O.K.

I've often theorized here that homosexuality gets singled out for such fervent condemnation by many religious conservatives because it's the safest target.

Condemning anything as a sin is a dangerous business. You get up on a soapbox and start railing against envy, sloth, gluttony, greed, wrath, lust or pride and eventually people will begin to realize that you're very well acquainted with your subject matter.

The only safe "sin" to preach against is one you can be sure you'll never commit -- never even be tempted to commit. So, if you're straight, you preach against homosexuality. You can further protect yourself by portraying it as the worst possible sin. That way when you get caught doing whatever it is you will inevitably get caught doing, you can argue that at least you're not as bad as those wretched homosexuals.

So that's one theory, one possibility. These straight men rail against the supposed sins of homosexuals for the same reason that they rail against the supposed sins of women -- because they're neither homosexuals nor women and it's always safer to condemn others.

An alternate theory takes kind of the opposite approach to considering why this topic receives such disproportionate attention from certain members of the religious right. This theory suggests that perhaps these preachers doth protest too much. And once in a while a story comes along that seems to support this theory.

Like, for instance, this story from Tulsa, Okla.:

An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, Becker said. ...

When [Latham] left jail, he said:

"I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police."

The arrest took place in the parking lot of the Habana Inn, which is in an area where the public has complained about male prostitutes flagging down cars, Becker said. The plainclothes officers was investigating these complaints. ...

Latham is one of four Southern Baptist Convention executive committee members from Oklahoma. ...

He has also spoken out against same-sex marriage and in support of a Southern Baptist Convention directive urging its 42,000 churches to befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them that they can become heterosexual "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle."'

Elsewhere in Oklahoma, the marriage between two women as upheld by the top court of the Cherokee Nation, Reuters reports. Members of the Tribal Council had sued to overrule the legitimacy of the marriage, saying it could damage the tribe's reputation:

"Members of the Tribal Council, like private Cherokee citizens, must demonstrate a specific particularized harm," the court ruled. "In the present case, the Council members fail to demonstrate the requisite harm."

In other words, the Cherokee Tribunal asked, "Who does it hurt if these two women get married?"

The opponents of the marriage didn't have an answer to that question. Neither does the Southern Baptist Convention or, well, anyone else. So what's the problem?

(Both links via Buzzflash.)

Comments

[Ray]

As, I think, Pharyngula pointed out, the other weird thing about that story was that Latham appears to have been arrested simply for offering someone a blow job. That's illegal?

[Scott]

I had a 'discussion' w/ a new fundie minister about this once, and challenged him to preach on Luke 16:18 (anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery) the next week. He declined. Not because people would stop coming and giving the church $$, of course. Not that. Not at all. No siree.

[Scott]

BTW, check out Russian Orthodox Church Prefers Islamists over Gay-Friendly Christians (they broke off relations w/ the Church of Sweden, but are meeting with Iran over interfaith dialog.

[Perry]

In his book "Surprised by Joy" C.S. Lewis said people asked him why he never spoke out against buggery. Apparantly he spoke against many sins except for buggery and I think gambling. His reply was that he did not feel qualified to speak against an activity he had never been tempted to engage in. He went on to confirm that this meant that he had been tempted by all the sins that he had spoken against.

[NonyNony]

It is interesting that the pastor was only cited for "lewdness" when in the story it says that the plainclothes officers were investigating complaints of "male prostitutes flagging down cars" in the area. If it was a sting operation, isn't there a charge for offering to exchange money for sex? Or maybe they didn't get him on the record saying that he'd pay for it, so they hit him with the lesser charge?

Anyway, I personally think that the anti-gay condemnation is just hate-mongering for money from those at the top that's being spread down the pipe by others. Gays are among the only group of people that its still "culturally acceptable" to hate in this country (though, thank God, that's changing) and its easy to fleece the rubes for money by making them afraid that TV executives are trying to turn their sons (always sons) gay.

