Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 5)

According to research by 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.

That's just plain wrong. So where'd it come from?

Theory No. 5: It's the politics, stupid

In trying to explain this weird new pre-eminence of the Doctrine of Hatin' Gays it doesn't matter that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible says it's wrong. That could explain it being a perception, but not the "most common perception." Mere theological opposition cannot explain "excessive contempt."

The Bible, after all, says a lot of things are wrong: gossip, swearing oaths, retaliation, lending at interest or even lending with the expectation of repayment. None of those is the "most common perception" of American Christianity. None of those are perceived, really, as having much of anything to do with American Christianity. If you meet an American who does not believe in retaliation, you're more likely to think they're a Buddhist than a Christian. If you meet an American who opposes lending at interest, you'll probably assume they're a Muslim. And if you meet an American who lends without expectation of repayment and never engages in gossip, then ... well actually, this being America, you won't meet such a person.

The above examples aren't entirely fair. All of those things are expressly and unambiguously prohibited and condemned in the Bible, but they're not really considered sins by American Christians.* So, OK, lets look at some other examples that everyone still regards as full-fledged sins.

How about lying and stealing? These are prohibited by the ninth and eighth commandments (or the eighth and seventh, for my Catholic and Lutheran friends). American Christians believe these are sins. American Christians are morally, ethically and theologically opposed to them. Yet neither "anti-lying" nor "anti-stealing" turns up as a common description of these Christians, let alone as the most common perception. And in neither case would this opposition be characterized as "excessive contempt."

So these moral, ethical and theological considerations and concerns about what the Bible teaches are beside the point. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain why excessive contempt for homosexuals should be the dominant attribute of American Christianity. It has to be something else.

I think it is. I think it has very little to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

The perception that Barna documents is, I think, primarily a perception of evangelical Christians. The Barna Group is an organization based in the evangelical subculture, and while they provide generally reliable data, they are also prone, at times, to the evangelical tendency to use "Christian" and "evangelical Christian" interchangeably. (This recalls Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger's statement, "We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians.") Evangelical Christians also tend to be the most outspokenly sectarian, so this interchangeable terminology is often lazily reflected in the media as well. Barna's survey respondents clearly weren't thinking of the Christians who attend Metropolitan Community Churches or the United Churches of Christ. And I think the survey would have produced quite different results if respondents had been asked specifically about the black church, or Presbyterians or even Roman Catholics.

So let's consider evangelical American Christians in particular. Evangelicals tend to be earnest, generous and accustomed to listening to people in authority. They also tend to be sheltered, ingenuous and suspicious of intellectualism. All of that makes them particularly susceptible to hucksters and demagogues. The history of hucksterism in American evangelicalism is long and storied and sad, but I'm more concerned here with the demagoguery. American evangelicalism in the late-20th and early-21st century has been shaped by demagogues.

The most visible and influential leaders in American evangelicalism are not theologians or clergymen like Billy Graham, John Stott or J.I. Packer, but rather parachurch activists and media barons like Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell and wife-beating apologist James Dobson -- the self-proclaimed spokesmen and self-appointed magisterium of the religious right. Such leaders are not mainly about the spiritual growth and well-being of their followers, nor are they about spreading the gospel. They are about amassing and consolidating power.

The religious right portrays itself as a religious movement seeking to reshape politics, but in fact it is a political movement seeking to reshape religion. Its agenda -- at which it has been distressingly successful -- has always been to turn a church into a voting bloc.

The demagogues of the religious right pursue power -- political and economic power -- by preying on fears and prejudices. Their power depends upon the perception of barbarians at the gate, on the perception that some menacing Other is on the verge of destroying all that their followers hold dear. This Other, the demagogue's scapegoat who must die for our salvation, can't be something that presents a genuine danger, because that would expose the demagogue's impotence to protect his followers from real threats.

