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

[Tonio]

G-Do's post is the best one so far in this thread.

I think they honestly believe that every single benefit the law provides to married couples, from spousal immunity to alimony, is a hard-won recognition of the virtuous state a married couple has entered. These things don't exist in order to benefit society and the marriage alike.

Excellent point, Chris. The language used in most traditional Christian weddings seems to imply that concept. However, I've never attended a Southern Baptist or other fundamentalist wedding.

The reactions of many of the anti-gay folks (both Christians and non) are really really visceral.

Toby, while I don't doubt that, the question is what causes someone with that visceral reaction to make the leap to seeing homosexuality as a threat to all society. I've encountered plenty of people who find homosexuality to be disgusting but who don't seem to harbor the type of paranoia we're talking about.

[Lurker]

When we talk about "marriage", it would be very nice to define the concept. For example, in my own country, Finland, marriage and informal cohabitation are equated totally in taxation and social services. The cohabitors even enjoy the spousal privilege in courts of law. (On the other hand, sometimes non-cohabiting married spouses are not considered spouses at all in social legislation.) The only actual differences are in the area of inheritance: the cohabitors don't inherit each other without a will. In addition, the cohabiting father must confess his paternity in front of the magistrate, while the husband is father of his wife's children by virtue of marriage. On the other hand, marriage brings very few legal obligations that would not exist in cohabitation. (The formal obligation to maintain spouse is very difficult to enforce in practice. The divorce gets affirmed much before you can get any payments confiscated from the spouse.) You might say that in Finland, marriage is a state of mind sanctioned by the state. :-)

If the marriage we talk about has only limited legal effects as outlined above, it is not a very important issue, mostly falling into the category of religion. If, however, the state enforces legislation against adultery or discriminates against bastards, marriage becomes much more important social issue. In this case, the requisites of valid marriage are actually important. I think you might get rid of the problem of same-sex marriage by reducing the importance of marriage in the courts of law.

[DrGaellon]

@mcc: Dunne eventually quietly dropped his case after so much time passed that the next bar administration came up

It's a damned shame they let him sit for it. If he is unable to divorce his personal beliefs from his ability to argue in the law, he has no business being admitted before the bar.

@Joolya: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs? .... I put this down to having gotten more at ease in my own skin and accepting of my own - and by extension, others' - sexuality.

Same here. :) I still think there are levels of propriety (don't frighten the horses, IOW). But in a bar or other venue where there are no children to be traumatized, and as long as bounds of common decency are respected, I have no issue with PDAs.

@Anna: People who want homosexuality to be illegal often seem to think that making it illegal will stop the practice that they find so repulsive.

Considering that, until the landmark 2003 decision in Lawrence vs Texas, male homosexual anal sex WAS illegal in 18 states, and happened anyway — you'd think they'd realize that won't work.

@anon: No, no-fault divorce is not required.

But without it, you have wait for the abuse to actually happen in order to prove divorce necessary. That's not acceptable, either.

@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).

And let's not even get started on the hypocrisy within the gay subcommunities. The twinks hate the bears, the bears hate the muscleboys, and everybody hates the drag queens. It's enough to make you heave. (Bitter, me? Nah.)

Drive by comments:

On Marriage/Divorce
I don't see a need to make divorce harder, nor do I see a need to make marriage harder. I wish that more people would sit down and think before hopping on a plane to Vegas and getting hitched, but I also wish that more people would take the time to put effort into their (not-quite perfect, I wish he would stop throwing his dirty socks on the floor, but it's pretty good, but not quite good enough) marriage before filing for divorce. However, as I think that marriage should legally be used as a means for designating This Person as one's alternate legal self, I don't have a problem with people moving into and out of it as often or as easily as they choose. It's not the choice that I would make, but I also make a number of choices that other people don't.

PDAs
There's a line somewhere that I think should not be crossed, but I have a hard time identifying it. It boils down to a common courtesy of not making people uncomfortable.

Bisexuals
Jesu, on behave the sane bisexuals out there, allow me to apologize for the crazies.

[Cyllan]

That 8:32 was me.

[Jesurgislac]

Cyllan, the whole point of my post is that there is no need for you to apologize to me - no need for any bisexual person other than my psycho ex-girlfriend to apologize to me*. Both before I got involved with her, and afterwards, I had other intimate relationships with bisexual women (one of whom also left me to get married to a man, but did so, well, not nicely, but in a perfectly understandable "Sorry, I thought I was in love with you, but it turns out I'm actually in love with him" way... and after a break of a year or two to cool down a bit, I'm still friends with her.) I see no more reason for you to apologize to me on behalf of the non-crazy bisexuals than I think I should apologize for any psycho lesbians you may have happened to meet who did bad things to you. Though I hope you never did and they never did, if you follow me.