There's also the fact that we as Americans are more uptight about sexual sins than about other sins. Its interesting that the Gospels at least have comparatively little to say about sexual sins but a whole lot to say about sins of omission - like not feeding the hungry, not clothing the naked, not finding shelter for the homeless, etc. Yet most of our Christian ministers like to focus on those sins of sex. Maybe its about ratings - talking about sex gets more viewers for the TV networks, maybe sex gets people to come to church too?

[Scott]

I was going back and forth w/ another fundie who claimed to oppose Bush as far as violations of civil liberties goes, but couldn't abandon Bush because of "gay marriage". However, since he paid lip service to not wanting people thrown in jail w/o trial as illegal combatants, he's not responsible for it despite his support of Bush. It's all, IMHO, just an excuse.

[Puck]

> You get up on a soapbox and start railing against envy, sloth, gluttony, greed, wrath, lust or pride...

Change "envy, sloth, gluttony" to "racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism" and suddenly we're talking about your kind of soapbox. Right?

Values are relative Fred.

Difference is - I know what envy, sloth, and gluttony are - "racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism" are sins applied to whomever happens to disagree with the person making the charge - making them perfect for the preachers from the Left.

Furthermore you are wrong about homosexuality being easy to preach against. Homosexuality is a powerful constituency on Philadelphia politics and not at all easy to preach against. You can speak for it - you can even DO it in public in Philly. But preach against it - and DA Lynn Abraham will have you in jail lickity split. She's done it. I believe you were one of her cheerleaders. Eh?

[Ray]

Could you provide a link to that story about the Philadelphia DA jailing someone for preaching against homosexuality?

[R. Mildred]

So puck you're coming out in favor of anti-semitism, racism and homophobia?

Or are you saying you have no idea what anti-semitism, homophobia and racism is, therefore nobody else can?

Because the only other thing you seem to be saying is "liberals are mean, and possibly gay", but then why say that in such a round-about way? what's with the weirdo moral relativism too? Was that yet another example of the old "you're a bigot towards bigots you bigot!" line of reasoning?

[Ray]

Ah, found the story. A story about Christians preaching against homosexuality _in the middle of a gay rally_. Which is a little different from just preaching, you must admit.

Anyway, you've missed Fred's point, which is that homosexuality is safe to preach against, because the preacher and the audience can feel confident that this is a sin they are not guilty of. Preach against sloth, envy, or gluttony and you and your audience might have to start asking themselves some uncomfortable questions. Your attempted switch doesn't work, unless you think Fred or his audience would be embarassed by a sermon on racism.

[David]

I disagree, Puck. We >think< we know what envy, sloth, and gluttony are. So did the Pharisees, who codified every possible extant behaviour that might transgress the law and qualify as sin, yet it all amounted to just so much legal tapdancing. The majority of Jesus' teachings were based on pointing out that the spirit of the law is consistently deeper and more demanding than our understanding of the letter.

As far as it being easy or hard to preach against homosexuality, Fred was referring to the taking of moral high ground as opposed to the legality. Currently there is a lot of popular support remaining in churches for those who wish to speak loudly and long about the evils of homosexuals. There's plenty of support for such preachers. Of course claiming legal oppression in the name of God goes over equally well.

Fred's point remains - it is easiest to condemn things you aren't tempted to do.

[McJulie]

I used to buy explanation 1 (rail against the thing you're not tempted by) because it seemed to tie into the anti-rock craze that swept through churches in the 80s (remember backmasking? Oh, those were the days). But I've started to suspect explanation 2 (excessive condemnation driven by actual homosexual temptation) after reading the weirdly salacious nature of the anti-homosexual condemnation. The Santorums and Dobsons of this world seem to get OFF on describing, in detail, all the horrible things they suspect "the gays" of doing.

So now I think the condemnation is DRIVEN at the top by explanation 2 and accepted by the laity because of explanation 1.

