Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 6)

I've been asked to revisit the backlash theory, giving more weight to the perceived seriousness of the threat. In doing so, it has been suggested, I should also revisit the demagogue theory, giving more consideration to the possibility that there really are barbarians at the gate -- big, gay, fabulous barbarians, apparently.

Those who have asked me to reconsider this -- in a series of e-mails that included some which were quite civil -- seem to think I've been going about this question all wrong. They don't deny the accuracy of the recent findings from the Barna Group --

The most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else.

-- but they see this alteration in the very identity of American Christianity as the legitimate and necessary response to a very real life-or-death struggle over the meaning of Christianity and America. To get a sense of how they view this threat, let's turn again to G.K. Chesterton's mind-bending thriller The Man Who Was Thursday. Chesterton's ultra-anarchist, Gregory, explains his true aim:

"To abolish God!" said Gregory, opening the eyes of a fanatic. "We do not only want to upset a few despotisms and police regulations; that sort of anarchism does exist, but it is a mere branch of the Nonconformists. We dig deeper and we blow you higher. We wish to deny all those arbitrary distinctions of vice and virtue, honor and treachery, upon which mere rebels base themselves. The silly sentimentalists of the French Revolution talked of the Rights of Man! We hate Rights and we hate Wrongs. We have abolished Right and Wrong."

Proponents of the backlash theory believe that this is exactly what is at stake in their effort to reinforce legal, moral and cultural condemnations of homosexuality. They may not all believe that this "radical homosexual agenda" is motivated by Gregory's deep hatred for society, but they believe the consequences of this agenda succeeding would be the same. If homosexuals are accorded legal equality and cultural acceptance, or even tolerance, then, according to this view, every distinction between vice and virtue, between right and wrong, will melt away, the Bible, religion, morality and the rule of law will lose all meaning and society will crash to the ground like a kite without a string.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria.

They really believe this.

Pam Spaulding highlights a WorldNetDaily post from J. Matt Barber titled "Homosexuality: What's all the fuss?" that lays this out clearly (or at least as as clearly as Barber's prose allows). Barber starts with the "they started it" claim of the innocent backlash theory, but quickly works himself up into a Stage 4 case of exegetical panic:

Unlike the sin of homosexuality ... other sins ... do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity." Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous -- as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." ...

And so, fervent and relentless homosexual propaganda goose-steps along, trampling upon those who observe traditional notions of sexual morality. This sets homosexual sin worlds apart from the other sins you reference. Therefore, we Christians are left no choice but to assign homosexual sin significance commensurate with that which it demands.

Thus we find ourselves -- back against the ropes -- in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for. It's a clash of worldviews in a zero-sum-game. Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality.

The very firm response by defenders of biblical truth ...

As Barber grows firmer in response to this struggle, let's try to remember that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a massive penetrating weapon that thrusts deep before exploding is just a bunker-buster bomb.

I would say that Barber is confusing the categories of ethics, morality and the law, but that gives him too much credit. He does not accept that these are separate categories. For Barber, all that is immoral must also be illegal, and all that is legal is explicitly endorsed. This is the logic of Prohibition. It is also the logic of Blue Laws and adultery statutes. In a different cultural and religious context -- but an identical spiritual context -- it is the logic of the Taliban.

Those of us from the Baptist tradition of religious liberty cannot help but be embarrassed for Barber because we recognize this for what it is: a confession of a frail and flimsy faith and of a moral character that is wholly dependent on external crutches. Barber argues, explicitly, that his understanding of right and wrong cannot be sustained without the active support of the state, the courts, the police. ("Lord I believe. Help thou Caesar my unbelief!") Take away legal prohibitions to homosexuality, he says, and morality itself is destroyed. Thus for Barber it is wholly appropriate and necessary to reinvent the meaning of Christianity in just the strange way that Barna shows it has been reinvented. That is the only way to ensure victory in the "culture war"/"clash of worldviews"/"war against morality."

The tragic irony here is that for all of his obsession with being a culture warrior, Barber has himself been wholly assimilated by the spirit of the age. Christianity, he says, is at war -- and that means Christians must do whatever it takes to win. Even if that means fundamentally altering your character. Even if it means demoting, disregarding or dismissing the texts that tell you who you are in favor of new approaches that contradict them. Whatever it takes to win. Yes or No -- do you want to win the culture war? Yes or No?

Sound familiar? He didn't get that idea from the Bible. The Gospel According to Cheney isn't in the Bible.

Earlier we discussed what I called the inner-demons theory -- the dynamic demonstrated by the seemingly endless parade of closeted, self-loathing homosexuals desperately clinging to a vehemently anti-gay agenda in the hopes that they can fake it 'til they make it as heterosexuals. Despite the Freudian minefield of his rhetoric, I don't think J. Matt is that kind of closet-case. I think, rather, that he is a closeted, self-loathing nihilist, desperately clinging to a vehemently anti-gay agenda in the hopes that he can fake it 'til he makes it as a religious believer.

Comments

[Josh D]

Anna said "Churches make it worse by using terms like 'God's laws' for sin, which equate the legal system and the moral system"

I think that this misunderstanding of the function of law is at least partly due to the fact that morality and law were the same wrt the Old Testament. It hasn't occurred to anyone that "the law" is constantly in flux. Morality is no longer legislated the way it was.