I think I need more coffee.

[cjmr's husband]

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

Yes. Still yes after seventeen years.

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.

And six hours of test-driving with a qualified professional??

[Lila]

Re the disgust issue: there are people who are disgusted by the sight of physically disabled people. We don't allow them to force disabled people to hide in closets.

Also I present for your consideration: the Rite Aid Hug-in.

Jesurgislac, I don't think saying "I don't want to see that" (from couples of any gender combination) is the same as "regulating the amount of tongue you may use when you kiss in public." I don't want to see Plumber's Crack, but expressing that view does not mean I favor for-God's-sake-put-on-a-longer-shirt legislation.

Put me in the camp that believes recruiting an involuntary audience to your erotic performance is rude. Not immoral, not illegal; just rude. Like chewing raw garlic in a submarine. And I confess that the line between "aw, how cute" and "ew, get a room!" is drawn in a different place for everyone. (See hug-in, above.)

[twig]

And six hours of test-driving with a qualified professional?

ROFL. and I would still fail the parallel parking section.

[Jesurgislac]

cjmr's husband: Yes. Still yes after seventeen years.

Aw... ♥

[Angelika]

car 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?

A bunch of social obligations: A married person getting ill or disabled tends to have a partner taking care of him/her. A married person loosing his/her job often is maintained by the spouse rather than by social funds. Not married people can of course do the same, but they are not legally forced to do so, and therefore much more likely to dig into public funds. - Personally, I'd see that as a good reason to allow gay-marriage.

Dahne My kitty likes my dog.

My cats and one of my husband's dogs gang up for hunting.

Shannon 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.

I loved the idea the Quaker have with their clearness committees. Before my husband and I could marry under the care of the meeting, we had to meet with a committee for two times and got thouroughly grilled, if we knew each other well enough, and why we wanted to marry each other anyways. And no wedding invitations to be mailed, before the committee had agreed that getting married sounded like a good idea. - The best part of the institution is, that all members of the committee agreed to be there for us with help, if we'd run in difficulties later...

[Praline]

Considering that, until the landmark 2003 decision in Lawrence vs Texas, male homosexual anal sex WAS illegal in 18 states, and happened anyway — you'd think they'd realize that won't work.

You'd think so, but they won't. The trouble is that people of this temperament tend to be, at base, utopian thinkers. Tell them that abstinence-only education doesn't produce abstinence, or that banning gay marriage won't make hetero marriage any easier, and it doesn't make a difference, because the basic principle is this: it should work, and if it doesn't, then the people it didn't work on were never our sort of people anyway and it doesn't matter what happens to them. Those People chose to opt out and they can take the consequences; if they'd just obeyed the law (whether or not it's a reasonable law to ask people to obey), they'd be fine.

Rather than the law being something to regulate reasonable behaviour - a fundamentally practical, utilitarian system - they want it to enshrine their wishes for a vision of a perfect world. Anything less, to this mindset, implies disrespect for the law and for the vision both. Refusing to enshrine a belief on the statutes is tantamount to saying you don't take it seriously in your own life. It's very either-or: either you want your beliefs on the statutes, or you lack the courage of your convictions. Of course, we do have convictions - we're convinced that people should be free to live their own lives as long as they aren't harming others - but the laws about that already exist.

This is law-making as wishful thinking - but how often do people want to accept that their most cherished ideals are wishful thinking? To guard against that knowledge, you need a respected authority to confirm your wishes are right. If they won't, then it's a scary world.

[Tonio]

There are people who are disgusted by the sight of physically disabled people.

I admit to having momentary feelings of squeamishness around them, especially if they have lost an eye or a limb. For some reason, I instantly imagine myself in that same situation, which would be terrifying. But the feeling passes in a moment or two. It's a low-level version of the reaction I had when I saw the train accident episode of Gray's Anatomy where two people had been poleaxed together.

[Tonio]

Rather than the law being something to regulate reasonable behaviour - a fundamentally practical, utilitarian system - they want it to enshrine their wishes for a vision of a perfect world. Anything less, to this mindset, implies disrespect for the law and for the vision both.