[Puck]

Well some of you seem to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Actually - the response is a bit more restrained than I had expected. Nevertheless - if I had written something critical of sloth, envy, greed, or fellatio in the Oval office - do you think I'd have gotten such critical response? Of course not.

Some people give offense much better than they take it. Homosexuals are but one example.

[Ray]

You know, I can't see any insults or any anger in the replies to you above. Some implied attacks, perhaps, but nothing stronger than your attack on Fred in your first post. You really seem to be determined to take offense.

[jackd]

Puck, you got pwned by R. Mildred. Find another thread to troll. Better still, another blog.

[Puck]

In other words - go away because you don't want to hear what you don't like - is that what you mean Jack?

OK. I will - but my point is that moral judgment is just as much a tool of the left as it is the right.

At least the fundies preach to their choirs - you on the left preach your morality to all of us.

[Jesurgislac]

Perry: His reply was that he did not feel qualified to speak against an activity he had never been tempted to engage in. He went on to confirm that this meant that he had been tempted by all the sins that he had spoken against.

I was going to quote that. It's one of my favourite things about C.S.Lewis.

[B-W]

Wow. That the first time I've seen anyone try to imply that the right doesn't try to preach their morality to all of us...

[Doctor Science]

I favor the idea that Sigmund Freud is rising up out of his grave and saying "Nyah nyah nyah, I told you so." Projection: "the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable—too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous—by attributing them to another."

Of course, the problem with projection as a psychological defense mechanism is that it doesn't actually work: it identifies the problem away from its actual source, so it actively distracts the person from dealing with the issue that's causing the difficulty.

So what's the problem that's being dealt with by projection? In many cases I think it is Fred's #2, suppressed homosexual desire, but I also think gays are being used as a focus for anxiety about sex in general.

Basically, we manifestly live in a society where we can expect to be sexually aroused a lot -- by the huge number of new people we all are exposed to (since they're people, they're naturally sexy), and by images, especially ads, that use sex to get our attention.

In other words, you're going to get turned on a lot. If you've been brought up to feel that being turned on is morally bad, dirty, and unspeakable, you're not going to be happy with your own feelings. One way to deal with this is to blame everybody else for being so damn sexy all the time, and to especially blame people who seem to be happy with feelings you hate.

The related underlying problem that gay-hating people avoid dealing with is divorce. I don't think it's coincidence that divorce rates are highest in areas of the US where homophobia is most accepted. This is IMHO where the projection "Gays are destroying marriage!" comes from. Conservative Christians have even higher divorce rates than other Americans and it's got to be due in part to their attitudes about sexuality, but they can't look at those feelings and actually deal with them. So they use gays, who have become symbols of sexuality itself (and it would be really interesting to trace how that happened), as scapegoats, piling all their sex-and-marriage-related anxieties onto "those" people.

[JC]

In other words - go away because you don't want to hear what you don't like - is that what you mean Jack?

You can think that if it make you feel better. It also allows you to validate yourself and reinforce a self-image as the purveyor of truth to people who Just Won't Listen if you happen to be into that sort of thing. I won't assume one way or the other.

But mainly, it's that R. Mildred has pretty much eviserated your argument and you have failed to mount any sort of defense. By changing the subject to be all about you and people supposedly telling you to go away, you give the implicit message that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
(In other words, R. Mildred asked some very good questions of you and if you wish to be taken seriously, I suggest that you answer them seriously.)

As for the preaching against homophobia, I've suspect that it was people preaching against the urges they feel for a while now. Obviously, I have nothing with which to justify this other than occasional stories like the one which is the subject of this thread.

[Andy]

As for Ray's first comment, I'm not sure about the laws in Oklahoma, but recently a man was arrested in Virginia for soliciting oral sex from a police officer in a restroom. He wasn't convicted of lewdness, he was convicted of "attempted solicitation of sodomy." His lawyers, naturally, argued that after 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, it's a little hard to convict someone of solicitation of something that is no longer a crime. An appeals court upheld the conviction. It's tacky and inappropriate, sure, but he wasn't CAUGHT having oral sex in a restroom, he merely extended an invitation. Why can't the police officer just say no thanks?