I do think it very interesting that some Christians regard the legislation of morality as a validation of their beliefs. Sort of negates the need for faith, doesn't it? Sad.

Straight wrote:
"Unlike the sin of homosexuality ... other sins ... do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence

Unless you count greed. Or envy. Or covetousness. Or gluttony. Or wrath. Or hatred. Or sloth. Or lust. Or pride. Or idolatry. Or sabbath-breaking. Or disrespecting your parents and elders. Or selfishness. Or dishonesty. Or uncharitableness. Nah. Never seen an expensive advertising campaign encouraging any of these things..."

I don't think that these sins are encouraged for their own sakes, though. The corporate greed that drives most advertising campaigns will utilize any/all of these sins but they do so solely in order to make money. Who remembers the beer commercials that show the cowboy drinking Budweiser with all the beautiful women? Lust. The target ads that show spiraling towers of paper towels, junk, bric-a-brac and a song that says "I just want some more"? Greed. The sin of envy or lust isn't encouraged for its own sake, it's encouraged so that I'll spend money on an iPhone.

I don't know a lot about the homosexual lobby, but I assume that it isn't motivated by greed. It's not a money machine, not the way that a corporate advertising campaign is. It may be prosperous, but I don't know where all the money comes from, aside from philanthropic donations.

I do think Straight makes an interesting point, though. The attitude towards traditional morality has changed a lot just in my lifetime. When I was a kid, there were increasing amounts of sex and violence on TV, and now we're at the point where TV commercials depict kids disrespecting their parents for inadequate minutes or texting privileges.

This was a very interesting series. I liked seeing everyone's view on Fred's different theories.

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

BTW- I propose a trade. Legalize gay marriage, but get rid of no-fault divorce. I think being able to ditch your spouse if, after the honeymoon is over, they start get on your nerves is a lot more damaging to marriage and families than allowing same-sex couples to marry.

People would then have to think long and hard about whether or not they wanted to marry someone if they knew that they wouldn't get to bail if the going got a little rough.

If there's no infidelity or abuse going on, work it out, people.

[Spalanzani]

Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat: "BTW- I propose a trade. Legalize gay marriage, but get rid of no-fault divorce. I think being able to ditch your spouse if, after the honeymoon is over, they start get on your nerves is a lot more damaging to marriage and families than allowing same-sex couples to marry.
People would then have to think long and hard about whether or not they wanted to marry someone if they knew that they wouldn't get to bail if the going got a little rough.
If there's no infidelity or abuse going on, work it out, people."

I think legislating that married couples should not be allowed to end their marriage when they see fit kinda violates the whole "Mind Your Own Business" rule.

hapax: "Inanna."

Didn't Gilgamesh reject her, though?

@Spalanzani: Didn't Gilgamesh reject her?

Sure, that's HIS story.

[Jeff]

If you are legally married, you cannot be legally compelled to testify against your civil partner, husband, or wife in a court of law.

Which is the turning point of The Mousetrap, innit?

(Anyone thinking of seeing the new Sleuth, with Michael Caine playing Lawrence Olivier and Jude Law playing Michael Caine?

=============================

Sex is kinda icky from an outsiders perspective, at least in my book

This makes me say "Huh? Is he seeing what I'm seeing?" Some things (which, in deference to many here, I leave undefined) strike me as "unsanitary", to say the least. But I think sex, in all its permutations, really is fun and pretty. There are some that I don't like as much as others, but how can anyone say that Mapplethorpe didn't create works of GORGEOUS art?

=============================

I put this down to having gotten more at ease in my own skin and accepting of my own - and by extension, others' - sexuality.

Yay! Soulmate?

=============================

Oh, before anyone asks, posting a video of myself on YouTube screaming, "I'm coming, Lord!" while flinging wads of cash at a prostitute would be Right Out.

Damn, there goes my birthday present!

[Brian J.]

If homosexuals are accorded legal equality and cultural acceptance, or even tolerance, then, according to this view, every distinction between vice and virtue, between right and wrong, will melt away, the Bible, religion, morality and the rule of law will lose all meaning and society will crash to the ground like a kite without a string.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria.

Whereas you believe that the loss of the Bible will lead to all of the above, with a different triggering mechanism.

Something tells me this series won't continue much longer, because you're making it clear even to yourself that the difference between "RTCs"/ "evil right-wing Christians" and yourself is that they're in power and you're not.

[ako]

Whereas you believe that the loss of the Bible will lead to all of the above, with a different triggering mechanism.

Where did he say that?

I mean I've seen Christians who claim that without Christianity, or at least religions that worship the same God, we'll go into some melodramatic moral tailspin, but I've never seen Fred say anything like that.

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

I think legislating that married couples should not be allowed to end their marriage when they see fit kinda violates the whole "Mind Your Own Business" rule. I submit that society has an interest in keeping marriages and families intact that outweighs the happiness of the individual couples involved. Of course, society also has an interest in making sure that it's members are not abused.

hapax: "Inanna."

