained. “So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
On Tuesday, Robertson insisted that the ESPN reporter had been correct because “fornication is a sin.”
“Somehow we’ve said if it’s heterosexual fornication, it’s bad; if it’s homosexual fornication — that used to be called an abomination in the Bible — now it’s a protected civil right,” he continued. “And so somebody that says that that kind of conduct is sinful is now being pilloried in the press. He’s telling the truth! This is what the Bible says!”
Jesus Christ had nothing whatsoever to say about Teh Gheyz, but he did hang out with a bunch of single guys and a woman who was widely assumed to be a sex worker. His “family values” were basically that family was for the birds. The part of the Bible that condemns man-on-man action is also the part of the Bible that forbids eating pork or shellfish and wearing wool/linen blend fabric. Go pick up a copy of the Bible and read Leviticus from start to finish. Seriously; do it. Really puts the “man shall not lie with another man as with a woman” bit in perspective. Does Pat Robertson never indulge in bacon or shrimp? If he ever enjoys a crab cake or pork chop, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
This reminds me of that joyous day I spent participating in the #mdssm hashtag on Twitter, when the Maryland assembly was debating a bill to approve same-sex marriage. I ended up arguing (shoulder-to-shoulder with two Christian, African-American Maryland dudes) with some ignorant guy from Virginia (e.g. does not vote in Maryland) about what the Bible says about homosexuality. He was actually surprised to hear that Leviticus also forbids a lot of things that he and other Christians do all the time without apology.
Also, Pat Robertson? Your church should be so lucky as to be good enough for my gay Christian friends. Go fuck yourself. Wait here while I get you a pineapple.
Jason Collins, congratulations on coming out. Don’t let the bastards grind you down.
I see from a friend that this is going around Facebook:
My friend Francis DeBernardo at New Ways Ministry has a very nice, optimistic greeting for the new Pope:
As he begins his papacy, we request that Pope Francis I make one of his top priorities the re-evaluation of the Catholic hierarchy’s approach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. As a cardinal in Argentina, the new pope spoke strongly against marriage equality and against the right for gay and lesbian people to adopt children. We hope that in his new office, he will have the wisdom to hear all sides of these complex issues and that he will inject pastoral messages into his statements.
Over the past several decades, under the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, our church has suffered because of the aggressively negative approach to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity that the hierarchy has taken. As a result of these condemnatory and hurtful messages, thousands upon thousands of people—both LGBT and heterosexual–have left the Catholic Church. Some have looked to other churches for a pastoral welcome, and some have given up on faith altogether.
Pope Francis I has the opportunity to repair much of this hurt and alienation by offering sincere pastoral outreach to LGBT people and their families. A welcoming gesture from the new pope in the first month of his papacy can go a long way to express God’s love for all humanity. Without such a gesture, the church will continue to lose members, as well as credibility.
Pope Francis I will need to go further than gestures, too. In the past few decades, Catholics in the United States and all over the globe have become increasingly welcoming of LGBT people. Catholics have gone to ballot boxes to ensure that LGBT people do not suffer from discrimination and violence, and that they receive equal benefits in society, including civil marriage. During that time, Catholic theologians, using modern research and evidence, have called for the Catholic Church to update its teachings and approach to sexuality, including sexual orientation, same-sex relationships, and gender identity. The Catholic Church is ready for the full acceptance of LGBT people in the church community. The only obstacle to recognition of the full dignity of LGBT people is the intransigence of the hierarchy. Through example and directive, the new pope can move the church toward full acceptance.
Somehow, I’m not holding my breath that Pope Francis I is going to open himself up to new ideas. The Church will continue to lose members and credibility, and the hierarchy will have no one to blame but itself for putting crusty old dudes like Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio at the top.
I got this from New Ways Ministry (see previous post).
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is not happy about the new VAWA.
If you want to see the Bizarro-world rantings of someone who is both wrong about everything and incredibly pitiable, check out this fresh load of nonsense that Deacon Duncan found us at LifeSite News.
If that’s their definition of “life,” I think I’ll stay out here and wallow in depravity and nihilism.
I’m busy NaNo-ing. I’ve had a good day.
Hemant Mehta shows us this incident in which the Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors made the mistake of opening up the topic of “Biblical marriage” in front of an audience which included Jamila Bey. The press conference was supposed to be about CAAP’s opposition to marriage equality. Rev. Owens is a consultant to NOM. He acts like he isn’t accustomed to actually answering questions.
Bey: Reverend, What is God’s position on polygamy?
Owens: [Glares] Well, I think you know that. This is not about polygamy. This is about same-sex marriage.
Bey: This is about your — I need you to define for me, please, the Biblical definition of marriage–
Owens: The Biblical definition of marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman. And I’m not going to–
Bey: But Reverend–
Owens: I’m not going to get on another track!