[Scott Daly]

The fundies only preach to the chiors??? Thank you. I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. There is a difference between decrying something because it is immoral, and actively trying to make it illegal. Which, the last time I checked, the fundies have been doing with anti-sodomy laws and other legal barriers against homosexuals for decades. The whole defence of marriage baloney is merely the latest salvo. (BTW: if they are so worried about marriage being sacred, why are they not trying to get rid of the divorce laws that are already on the books?).

Any student of history can see that it is immpossible to legislate morality. At best you drive the activity underground. At worst you create a situation where people have no recourse when harmed because society refuses to acknowledge that the behavior or activity exists.

Oh! And by the way racism, anti-sematism, and homophobia are societal behaviors, where as envy, greed, and sloth are individual behaviors. (Although I will admit that homophobia falls into both categories) Societal behaviors result in groups of people being actively persecuted by the majority. Individual behaviors only affect the individual. You are making an apples and oranges comparison here.

[Beth]

if I had written something critical of sloth, envy, greed, or fellatio in the Oval office - do you think I'd have gotten such critical response? Of course not.

And if R.Mildred's response had been a rambling post in praise of cute puppy dogs, would it have earned so many 'amens'? Of course not.

Which just goes to prove that not only are slacktivists amoral hypocrites, we hate cute puppy dogs as well.

[grenadine]

yeah, those puppy dogs. with their soft, floppy ears and those big puppy-dog eyes.... hate 'em!

Dog forbid they should be allowed in the homes of good, honest americans... er, i mean "god forbid"

[Doctor Science]

As for the preaching against homophobia, I've suspect that it was people preaching against the urges they feel for a while now.

As the C.S.Lewis quote points out, preaching against urges you feel is a lot more moral than preaching against urges you *don't* feel. The real problem is when you preach against urges you don't admit you feel, not to mention recommending eye surgery on the other guy in the hopes it will cure the beam in your own.

[Scorpio]

It's the old problem of "someone, somewhere, might be having a good time."

Some people are just not happy unless they can regulate others.

[Kevin]

Re: the oral sex question, and along the same lines as Andy, it could possibly be that oral sex is illegal in Oklahoma. There are some laws still on the books that would make many of us do a double take. For instance, I'm pretty sure that oral and anal sex are both still a felony in Washington, D.C. In other states, it's illegal for unmarried people to have intercourse or to commit adultery.

[David Adams]

I figure in this case the guy really means it when he says homosexuality is "destructive" because his own method of dealing with his homosexual desires is destructive for him and his family. But that says more about how he handles his desires than the desires themselves.

[bad Jim]

Reasons 1 (the safety of attacking the other) and 2 (latent homosexuality) are fine as far as they go, but I suspect that another major reason is the rigid gender roles they insist upon: the dominant father and the submissive wife and children. They are threatened by anything that deviates from this (as they think) biblically mandated scheme, and they equate any perceived lack of masculinity with homosexuality.

There was piece a few months ago by Dobson (I think) about signs that your little boy might be gay. Some people pointed out that liking to play with girls is hardly predictive of homosexuality, and others noted that enjoying sports and roughousing with boys is quite compatible with wanting to have sex with them. People like Dobson, though, cannot believe that masculinity is not identical with heterosexuality. (They also seem rather less concerned with women.)

It isn't just homosexuality that affrights the religious conservatives, it's anything that falls outside their narrow prescription for the family, and they tend to conflate gender roles and sexual issues.

[Bob Ramsey]

I used to work in a warehouse where the fellas often razzed each other with "mock" homoerotic banter and frequently disparaged gays.