Didn't Gilgamesh reject her, though?

Yes, he did, and boy was she pissed. She brought down the Bull of Heaven to wreak havok in Uruk, then when Gilgamesh and Enkidu killed the bull, she convinced the elder gods that either Gilgamesh or Enkidu had to die. Enkidu ended up being the one to go the way of all flesh.

[Fred]

Brian J. --

Huh? Where, exactly, have I said/implied/argued anything like that?

Just curious, because I don't remember taking all the drugs I would've had to take before saying something like that.

[Jesurgislac]

F-N-S-G: I propose a trade. Legalize gay marriage, but get rid of no-fault divorce. I think being able to ditch your spouse if, after the honeymoon is over, they start get on your nerves is a lot more damaging to marriage and families than allowing same-sex couples to marry.

I think being tied for life to a spouse you cannot bear to live with is horrifically damaging to marriage, to families, and of course to individual spouses who end up getting murdered instead of divorced. And, unlike you, I have data to bear me out in this - as well as the plain fact that marriage is not damaged when it becomes available to same-sex as well as mixed-sex couples. Obviously, no-fault divorce required.

I submit that society has an interest in keeping marriages and families intact that outweighs the happiness of the individual couples involved.

Society has an overriding interest in keeping people alive, children well, and families untorn by murder and abuse: therefore, society overwhelmingly prefers the happiness of no-fault divorce to the misery, pain, and violence of enforced marriage.

[Jeff]

I submit that society has an interest in keeping marriages and families intact that outweighs the happiness of the individual couples involved.

Why? There's no evidence that keeping a couple together "for the kids" produces healthier (in any) children, and a fair amount of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Jesurgislac]

Fred: Just curious, because I don't remember taking all the drugs I would've had to take before saying something like that.

Well, I suppose if you had got that stoned, you wouldn't necessarily remember posting anything that batshit insane.

But you didn't. At least not on Slacktivist.

I suppose you could have set up a secondary blog while totally stoned, posted on it, and then forgotten about it.

Maybe Brian J is here from that secondary blog? BTW, Fred, if we have a SlackCon, you get to bring the good drugs.

[Jeff]

Further: No-fault divorce shows that people make mistakes, that they're not perfect. Isn't that a basic tenet of most Christian faiths? If not, once a family, they're not allowed to move. After all, that's much more traumatic than an unhappy couple parting on amicable terms.

[Mark Pesce]

And, to get even more specific, Enkidu pulled the "third leg" (yes, that means precisely what you think it means) off of the Bull of Heaven, and threw the "third leg" at Inanna. Thus emphasizing the power of the male (in both senses) over the female.

[Jeff]

Edited -- sorry if this double-posts...

Further: No-fault divorce shows that people make mistakes, that they're not perfect. Isn't that a basic tenet of most Christian faiths? If not, once a family has children, they're not allowed to move. After all, that's much more traumatic than an unhappy couple parting on amicable terms.

[Clusive]

I don't think that these sins are encouraged for their own sakes, though. The corporate greed that drives most advertising campaigns will utilize any/all of these sins but they do so solely in order to make money. Who remembers the beer commercials that show the cowboy drinking Budweiser with all the beautiful women? Lust. The target ads that show spiraling towers of paper towels, junk, bric-a-brac and a song that says "I just want some more"? Greed. The sin of envy or lust isn't encouraged for its own sake, it's encouraged so that I'll spend money on an iPhone.

True, but in the same way, the "homosexual lobby" isn't encouraging the practice of homosexuality, except in the imaginations of their opponents. Rather, they're advocating for the rights of those who happen to be homosexual.

The only lobby I can think of that's directly advocating a sin is gambling...

[Jeff Weskamp]

"Ted Haggard got himself de-gayed over a long weekend."

Actually, it supposedly took three weeks of "reparative therapy" to make him straight.

Someone once told me that reparative therapy "is nothing more than a mechanism that allows Christian gays who have been inadvertently outed to gracefully re-enter the closet."

"But, two men kissing? Or holding hands, or hugging, or any of the other things that it's considered perfectly normal for a mixed-sex couple to do in public to express affection?" -- Jesurgislac

In an ideal society, both straight and gay couples would be allowed the same Public Displays of Affection.

I think being tied for life to a spouse you cannot bear to live with is horrifically damaging to marriage, to families, and of course to individual spouses who end up getting murdered instead of divorced. And, unlike you, I have data to bear me out in this - as well as the plain fact that marriage is not damaged when it becomes available to same-sex as well as mixed-sex couples. Obviously, no-fault divorce required.

I think the key words here are "no fault".

No, no-fault divorce is not required. If there is abuse going on, then divorce is permissable, even a requirement if the physical safety of one of the spouses or the children. In the case of verbal/mental abuse, it would be preferable in my view if the abused partner packed his/her bags, got out of Dodge and agreed to come back if the abuser would get counselling and learn to treat the spouse with R-E-S-P-E-C-T, rather than terminate the marriage.

Further: No-fault divorce shows that people make mistakes, that they're not perfect. Isn't that a basic tenet of most Christian faiths? If not, once a family has children, they're not allowed to move. After all, that's much more traumatic than an unhappy couple parting on amicable terms.