Bey: … Talk to me about Abraham’s marriage.
Owens: Madam. Next question! Next question.
Bey: Reverend, what is God’s position on polygamy?
Owens: Next question!
Bey: Reverend, what is God’s position on polygamy?
Owens: Are you, are you going to stand there and just demand that I answer your question? This is not about polygamy. This is about same-sex marriage… and I will NOT do any different.
Bey: Reverend, you said that you would answer questions about Biblical marriage.
Owens: [To security] Would you have this lady removed?
Look at that again: “Are you going to stand there and just demand that I answer your question?” Why, yes, Rev. Owens! It’s called being a journalist. If you bring up “Biblical marriage,” as if the Bible is a helpful guide to well-adjusted family life, then you should be prepared for someone to ask about polygamy. This is especially important given how much energy the anti-equality side puts into comparing SSM to polygamy, or sounding the alarm that marriage equality will put us on a slippery slope to polygamy, bestiality and state-sanctioned incest. In light of the environment which the pro-patriarchy side has created, one should know better than to bring out the Good Book as a defense of enforced heterosexual monogamy. The Reverend just walked right into it.
The latest argument against marriage equality: “Because white people need to breed more.”
“I had my back to her like this. She said, ‘The reason my husband my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.”
UNIDENTIFIED POLL WORKER: “(Mrs. Brunsetter said) … the Caucasian race is diminishing. ?The reason that’s a problem is that it was white people that founded this country.”
Meanwhile Mrs. Brunstetter is all like, “Sure, I said that, but if I said ‘Caucasian,’ it wasn’t about race! Why won’t you people leave me alone, with your gotcha questions and your ‘facts’!”
This may seem incoherent, as reading this exchange has cost me a couple dozen IQ points.
So…like…North Carolina needs a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, because by barring same-sex couples from marriage, they’ll be able to force white people to have more kids, relative to people of color?
But…what? On what planet does that even begin to make sense?
Sometimes, they just let it all out for everyone to see:
Can I make it any clearer? 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.”
The rules for girls are a bit more flexible, and yet somehow, even more fucked up:
And when your daughter starts acting too butch you reign her in. And you say, “Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.”
How do I put this?
This man hates people. He hates boys, he hates girls, he hates LGBTs, he hates straight people who don’t perfectly tow the gender line.
How do I come to that conclusion?
Because Pastor Harris’s diatribe is not affecting only gay people, or only children who belong to sexual minorities. If it did affect only those groups of people, that shouldn’t make it more acceptable, but to the extent that his congregants follow his advice, he is not encouraging abuse of JUST those kids who are growing up gay. He is encouraging abuse of ALL children. He is telling parents to berate, control and assault their children as soon as they deviate from gender norms, and you know what? We all do that. We all fail to meet our gender’s standards in some ways, because gender norms are socially constructed, subject to change, and arbitrary. All children will here and there do something that doesn’t exactly follow the rules of the gender marked on their birth certificate.
And here’s Pastor Sean Harris, instructing the parents in his congregation to beat their kids into behaving like socially approved, heterosexist boys and girls. He hates gay and lesbian children, he hates straight children, and he hates the adults they will grow up to be. Shame on him for parading his hatred from his pulpit, and shame on all those people who sit in those pews, laugh and nod along with his sermons, and pay his salary. They are all part of the problem.
(And it needs to be said: these same people almost inevitably believe that gay and lesbian couples are unfit to raise children. The irony is terrifying. Kill it, Mommies! Kill it with fire!)
I am still trying to write an impressive amount of text into Fait Accompli, but I’d just like to point your attention to this find by Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. The hilariously named NOM, which uses “marriage” as a euphemism for homophobia, has chosen a deliberate strategy of divide and conquer. Specifically, they’ve chosen to turn African-Americans against gays.
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks – two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.
Their goal is to portray the “gay marriage base” as racists, to frame opposition to marriage equality as a “black issue,” and frighten Democratic politicians away from supporting equality. This will do nothing good for race relations, but as far as NOM is concerned, whatevs. It will also make life increasingly, needlessly difficult for African-American LGBTs, but NOM cares even less for them.
No, it doesn’t end there. I just had to follow the link to the HRC document, which gives us this precious nugget:
“The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity – a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.”
“Interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for [institutionalized bigotry] a key badge of Latino identity”?
We wouldn’t want America’s fastest-growing ethnic group to get too comfy with an increasingly non-homophobic dominant culture, would we?
There are times when I am embarrassed to be white. This is one of those times. NOM, you suck. You suck so incredibly hard. You are all a disgusting waste of food, housing and oxygen. Short pier. Long walk. Go. Now.