I doubt that they have any such vision, other than simple obedience to authority. I suspect they see obedience as the only appropriate goal for one's life and the only acceptable form of "morality." Perhaps they haven't realized that authority is not perfect and shouldn't be followed blindly.

[Cyllan]

I doubt that they have any such vision, other than simple obedience to authority.

Some years ago, I worked with a Fundie. He happened to be my project manager, and we generally got along just fine as he accepted my polite refusals to join his bible study classes, and that was that. However one day he came by my office and made several disparaging comments about pagans.

I let it slide for 5 minutes; he went back to his office, and I sat and stewed for another 5 before going and knocking on his door. After explaining to him that I was pagan (and accepting his extremely sincere apologies), I offered to discuss my religion with him and answer any questions that he had.

We spent about an hour discussing my faith and what I believed, and he kept coming back to one point over and over. He could accept that I didn't believe in his version of God; he could even accept that I followed a pantheistic faith. What he could not wrap his brain around was the idea that I didn't have a Holy Book that told me what to do. Over and over, he kept asking things like "So how do you know what's right and what's wrong?" or "So, how do you decide if something is moral or not?" I don't think he ever really grokked that I could determine the difference between right and wrong on my own and with help from other people.

I even tried telling him that he was deciding right and wrong every time he read the Bible and interpreted the passages for his own life, but that went no where. The Bible was the literal word of God, and one could not question it. It was one of the most baffling conversations I've ever had.

(And yes, Jesu, I know I don't have to apologize. I still feel the need to do so sometimes. I often feel the need to apologize for the crazy pagans as well.)

[inge]

Joolya: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs?

As with everything, it depends on the degree. When I mind it, it's usually one of two situations: First (very much a matter of degree and milage varies widely) because I feel that they should have privacy for what they are doing, but I'm unable to give it to them. Second, because the people completely busy with each other are in a situation where they can be expected to pay some attention to the world around them. In the latter case I'd be just as annoyed if they were playing games on their cellphone, or sleeping.

It's peculiar to me that anyone could claim that homsexuality, unlike other sins does not have some big campaigning pressure group to fund it. Greed has the entire western capitalist system to back it up. "Economic growth" is such a fundemental "good" in our culture that to challenge it is downright peculiar; and yet economic growth represents, in large part, a reward for greed. Gossip and grumbling, when mentioned in the bible, are often in the same lists of terrible sins as gay sex. Gossip is supported and produced by the entertainment industry to a ridiculous degree, grumbling is the foundation of the cutlure of litigation most Americans inhabit.

The real reason anti-gay Christians are anti-gay to such a vociferous degree is because sex with the gender to whom one is not is not attracted is an icky idea, whatever one's orientation. You don't have to be of any faith to not want to rub uglies with the gender you don't fancy. It's a gross idea. Gay men don't usually want to have sex with women, straight men don't usually want to have sex with men, and so forth*. Certain elements within the church exploit the ick-factor straights feel when thinking about gay sex. It's much, much trickier to exploit an ick-factor about greed, gossip or grumbling, because everyone likes doing those things. It's easy to exploit an ick-factor about gayness, because the straight majority dolesn't like doing those things.

Ta dah.

*Iincidentally I think is one of the reasons why bi-sexuals have such a difficult time finding acceptance in either camp - they're insuffuciently disgusted by one gender or the other.

[cjmr's husband]

Joolya: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs?

Inge: As with everything, it depends on the degree.

In Dogbert's Clues For the Clueless, Scott Adams points out that what it depends on is the attractiveness of the people involved.

[Rosina]

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?

But has living-together/casual relationship murder not gone up to match it? Because it does seem to me that getting out of a relationship can be just as difficult even where there are no legal ties, just jealousy and spite.

[hapax]

@G-do: @hapax: Ereshkigal. Your move.

Nungal.

[Jesurgislac]

Anonymous, pick a handle: The real reason anti-gay Christians are anti-gay to such a vociferous degree is because sex with the gender to whom one is not is not attracted is an icky idea, whatever one's orientation.

No, that's kind of stupid. First, it doesn't explain the vociferous anti-gayness of closety gay Christians.

Further, if that were true, you would find anti-straight lesbian & gay people to a vociferous degree - even more vociferous than anti-gay straight people, since we get rather more heterosexuality rammed down our throats just walking around than any anti-gay person ever gets to see people being publicly gay in a gay gay way. But this is not true. I don't personally want to have sex with a guy - that would be icky. I don't, however, get an ick when I think of straight friends getting it on, mostly because I don't think about it - it's not my business, and if I did think about it, I'd get icky.