But isn't part of marriage learning to deal with each other's imperfections? To lean on each other and help each other endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? To learn the art of compromise (I'll throw my socks in the hamper if you'll go chant nam-myo-ho-ren-ge-kyo in a room I'm not in...)

A lot of couples get divorced because, to quote a former coworker of mine who filed for an "amicable" divorce that quickly turned messy "We just don't like the same things anymore." Or financial or other difficulties cause the spouses to be stressed out so that common annoyances seem unendurable. Could not each party in the couple just agree not to drag the other off to the ballgame/ballet/Rocky Horror Picture Show, and find other activities that they both enjoy and can do together? Or weather the financial or other problems and find that once they're resolved they've emerged a stronger couple? Unhappiness is usually transient.

Also, a move can be disruptive to children, but if handled properly (oh, but sweetie, you'll LOVE Chicago, wait 'til I take you to the Lincoln Park Zoo!- or, if in the same town, "you'll love the new house, it has a big yard for you to play in...) it doesn't have to be traumatic. Heck, my family moved fifteen times in the ten years between when my mother married my (ex) stepfather (who, btw, was violently abusive, so no disapproval of that particular divorce) and I wasn't traumatized. Annoyed, yes, but not traumatized.

er, that's the ten years between whem they got married and I moved out at age 18.

[Drak Pope]

In an ideal society, both straight and gay couples would be allowed the same Public Displays of Affection.

Except for the one where a penis gets inserted to a vagina, right? I don't think two gay men would be able to do that in public.

[ako]

Except for the one where a penis gets inserted to a vagina, right? I don't think two gay men would be able to do that in public.

I'm not eager to have straight people getting so publicly affectionate that people can see they're doing that, myself.

[Rosina]

No, no-fault divorce is not required. If there is abuse going on, then divorce is permissable, even a requirement if the physical safety of one of the spouses or the children. In the case of verbal/mental abuse, it would be preferable in my view if the abused partner packed his/her bags, got out of Dodge and agreed to come back if the abuser would get counselling and learn to treat the spouse with R-E-S-P-E-C-T, rather than terminate the marriage. I would say that there speaks some Christian Values, which, just like The Love, dares not speak its name - but it was probably just a computer glitch.

I would say (after 35 years of marriage) that divorce, even on the basis of 'just changed our minds', should be allowed in law, although where it is initiated solely by one party, some consideration should be given to the interests of the other party (if not their wishes), and of course someone must think about the children. In the same way, civil union (which will soon be called marriage legally as well as in common parlance) should be legal under the civil law.

If the churches have difficulty with one, they ought to have more difficulty with divorce, which Jesus did mention, than gay marriage which he didn't. (Admittedly he was a bit quiet on driving while drunk and owning armalites too. But big on love.) They can allow remarriage of divorced couples, and admit adulterers to the church. They can even nip down to Walmart after the service to stock up on seafood and beer. They can then explain why what is explicitly forbidden in The Ten Commandments and/or by Jesus is more acceptable to God than something possibly mentioned in small print in a subclause along side prawns and polyester. That is their business, and we are entitled to snigger at them.

At times of course the 'Christian' values do a nice fit with ordinary decent values on a few items - theft, murder, rape (under the subhead of adultery, I suppose, or coveting your neighbour's ass). Generally you find they were values before Christianity, and in places where the laws of Moses didn't run. People got along. Sometimes even different Gods endorsed the laws (ask Socrates about whether it was Their campaign, or They were just brought in as talking heads.)

I don't mind faith leaders putting their views, or even bringing out their congregations to support them. In a democracy their voice is as loud as anyone else's. What does peeve me off is that no-one asks the apathetic, or those who are doing quite nicely, mustn't grumble. When smoking was being barred in cafes piecemeal you were always told that there had be 47 complaints and noone had written in support. I mean, the 80 odd customers who sat there smoking hadn't needed to write letters saying 'Hey, we're smokers, we like status quo". Have our custom or theirs, but don't tell us we have been excluded following a minoity protest in which our views were not invited!!!

In the sam way the RR may end up the only voice anyone listens to, because we think we've won.

[pharoute]

Clusive: If check cashing/payday loan companies don't count as usury then nothing does...

[Rosina]

My comments about gambling (not) being a sin are being blocked as Comment Spam, which I think is totally unfair. I bet it doesn't happen to anyone else. Five bob down.

[bad Jim]

What's all this ragging of PDA's? I don't use my Palm III anymore, but I've never found it disgusting. Oh, wait. Never mind.

As has been noted, at many times and in many places religion and morality were considered inextricably linked. In Greece, I think, atheism was regarded with horror because it entailed rejection of law and morality. By the Middle Ages, though, there was a separation between church and civil law, perhaps at least in part the result of the assimilation of formerly pagan realms with their own legal cultures.

Where and how religion and the law became separate entities strikes me as an interesting subject by itself.

[Jeff]

A lot of couples get divorced because, to quote a former coworker of mine who filed for an "amicable" divorce that quickly turned messy "We just don't like the same things anymore."