One day I went to a few of them and said, "You know, I was reading the other day that men who show a lot of hostility to homosexuals often have very strong homosexual feelings themselves. Is that true with you guys?"

I was met by stunned silence.

Actually, I think Rev. Latham's bigger sin was to use the bastardization "pastoring" and to use it as a transitive verb. Unless, of course, "pastoring" has a new meaning in homoerotic slang that I don't know about.

[Garnet]

At least the fundies preach to their choirs

You mean like those guys you were just championing, the ones arrested for preaching about the evils of gay-ness during a Gay Pride parade? Because I'm not entirely convinced that was their choir.

[J]

"Reasons 1 (the safety of attacking the other) and 2 (latent homosexuality) are fine as far as they go, but I suspect that another major reason is the rigid gender roles they insist upon: the dominant father and the submissive wife and children. They are threatened by anything that deviates from this (as they think) biblically mandated scheme, and they equate any perceived lack of masculinity with homosexuality."

True enough. You could also look on it as a hold-over from our culture's Roman roots: Pre-Christian Romans had a conscious idea of sex roles that pretty much parallels ours. The Roman conception of sex ALWAYS required that one be dominant and another submissive. The dominant would always be male and always do the penetrating. The submissive could be male or female and would always be the penetratee.

Heck, forget "Pre-Christian"--this belief has pretty much gone unexamined for all of Western history, Christian or otherwise. Aquinas, remember, was horrified by the idea of woman-on-top sex because it seemed to him to abrogate that really tiresome concept of the "headship" of men.

[Bruce Garrett]

In his book "Surprised by Joy" C.S. Lewis said people asked him why he never spoke out against buggery. Apparantly he spoke against many sins except for buggery and I think gambling. His reply was that he did not feel qualified to speak against an activity he had never been tempted to engage in.

But he did. In his book "Mere Christianity", he called homosexuality the "perverted desire of a man for a man", characterizing it as "quite unnatural feelings due to things that have gone wrong in the subconscious", and "abnormal feelings".

Now, perhaps his views mellowed over the years since he wrote that. But he did say it, and I have been unable to locate anything written by him where he ever took it back. So there it is. No I don't know a damn thing about it personally, I've never been tempted by it, but I know it's perverted, unnatural, abnormal and something gone wrong in the subconscious. Whatta guy.

[Bruce Garrett]

As, I think, Pharyngula pointed out, the other weird thing about that story was that Latham appears to have been arrested simply for offering someone a blow job. That's illegal?

That's what's bothering me about this. Yes...it's hard to set aside that feeling of Schadenfreude here. But this looks like all he was arrested for was speech. If this was a prostitute sting, and there was no talk of money changing hands, then on what grounds did they arrest him, if not simply for speech. The activity he suggested is not illegal anymore. Or does Oklahoma think they have a right to thumb its nose at the US Supreme Court?

That's my worry here. Virginia seems to think it still has a right to enforce it's sodomy laws too, at least to some degree. Anyone here recall "massive resistance" There were states that kept trying to thumb their noses at Brown v. Board of Education too. It took federal troops in some cases to enforce desegregation. What's going to happen if someone gets arrested on sodomy charges and a state simply flat-out refuses to aknowledge Lawrence?

[R. Mildred]

that is of course, assuming that the police officer wasn't asked to partake in a sexual act in a public bathroom, which is still illegal, and would warrant a "public lewdness" charge. Not that heterosexuals ever get arrested for such a thing, probably because it's just two crazy people in love when hets bang each other's brains out in a bathroom stall and icky perverted acts when it's two guys.

I'd just like to add that it sounds like Lewis was probably quoting what the emminent leading psychologists (mostly closeted gays) were saying at the time he wrote it, and who didn't decide that homosexuality wasn't a deviant mental disorder until sometime in the late 70's I think, possibly later even. Not that that makes it better or him more than "selectively forgetful" and hypocritical, but he does seem to be using very psychological terminology.