And finally, after Fred's gone to considerable trouble to outline the five or six main reasons why anti-gay Christians are so vociferously anti-gay, it's kind of insulting for you to barge in, without even adopting a handle or reading the preceding discussions, and act as if you can pick out "the real reason" and tell the rest of us about it.

[car]

I heard an (admittedly bitter, in the middle of divorce) radio dj put forth an intriguing idea about marriage: he said that every other license has to be renewed on a repeating basis, so why not the marriage license? Make it, say, a 5-7 year license. At the end of each period, the partners have to decide whether to apply for a renewal. That way all the people who love being married can stay that way forever, and those who don't have an easy legal way out of it at specific intervals; they just don't renew, and every thing would then split based on set law (similar to what was just described for Finland, I guess). At the least it makes everyone re-examine their relationship every so often, and make an effort to recommit to each other if they so choose.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: But has living-together/casual relationship murder not gone up to match it?

No.

Because it does seem to me that getting out of a relationship can be just as difficult even where there are no legal ties, just jealousy and spite.

No, it's not. I mean, getting out of a relationship with an abusive, jealous, spiteful partner can be difficult, much more difficult that when your partner is a good person with whom you cannot bear to live. So it could be more difficult to get away from an abusive, jealous, spiteful partner, even if you're not married: but getting divorced is always more difficult than just splitting up if you're not married. Even the simplest divorce possible, with no children, both partners living separately for a year - or however long the separation has to be - and with division of community property arranged by mutual consent and with goodwill, is not easy.

[hapax]

@Francis: 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.

Nicomedes IV. "Hail, Caesar, Queen of Bithynia!"

[Jesurgislac]

car: he said that every other license has to be renewed on a repeating basis, so why not the marriage license?

Oh god, I can just see it now: "Dammit, you were supposed to renew the marriage license before we went on holiday!" - "OMG, I thought we had till June!" - "No, it ran out last week. We've been divorced for ten days now." - "Well, bugger. Okay. How much is this going to cost us in tax before we can get it renewed again?" - "Whatever it is, you're paying it!"

[Tonio]

Car, I'm concerned that your idea might give credence to the fundamentalist claim that morals are on the decline. Aldous Huxley, who was by no means a fundamentalist, made that claim when he warned about the possibility of renewable marriage licenses.

[Tonio]

Good point, Jesu. There's something deeply wrong with the notion that straights who find homosexuality to be icky should blame their reaction on gays and not on themselves.

[McJulie]

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.

Morality, law, and culture. In most ancient religions, church, state, recipes, language, gods, sexual taboos, etc. are all part of the tribal identity.

One of the interesting things about Christianity is that it may be the world's first major non-tribal religion. Since that time we think of non-tribal religions as the norm, but that's a relatively recent development.

I think crazy fundamentalists of whatever faith are driven by a strange impulse to re-tribify their religion -- not by setting themselves apart like, say, the Amish, but by overthrowing the secular government, sometimes violently.

In the case of the gay haters, they rightly perceive that the secular government of the US was once more in line with their own tribal sexual taboos.

Of course, I can't really explain why they feel it's important for their tribe to be the only tribe allowed, although Fred has offered some interesting theories.

Sexual taboos make a good rallying point because people are sort of inherently interested in sex. It gets and holds their attention. Even if their conscious reaction is "ick!" Maybe even especially if their conscious reaction is ick.

There are people who are disgusted by the sight of physically disabled people.
I have a problem with bad and missing teeth. If I am talking to someone with bad teeth, I have a hard time looking anywhere else on their whole face, my eyes just zero right in on the teeth with horrified fascination.

My oppressive liberal solution: free dental care for everyone everywhere.

[Toby]

Tonio: Toby, while I don't doubt that, the question is what causes someone with that visceral reaction to make the leap to seeing homosexuality as a threat to all society.

Well, I dunno if that's the question, but it's certainly a question. Personally, I think I can make some sense of how someone who finds homosexuality disgusting, and disgustingly immoral, could have an inarticulate gut feeling that there would be something deeply wrong with a society in which gay relationships are accepted as normal and not at all shameful. On the other hand, I can't figure out how to get from that sort of feeling to, say, the particular claim that gay marriage will fundamentally undermine the family or destroy the institution of marriage. It could be merely adventitious.

lila: Re the disgust issue: there are people who are disgusted by the sight of physically disabled people. We don't allow them to force disabled people to hide in closets.