Even more couples get married for even less. All you're saying is that the bar for marriage should be set much higher than it is (certainly more than "Well, what about Breakfast at Tiffany's? As I recall, we both kind of liked it."), so that there's a major reason to separate.

I've got a bit of vested interest in this -- I'm contemplating divorce. As it is, I'm pretty much separated -- we talk on the phone for short bits, but I haven't seen her (and have no real desire to see her) for quite some time, and I think that's more than fine with her.

======================

When smoking was being barred in cafes piecemeal you were always told that there had be 47 complaints and noone had written in support. I mean, the 80 odd customers who sat there smoking hadn't needed to write letters saying 'Hey, we're smokers, we like status quo". Have our custom or theirs, but don't tell us we have been excluded following a minoity protest in which our views were not invited!!!

Considering how unhealthy second-hand smoke is, it needs to be outlawed in all public enclosed spaces. I'd like to see major restrictions put on a drug that can't be touched by the FDA.

[Conscience]

I posted this earlier in part 2 of this discussion, but it seems to be swamped by the posts in this part, so I'll repost it here: I had a strange theory that homophobia, and possibly rape, female genital mutilation and the general anti-sex attitude of Abramist fundies ties into extreme performance anxiety: they're so afraid that they won't be able to perform for their lovers that they have to convince the other person that sex is a degrading, immoral nessecary evil so that the other person won't expect it to be pleasurable.

[Doctor Science]

I'm surprised, Fred, because I think you're overlooking the point, again.

A big part of the issue is gender roles. And that means that a big part of the issue is *women*. Even though (as several people have pointed out) 99% of the vitriol & repugnance is directed against gay men specifically and anal sex even more specifically, I think the thing which is being talked about without being named is *women*.

Same-sex marriage is in fact a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage, because SSM is obviously between equals. Anal sex is a deep threat to masculinity because it involves a man -- a full human being, just like the default "me" of patriarchal society -- being penetrated. And if human beings (=men) can be penetrated and not scorned, then maybe the people who are traditionally penetrated (=women) ... are human beings.

The idea that women might be human beings threatens J. Matt Barber profoundly, because the view of masculinity that has developed over the past century (I'm not sure about earlier) is subtractive. That is, a Man is defined as someone who is Not A Woman. This worked OK when men could do a lot of things women can't. But if women can be smart, then men must be stupid; if women can be moral, men must be evil; if women love beauty, men must love ugliness. You can see this all too clearly in the link Brel found in Part.5: creativity itself (long a male prerogative) has become suspect.

And at the end, Barber and his ilk are faced with the horrific consequences of their subtractive masculinity: if women are human beings, men ... cease to exist. He's reacting like he's facing an existential threat because he *is* facing one: he's standing what used to be a glorious castle but which turned out to be a pile of sand, slipping away into the tide. His idea of masculinity is part of his *self*, and eroding the one is eroding the other.
(continued on next rock)

[Jennifer]

A theory I've read says Christians are so furious against homosexuality because it's a sin they don't have. Or most of them, probably. It's easier to rail against being gay because I don't have a problem with it. Railing against pride, jealousy, etc. is harder because it hits too close to home. Everybody struggles with these "common sins." But since most people are straight, most people don't have homosexual feelings, which means they can preach away to their hearts' content without feeling any personal guilt. "I would never do that!"

[Doctor Science]

One of the best illustrations of how subtractive masculinity works is in a old, not all that good science fiction story, "The Last Man" (written by Wallace West in 1929, anthologized in The Pocket Book of Science Fiction). My copy seems to have disappeared (or crumbled into dust), but IIRC the narrator talks about how women's energy and ambition couldn't be suppressed forever, and they moved into one field after another until all that was left for men to consider important were sports and war. And then war became unthinkable, and women got into sports, and then all the men just died out, useless (our hero is a throwback in a zoo).

Subtractive masculinity isn't confined to the evangelical Right in America, by any means. After the 2004 election, religion journalist Jeff Sharlet admitted what he'd been reluctant to say before: that homophobia is the true unifying factor for strongly religious Americans of every stripe. The stresses currently in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality are largely coming from churches in the Southern Hemisphere, based in societies that don't have all that much in common with the US Bible Belt. But they *do* still face stresses from changing gender roles, just as traditional Muslim societies do, too.

Amanda has a post up at Pandagon about the anthology Choice and about how too many men react:

abuse and control is less an obsession for a lot of men and more the natural result of thinking of women as functional objects in your life. Like if she starts behaving in ways that are inconvenient (like getting pregnant or trying to prevent pregnancy), then it’s appropriate to treat her like a malfunctioning appliance. ...

... Anything outside of functional use is considered irrelevant at best, an infringement on functionality at worst. Not that all men are like this, by any stretch, but this way of viewing women as objects is endemic and honest men will admit that even if they resist it, they get messages that it’s an appropriate way to view women.

But with a subtractive model of masculinity, men *have* to think this way -- because if women are not objects, then there's no humanity left for men.