[J]

Didn't spot this until my third read through:

Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded . . .

Oh this guy sounds like a GREAT Christian.

[cjmr's husband]

C'mon, J, it's not like he was driving a brand new 2006 Mercedes :-)

[Ray]

According to the story above, "Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex.", so it's not a case of public indecency. (but the story may be missing some relevant details)

[Ross]

Maybe, as Janice Joplin once requested, the Lord bought it for him.

What I always find cutely ironic is that if, as many of these ideogogues suggest, homosexuality is a kind of contagion that you "catch" from being exposed to gay marriage and Cher, it certainly seems like one of the best ways to catch "the Gay" is to be a right-wing pundit who rails against homosexuality or a family member of a right-wing pundit who rails against homosexuality.

[Rix]

Does oral sex count as actual sex? Bill Clinton tried to say it didn't & was impeached by the right wing for that terrible breach of National Security. Latham should thank God Almighty he was arrested. Had he gone through with the act he would have to be stoned to death.

Metadiscussion: there's something I've been wanting to get off my chest for sometime, concerning discussions and debates about homosexuality. Whenever I see a buncha straights, Christians or otherwise, talking about whether they think homosexuality is okay or not, I wonder how people can be so incredibly self-important, so astonishingly rude, and so completely unaware of both. It's like expressing opinions about whether someone else's hairstyle is okay or not. Guess what? It's not your hair, it's not your business, and no one gives a rat's ass what you think. Like it, don't like it, approve, disapprove, it doesn't matter. Your opinion does not matter. If you're rude enough to express it in public, all you do is make yourself look like a complete dork, because nobody cares.

[Garnet]

Riiight.... I'm sure the GLBT community wouldn't be exactly thrilled if everyone who supports them just shut up and sat quietly, absolutely and categorically refusing to say a single word on the matter, ever. Nothing like complete and total apathy on the part of your allies to really motivate people!

[Bruce Garrett]

There's a sense of being someone else's football, observing those discussions. But not here on the web, in forums like this one where gay folks can easily have their say too. Mostly it's watching the discussion in the mainstream newspapers and media that I get that feeling. Say people...why not ask one of Us about how okay or not our lives are...? This conversation is about us after all...

But...yeah...at least they're talking about our issues. It's better then the deathly silence I recall while growing up. At least now we're an issue, as opposed to a dirty secret.

Garnet, Bruce said it pretty well, but there's also the fact that we don't need anyone's permission to be gay. We need permissions to have what other people take for granted (that falls under the rubric of "special rights for heterosexuals", like that marriage thang), but we don't need others to decide whether being gay is okay or not. So when you talk about "allies of the GLBT community" shutting up on the matter, guess what, that's fine with me. I'd prefer it if the "allies" wouldn't waste their energy on that.

The Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts that extended marriage rights to gays was a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The logic was, given that gays are citizens and entitled to the rights of citizens, that must include the right to marriage. Well, everyone went banana-whackies about the m-word, and missed the part that is much more threatening (to a homophobe) and empowering (to gay people): the recognition that of course gays are equal citizens. And in the ensuing debate, that premise was almost universally held, even by those who vehemently opposed the m-word. So debating whether we're "okay" is a waste of time; it's long past time to move on from that.

[Mark]

I think the issue with fundamentalists and religious conservatives in general being so irrationally anti-gay has less to do with latent homosexuality as it does with a number of blatant homosexuals who are in abject denial, struggle, covering up, sublimation, reparative therapy, and so forth. Some of the most forthright voices against gays in fundamentalist circles are the so-called ex-gays, along with a number of other characters of dubious sexual orientation...

Cognitive dissonance leading to a lashing out. It is a type of defense mechanism. I'm not saying every hysterically anti-gay person out there is presumed to be gay, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that suppressed or denied homosexuality is a powerful engine for religious homophobia. Just look at all the 'ex-gay' fundamentalist leaders who are now ex-ex-gay.