Not any more, but we used to hide them away in institutions, which is still what happens in many parts of the world. Although this might have as much to do with convenience as anything else.

[hf]

Note that ancient Greeks didn't show any visceral distaste for gay sex. It seems like everyone, at least in some cities, had sex with both genders. So either they had some unusual genes, in which case we'd expect to see some evidence from their descendants, or a lot of this 'squick' comes from social influence.

[A teacher]

One of the interesting things about Christianity is that it may be the world's first major non-tribal religion. Since that time we think of non-tribal religions as the norm, but that's a relatively recent development.

What does "non-tribal" mean in this context? If it means, "relating to more than one tribe of people," well, Judaism did that (and explicitly did that) long before Christianity. If it means, "relating to more than one nation," I think (from my limited knowledge) that most ancient religions did that... take for example the ancient Greek pantheon, shared by Athenians and Spartans alike, and indeed by many others of the region -- not to mention Zarathrustianism.

The only other thing I think you could mean is "shared by more than one cultural group;" but then we run into the question of what you mean by a "cultural group." In one sense, all Christians are a cultural group, in that they call themselves "Christians." But my neo-Orthodox mystical whackiness is very, very different culturally from most evangelistic protestants; there are few social policies on which we would agree, and our soteriology is profoundly different (although I'm arrogant to say so).

[A teacher]

Oops, I meant Zarathustrianism. mea culpa

[A teacher]

Second, because the people completely busy with each other are in a situation where they can be expected to pay some attention to the world around them. In the latter case I'd be just as annoyed if they were playing games on their cellphone, or sleeping.

Is this true, though? For example, do you find this upsetting in a restaurant? I happen to eat alone most of the time, and when I do I pray before eating -- and I don't respond to the "outside world" while praying. Does this disgust people? (It may very well do, since I have my eyes closed and can't see if they're disgusted). Likewise, I sometimes like to go into a fairly meditative trance (if I can manage it) while walking. Does this disgust people? I've never noticed... but I'm sure I've seen people upset by a couple kissing passionately while out on a walk.

[Bugmaster]

Enki !

[Bugmaster]

On a sidenote, there's nothing wrong with finding things icky. I personally find yogurt not merely icky, but actually disgusting. The thought of ingesting yogurt almost makes me physically ill, and I'll avoid eating it if at all possible. But, you don't see me campaigning to ban yogurt or to prevent yogurt-eaters from marrying each other; and you don't see yogurt-eaters trying to have me banned, either. Icky is fine, we can't all love everything.

[Jon]

I'm not particularly fond of PDAs simply because I'm a lonely, bitter person and have a knee-jerk reaction against other people rubbing their happiness in my face.
However, I recognize that I'm the one with the problem, and, unless I'm having a really bad day, my overall response could best be described as indifferent irritation. I might frown slightly, but then I'll simply move on.
However, PDAs can get pretty gross. Worst example: I was standing in line at a fast food restaurant and there was a teenage couple in front of me. The guy was wearing a flannel shirt that had been converted into a makeshift vest via ripping the sleeves off that was unbuttoned down to his navel. The girl was resting her head on his shoulder and idly playing with his chest hair, twirling it lovingly around her fingers.
Just ick, on so many levels.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was actually in line for the purposes of visiting my then-wife who was working at said fast food place, and, after a quick check to make sure the manager wasn't watching, she leaned over the counter and we engaged in a quick PDA of our own. No tongue or chest hair twirling involved.
Anyway, apart from me viewing them as a reminder that I'm probably going to die alone and that apparently everyone else in the world is happy and has someone, I have no major opposition to things like kissing in public or holding hands, or whatever, but there does come a point at which the "get a room" factor comes into play. If you're that extroverted and want people to watch you getting it on, get yourself a video camera and dive into the world of amateur porn. But no matter what else you do, please, no chest hair twirling.

[cjmr's husband]

No tongue or chest hair twirling involved.

I am always thoroughly squicked by the twirling of tongue hair. Yucch.

[Jenny Islander]

Joolya: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs?

Inge: As with everything, it depends on the degree.

In Dogbert's Clues For the Clueless, Scott Adams points out that what it depends on is the attractiveness of the people involved.

Not necessarily. I can't watch two hot actors kiss. I find myself looking away as if I had walked around a corner and stumbled across two real-life lovers in search of privacy. I tend to skim past erotic passages in fiction as well. I have less of an embarrassed reaction to an animated kiss and none whatsoever to lovers kissing in a painting or a carving. It's not that kissing et cetera are bad (the opposite!), it's just that they seem so deeply personal and private, of such deep concern and import to the two involved, that there shouldn't be an audience.