[car]

I've been thinking about marriage itself - why is it that we take one decision and say that once it's made, it can never be revoked? Why are kids as young as FOURTEEN allowed to get married in some states (red states all, in fact), and somehow they're supposed to be mature enough to make a decision that's supposed to be For Life? Think about who you were dating when you were a teenager - would you want to be married to them forever? I don't see the problem in making divorce easy. Why shouldn't it be? Why should you be penalized for making a bad decision by having to stay with that person forever, no matter how bad the fit?
What benefits does society specifically have from forcing marriages to stay with the first partner? No, really? Name one benefit that society garners from making marriages as legally permanent as possible, and divorce as painful and expensive and drawn-out as possible.
Many, many studies bear out that if children are involved, they are damaged by dealing with the dysfunctional relationship up close for their entire lives. So apart from "for the sake of the children", which a lot of couples don't have in the first place, and a lot of research shows isn't a good idea, what societal interest is there in who is married to whom and for how long?

[Brel]

That's an interesting theory, Doctor Science. I admit that I'm rather floored by it and don't quite know what to think of it yet, but I do believe that it touches upon some true sentiments and phenomena. For example, think about all the Homers and Shakespeares and Michaelangelos in history--and contrast them with the present-day male attitude toward poetry.

[ninjanun]

How 'bout making it a bit harder to get married in the first place? Not in the sense of making it a burden on people, but just...idk, a waiting period, or getting some counseling or something on What To Expect, and really making an attempt to get people to think about their commitment and not just the warm gushy feelings they may be feeling at the time.

I don't think the age limit/parental consent laws of yore should make a comeback, but to some degree, this probably DID prevent people from rushing into marriage before they were ready, or rushing into marriage with the wrong person.

[Shannon]

Think about who you were dating when you were a teenager - would you want to be married to them forever?

Yes...because I am married to him. But I acknowledge that my husband and I are an oddity. And we earned our marriage through 5 years of dating, four long years of it being long-distance. But it does occasionally happen. But no, 14 years old? That makes me squick.

As for a marriage, I always thought a marriage license should be like a driver's license, where you have to take a test, have a waiting period, and take a 5 hour course on what to do. After all, cars can take someone else's life away, but a bad marriage can wreck it emotionally and spiritually.

[Robert A. Rodger]

Doctor Science-- That's really interesting. I've been thinking about this topic since Fred started it; I've been trying to wrap my mind around the revulsion and how can gay marriage "devalue" straight marriage, since that's the fear that pops up. This is a really interesting take on it.

Ninjanun-- I once wrote a comedy bit about a couple who go to get their wedding license but are given a training licsence instead. "Go live together for a few years, see who unclogs the drains and then reapply."

[Pseudonym]

I'm sure you've all seen it before, but it seems appropriate:

I quite agree with the Archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? --- a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinion on a moral problem in one's own life we should attach very little value to. Of course, many acts which are sins against God are also injuries to our fellow-citizens, and must on that account, but only on that account, be made crimes. But of all the sins in the world I should have thought that homosexuality was the one that least concerns the State. Government is at its best a necessary evil. Let's keep it in its place.

Letters of C.S. Lewis, ed. W.H. Lewis, page 281

[Ecks]

This is a total driveby I'm afraid (what's with this damn real world getting in the way?!?)

The thought of two guys making out or having sex is immensely gross and disgusting to a whole lot of people. And I think that's pretty significant.

I think there's something true about this. Disgust as an emotion comes out of fear of contamination (think about it, what's disgusting? blood outside bodies, bodily effluence, semi-chewed things, touching wild rodents, decomoposing meat - all things that will get you sick). Disgust seems to be evolutions' way of saying "yow, don't touch." Oh course, once you've built a mechanism, it's free to get misused in all sorts of odd ways. We evolved logic, and spin doctors misuse that all the time.

Anyway, what i'm driving at here, is that disgust is aimed at maintaining purity (pure tap water = = non-disgusting tap water). And going back to the whole Haider model of morality, purity is one of the bases of morality that conservatives get excited about that liberals typically don't (not to suggest that liberals don't feel disgust, but we generally don't see it as a moral issue)... Funny how it all fits together.

OTOH, Dr. Science... I just have to say: "wuh?". Yeah, women are treated pretty shabbily, yeah there's lots of power structures built in ways that are nasty to them, etc... but... just... wuh? I mean, *maybe* you're on to something, but your theory just crawls with the Freudian "intelligent unconscious that symbolically schemes away to run/ruin your life without you even knowing it," theory that it took us an embarrassingly long time to realize were a load of shit. But... uh, thanks for sharing.

[G-Do]

@hapax: Ereshkigal. Your move.

[G-Do]

I'm going to post my theory, now, since I suspect this'll be the last thread of its kind.

Tonio said the following smart thing: That sounds too complicated. I suspect he is simply terrified of social change and believes he has found The Reason Why Everything Is Screwed Up. Plus, if he has a son, he probably worries about his son turning gay and thus being doomed to hell.

That's it. That's the key.

The advent of modernism - a period of history occupying, let's say, between the time of the industrial revolution and the time of the civil rights movements - had many effects on American society, but one of the most prominent effects was an overall increase in social mobility. For the first time, a wife could leave her husband, get a job in the city, and make new friends. For the first time, a son could abandon the belief system of his father and find something more suited to himself, without fear of being ostracized. Newfound personal freedom meant the death of religious parochialism, because, after all, people could just leave. The power of the local clergy was irrevocably broken, and with it, the traditional power structure - the paternal power structure - was damaged, deprived of the force it needs to keep the rest of the family under its thumb.