[Reverend Ref]

"There was piece a few months ago by Dobson (I think) about signs that your little boy might be gay."

Really? I didn't realize little boys (or girls for that matter) were choosing a homosexual lifestyle at such a young age.

All sarcasm aside, though, wouldn't this piece by Dobson actually confirm that sexuality is not a choice but a genetically defined trait?

[NancyP]

1. The good Rev. Latham was arrested on the sidewalk by the local "hot sheets" motel in the gay bar/business/?oldest business strip. Chances are good the Rev. offered money for a specific sex act, which is prostitution, the genders of the two participants not being germane to the law.

2. puck said "if I had written something critical of sloth, envy, greed, or fellatio in the Oval office - do you think I'd have gotten such critical response? Of course not.".

No critical response at all, ol' Puck! We have ample evidence of sloth in the current WH (more vacation days than any modern Pres., not to mention the 2 hour/day exercise break and the square 8 hours sleep he claims to get), not to mention greed (for his oil/energy/defense buddies and family), and some envy (several statements saying it's easier to rule a dictatorship, combined with his known sloth). Don't know about the fellatio - no evidence one way or the other. Still, I wonder who the fake newsman/gay-for-pay ex-hooker Jeff Gannon (formerly Jeff Guckert) was visiting - there are many possible clients, starting with the press secy Scottie McClellan, pretty much assumed to be gay, and on up to the Pres.).

3. Preaching against homosexuality has several advantages for the pastor with business sense but little else. A relatively small percentage of the flock is tempted, so relatively small percentage will be offended enough to leave or stop donating.

The topic can be fiscally neutral, as well, in that the preacher can take the line "don't do it", rather than, "you need to donate money to some OTHER organization specializing in anti-gay cultural activities" (I have never heard a preacher suggesting that the tithe ought to be directed to Exodus or American Family Association). The business-oriented preacher preaches about tithing, but not about poverty or any other problem that might direct listeners' money away from that specific church. The tithing sermon either focuses on "duty to God" or uses the Prosperity Gospel approach ("God will reward you twofold if you tithe, look at me, I drive a Mercedes" - see Creflo Dollar or some other televangelists). Preaching against greed may not be profitable, since there is always the chance that the flock might split their charity/tithe money between the church and other options, or might decide the church doesn't really need a fancy new addition to the building, and a donation to a homeless shelter or African fistula hospital or.. would be a better use of money.

4. Preaching against homosexuality also has advantages for the politically ambitious preacher, or the preacher who simply wishes to be popular with his flock. Again, homosexuality is not a temptation for the great majority of the flock, so positioning it as the worst sin basically flatters the majority of the flock. In America, no one preacher and no one Protestant church or denomination has overwhelming power (thanks to the disestablishment clause, etc), and typically American religion has been operated in a marketing-savvy way. Preachers who demand too much of their flocks see their flocks go elsewhere in this free market model of religion.

[MDtoMN]

If you want to be popular with your audience, ask them to do something that is easy for them. The vast majority of people can avoid doing homosexual stuff without a single bit of energy - thus it is a great target.

When divorce was uncommon, people loved to condemn divorce. Once it became common - at the very moment when it was most important that people consider whether or not it was sinful - the condemnations started being replaced by comments about "single mothers" (the never married) and then homosexuals.

Religion (and I am a Christian, but I still think this) is often tainted by what will sell best. Right now bashing on homosexuality sells best because it is easiest for the audience to follow. Here we are.

[Kim]

and I just read earlier this evening the rumor that Karl Rove has an "intimate" relationship with Rush Limbaugh! :-)

If any of you would like to read some discussions where gay people defend themselves against all types -- and appreciate their straight allies -- I recommend Beliefnet.com -the Homosexuality Debate Board.

[J]

Sorry Kim: posting on Beliefnet as a liberal started to remind me too much of the final scene in "Aliens" where Ripley goes into the alien hive alone.