I think this comes from being brought up in a Christian tradition that teaches that two people are connected eternally when they have sex whether they feel connected or not.

I'm concerned that your idea might give credence to the fundamentalist claim that morals are on the decline.

But it could be seen as the exact opposite, because it's forcing couples to "renew their vows" and recommit to each other on a regular basis, rather than letting them sit and fester and wane and let inertia take over.

[Vendor Xeno]

Bugmaster :

I dunno, not saying you're wrong but I've never heard of that in my life, as a bisexual with feet in both gay and straight social circles. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that until you'd mentioned it, I'd never witnessed or heard anyone even consider the potential of isolating bisexuals as somehow worthy of specific attention, negative or otherwise.

[car]

Whoops, that was me.

[Jake]

@ A Teacher
For example, do you find this upsetting in a restaurant? I happen to eat alone most of the time, and when I do I pray before eating

I think this is the point. If you're eating alone, you're not expected to be paying attention to or engaging with the other diners at the restaurant. So you can pray, read a book, listen to your earphones, talk (quietly) on your cell phone, or if your SO is present, make out with them. If, OTOH, you (and your SO) have dinner partners, then it is rude to ignore them. So a quick prayer, or taking a _very_ quick phone call, or quickly looking something up in a book, or stealing a quick kiss is only minimally rude, if at all, but prolonged praying/reading/phone talking/making out would be extremely rude.

I think that's what inge was getting at (but of course s/he can correct me if I'm wrong), that people making out only bothers hir if in so doing they're being rude by ignoring hir. I don't think s/he was making a general statement about how uncomfortable PDAs make most people.

[ako]

PDAs make me uncomfortable. It always makes me feel a bit like a voyeur, even when I'm trying not to look. I know that's not entirely rational; there's a difference between peeking on something people are trying to keep private, and seeing what's readily visible. But it's that uncomfortable trying-not-to-stare situation, where I always worry that I didn't turn away enough, and accidentally bothered people by getting my eyeballs up in their intimate moment.

[Jon]

I am always thoroughly squicked by the twirling of tongue hair. Yucch.

Well played. That sentence was poorly constructed. In my defense, I was in a bit of hurry when I posted it.
But for the sake of clarity, what I meant to say was that there was no tongue involved in the kiss that my then-wife and I shared, nor was there any sort of chest hair twirling involved in our PDA.
There's a good chance, though, that I was hungover at the time, and so my tongue probably would have felt hairy.

[McJulie]

If it means, "relating to more than one tribe of people," well, Judaism did that (and explicitly did that) long before Christianity.

Actually, Judaism is exactly what I meant by a tribal religion. It doesn't relate to more than one tribe of people. It relates to exactly one tribe of people: The Jews. Over and over again, the message of the Old Testament is "I am YOUR God, you are MY people, and you are DIFFERENT from the other people of the nations you inhabit."

One rule of thumb: non-tribal religions proselytize. Tribal religions don't.

If you want more detail, I don't have any huge objections to this about.com article on the subject.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

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."

Is that anything like the concept of "reclaiming your virginity"?

--

Meanwhile, thank you everyone, I now have a mental image of ancient Sumerian (unless that's Assyrian) Deities stacked together like sexual cordwood gettin' it on, and all I can say about that is EWWW SOMEONE GET THEM A ROOM AND ME SOME BRAIN BLEACH, YARRRR!

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

One rule of thumb: non-tribal religions proselytize. Tribal religions don't.

Whither, just for example, Wicca? Wiccans do not proselytize--some consider that one of the religion's defining characteristics in fact--but if it's a tribal religion, then "tribe" is so diffuse a word as to mean nothing.

[cjmr]

Meanwhile, thank you everyone, I now have a mental image of ancient Sumerian (unless that's Assyrian) Deities stacked together like sexual cordwood gettin' it on,

And here my brain's still stuck on Hillary and Margaret Thatcher. DAMNIT! I want a delete key for my brain!

[Jeff]

And here my brain's still stuck on Hillary and Margaret Thatcher. DAMNIT! I want a delete key for my brain!

I could link to the X-Rated hug McCain gave Bush... Would that help get Tatcher/Clinton out of your head? [BEG]

[cjmr]

I'm not looking to replace it with something worse, thank you very much!