Christian fundamentalism is often described as a backlash against this phenomenon. The fundamentalist will browbeat, bully, bargain, lie, or love - do whatever is needed - to insure that his "traditional religious society" remains intact. But maintaining the "traditional religious society" itself is ultimately not the goal; a deeper motive is at work. The cry of the fundamentalist is the plaintive wail of a father who has for years hurt his loved ones in the service of an authoritarian and narcissistic religion, and now to his dismay discovers that they not only can leave him, they are leaving him - flocking from him in droves, to more open, caring communities far away. The fear of the fundamentalist is therefore the fear of losing family, the primal human terror of being all alone, of being left behind.

This explains the constant references to the "end of civilization as we know it." This explains the fixation on the "premillenial apocalypse." This explains the anticipated collapse of "family values." The loss of civilization, or society, or family, is a symbol for the fundamentalist's despair, both at the loss of his status and at the loss of his tribe. He, himself, is afraid to get too close to other people for fear that they will find him unlovable, and afraid of losing the little human connections he already has. If only he would change himself! If only he would abandon his inhuman religion, he could earn the love of others. But he will not. He is too afraid of the world to give up his rigid, orderly world, an illusion created by faith and dogma. And so he remains crippled and detested.

It naturally follows that he sees himself as locked into a war with a body of people who would come between himself and his family. In reality, these are merely other communities with less stringent norms, which would accept with open arms any prospective member. In the fundamentalist's head, they are devils who deliberately and cruelly antagonize him by cravenly seducing his kin. The face of the homosexual is plastered on top of this ersatz enemy. Likewise the face of the career woman who encourages his wife's own career ambitions, or the racial minority who wants to date his daughter, or the intellectual coworker who honestly disagrees with the atoms of his belief. All are enemies, seeking not only to undermine his religion, but to thwart his normal human needs for community and stability. This is why he reacts with such panic and bluster. This is also why he sees himself as a "defender" - as far as he's concerned, he is defending his religion, but in this case that's just a smokescreen for his own human needs.

Gays are taking the brunt of this "defending" for many of the reasons previously mentioned in earlier posts. In addition, I would add that their community, inasmuch as there is a recognizable "LGBT community," recognizes, accepts, and welcomes people of almost all sexual orientations. This is particularly galling for the fundamentalist because it is a perfect crystallization of his "enemy" - a group of people who will love you, no matter what you are. The existence of such a community means that the fundamentalist no longer has any power to bind his family to himself; likewise, his church, as a community, suddenly has competition. Likewise, his God, whose main deal is supposed to be that he is "all-loving" - also has competition.

Given the choice between a God/church that wants you to follow rules in exchange for love, and a community that (pretty much) loves you regardless, which would you choose? The fundamentalist fears the answer to that question; the simple economics of it guarantee his absolute loneliness. And that is why he hates the gays.

[jamoche]

Trust me, sometimes getting a divorce is the right thing "for the children." Mom bought into that, and when she told us several years after the divorce, all three of us were unanimous in saying that if we'd had the first clue, we'd have told her that what the children wanted was to get the hell out of there.

When one parent is not only mentally and occasionally physically abusive, but doesn't see anything wrong with his behaviour, then there's nothing that can be done (seriously, 20 years later, he probably *still* doesn't have a clue why none of his children will even admit he's related to them - on my 30th birthday I got a letter from him whining that I hadn't talked to him for 1/3rd of my life, and my only reaction was "damn straight, and 10 years from now I'll have ignored him for half my life!")

[Dahne]

My kitty likes my dog. He bats at her collar, and she gets confused. It's pretty adorable.

The other cats always reacted by getting terrified and running away, so she'd chase them and bark at them. But this little kitten just walks right up. And it turns out nobody dies or gets bitten or anything.

...crap, did I just make a parable?

[Consumer Unit 5012]

Unless you count greed. Or envy. Or covetousness. Or gluttony. Or wrath. Or hatred. Or sloth. Or lust. Or pride. Or idolatry. Or sabbath-breaking. Or disrespecting your parents and elders. Or selfishness. Or dishonesty. Or uncharitableness. Nah. Never seen an expensive advertising campaign encouraging any of these things...

Don't forget Bearing False Witness--with a Presidential campaign starting up, that one's about to get REAAAAL popular again.

[Bugmaster]

In addition, I would add that their community, inasmuch as there is a recognizable "LGBT community," recognizes, accepts, and welcomes people of almost all sexual orientations.

For what it's worth, some of my moles in the Gay Agenda tell me that this is not necessarily true. Apparently, bisexuals are disliked in the gay community, who treat them similarly to how the mainstream straight community treats gays (and bisexuals). Oh, irony, she's a harsh mistress.

[Jesurgislac]

Anonymous (please pick a handle): In the case of verbal/mental abuse, it would be preferable in my view if the abused partner packed his/her bags, got out of Dodge and agreed to come back if the abuser would get counselling and learn to treat the spouse with R-E-S-P-E-C-T, rather than terminate the marriage.

What actually happened back in the bad old days was rather different. Spousal murder has gone down, because people no longer have to murder a spouse to get out of the relationship. This is a bad thing?

No-fault divorce means not having to stand in court and explain to a bunch of total strangers exactly what went wrong with the marriage and why you want out of it, and let them decide if what you went through was bad enough to permit you to ditch your spouse. This is a bad thing?

I can't understand this fantasising about how wonderful it would be if people weren't allowed to get divorced.

It's as if you're arguing that couples are really just animals who, if you lock them up in a cage together and don't let them get out unless you can see bleeding or fur flying, will form some kind of relationship and get along in the cage, maybe even keep breeding. Nice.

For crying out loud. Respect your fellow human beings. Allow them the right to make decisions for themselves about who they want to marry and if they want to stay married. Quit arguing as if "society" is better off if humans are treated like breeding pairs in a zoo.

[Freelance_Physicist]

For what it's worth, I find G-Do's theory very compelling. Apostates have a special sort of bile directed at them from their former community. Witness the 30-Years War and various massacres between Catholics and Protestants, the current violence in Iraq between Shia and Sunni Muslims, the ostracism from both of the home communities of an interracial couple, the calls of "faggot" at a jock who quit the team to pursue academics or art, the hatred of a punk band that signs to a major label. The threat of the dissolution of a community is real once members realize they have options. Those left behind with some vested interest will take action to stop it.

[Francis]

Geds:
The younger man [in Roman society] was the bottom and there was never a situation where two men of equal stature engaged in the activities (well, probably not "never," but it was certainly far from the norm).

If I remember my classical history correctly (and please don't ask me to source this), one of the political jeers used against Julius Caesar was that "Caesar conquered Gaul, but [someone, I forget who] conquered Caesar." With "conquered" meaning that Caesar was on the bottom.

Anonymous, you are causing me to agree with Jesu (something that happens more often than I post tbh). If no-reason marriage is available, then no-fault divorce should also be available. Because of the toxic nature of cooping people up in an abusive relationship, a divorce should be easier than a marriage. If all you need for a wedding is random registrars and witnesses off the street or hired for the occasion, divorce needs to be at least this easy. (And you only need one partner to say "I don't", whereas you need both to say "I do".)

If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, make sure people don't do it stupidly. The problem is not the divorce, it's that they got into the situation to want the divorce in the first place.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: For what it's worth, some of my moles in the Gay Agenda tell me that this is not necessarily true. Apparently, bisexuals are disliked in the gay community, who treat them similarly to how the mainstream straight community treats gays (and bisexuals). Oh, irony, she's a harsh mistress.

I had a bisexual girlfriend once, who ditched me in the nastiest possible way in order to get married to a man, making a point of letting me know that my relationship with her was distinctly inferior to the relationship she had with the man.

I'm not unique in that experience. It happens more often when and where a bisexual person could choose between a public, societally-approved and legally-protected relationship - or a more-or-less covert, societally-condemned, and legally-unprotected relationship. A lot of the bile and rancor against bisexuals from lesbians and gays comes from a lot of direct personal experience of individual bisexuals treating people they were in same-sex relationships with very badly, and expecting them not to mind, because obviously any same-sex relationship was inferior to mixed-sex relationships.

It is completely unfair to condemn all bisexual people for the bad behavior of a few: it is completely unfair to blame all bisexual people for all time for how some bisexual people behaved under bad circumstances. And I don't: my bisexual girlfriend treated me badly, but that was because she was... well, the kind of person she was... and three other bisexual girlfriends treated me very well, thank you. ;-)

There also, of course, exist lesbian, gay, and heterosexual people who are convinced in their own minds that bisexuality doesn't exist, or that long-term monogamy is a "cure" for bisexuality, or that bisexuals are "naturally" going to be more promiscuous than people attracted only to one gender, or that people aren't "really" bisexual unless they're proving it by being in a relationship with two people, one of each gender... etc. These are all unfair prejudices and stereotypes and nastiness, probably more common among straight people - who are less likely to know they know bisexual people - than lesbians or gays.

But the stored-up bile? I know where that comes from. And yeah: it's unfair. Bile from bad treatment should be reserved to the individual who behaved badly and the culture which encouraged them to do so. That's my goal.

[Lurker]

car,
In Finland, we have only the no-fault divorce. This means that regardless of any culpability, the same rules govern the division of the property after the divorce (or the death of either spouse). This is very important, as in Finland, all property owned by the spouses is community property, unless they have made a formal, officially registered pre- or postnuptial agreement to own separate property. However, we have the six-month waiting period. A spouse wishing for divorce must file two petitions for the divorce. The second one must be filed six to twelve months after the first one, otherwise the proceedings are cancelled. I think six months is prudent, because it gives the spouses ample time to fix their marriage, if they wish. In addition, it prevents a person from divorcing in "accident", by submitting the first petition drunk, or in anger. On the other hand, six months is not a long time and after all, the marriage brings almost no duties to the spouses towards each other so during that time, the spouses don't have to see each other at all unless they wish so.