Homosexuals make an ideal scapegoat for the demagogues manipulating and fleecing their evangelical flock. The safe-target dynamic ensures that your scapegoat isn't someone your sheep are likely to know or empathize with, and the innocent-backlash claim provides a fig leaf that allows the demagogues to claim that the nastiness they're promoting is justifiable.

The only real difficulty with demonizing homosexuals is that they're not actually demons. Homosexuals don't actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals. The demagogues overcome this obstacle by doing what demagogues are best at: lying. Homosexuals, they claim, are a threat to Marriage, and to The Family, and to the Word of God. Reality doesn't support such claims, so they embellish reality. They claim that same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage because, um, mumblemumblemumble pound pulpit, it just would! Same-sex marriage, they claim, would mean your church would be forced to perform gay weddings.** They claim that hate-crimes legislation protecting homosexuals from violent intimidation would mean that pastors could be arrested for quoting from Leviticus. They claim ENDA -- the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation -- would mean your church could be legally forced to hire a gay pastor. It would mean no such thing, and they know it would mean no such thing. The lie is deliberate, intentional, lovingly crafted to nurture fear and the unthinking allegiance that fear can create.

It is no accident that excessive contempt for homosexuals has become the most common perception of American evangelicalism. That contempt has been deliberately nurtured, fed and guided by demagogues seeking to manufacture fear that can be channeled into political power.

By laying so much blame on these demagogues, it might seem like I'm trying to excuse or exonerate the rank-and-file evangelicals who follow them, but I don't think this really provides them with room to boast. I am suggesting that, left to their own devices, those evangelicals probably wouldn't be quite as contemptuous and bigoted as they've allowed ourselves to become due to their unquestioning allegiance to ill-chosen leaders. This contempt and bigotry, the argument suggests, isn't something they would have pursued quite so single-mindedly on their own, merely something they willingly embraced at the behest of leaders who preyed on their fear and naivete.*** That's hardly grounds for congratulations.

The suggestion that evangelicals have fallen prey to demagogues presents a difficult problem. It means they've been duped, and no one likes to admit they've been duped -- particularly when, as is so often the case, the con works by exploiting something less than admirable in the victims' character. This is why crime statistics on scams and con games aren't wholly reliable. Many victims are reluctant -- out of shame and embarrassment -- to report these crimes. Admitting that you handed over your money due to greed or foolishness is not easy to do.

Admitting that you've been manipulated by duplicitous demagogues exploiting your own fears, insecurities and prejudices isn't easy to do, either, so I'm afraid my message here for American evangelicals is something of a bitter pill that I don't know how to sugarcoat. The current situation, represented by the findings of the Barna Group above, is not something they can be proud of. Forced to confront this reality, evangelicals will have to provide an apology of one kind or another.

That word "apology," of course, has two meanings. It can mean an admission of fault, an acceptance of responsibility accompanied by a plea for pardon and an attempt to make restitution. Or it can mean almost the opposite -- a formal, defiant defense. The demagogues offer the latter sort of apology for the gay-hatin' gospel Barna identifies. Whether or not the rank and file of evangelicals will continue to follow them remains to be seen, but the other kind of apology is their only other option.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* These sins were not downgraded due to any conscious theological decision, nor due to any explicit attempt to justify American Christians' disregarding the clear meaning of the text. They are not considered sins primarily because of cultural reasons that are rarely, if ever, explored by those within American culture. See earlier, "Let us reason together."

** You know, just like when President Clinton sent the National Guard into St. Patrick's Cathedral to force Archbishop O'Connor to bless the wedding of two divorced Roman Catholics. (Addendum: To clarify, no, that never happened. And it never could happen. Religious groups are free to perform wedddings only for members in good standing of their respective communities, and they are free to define for themselves such membership in good standing however they see fit. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage would not change that.)

*** H.L. Mencken's ungenerous definition of a demagogue: "One who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." In his defense, the old fart was, I think, hoping that by ridiculing suckers for being suckers he might provoke them to stop being suckers.

Comments

[bulbul]

You know, just like when President Clinton sent the National Guard into St. Patrick's Cathedral to force Archbishop O'Connor to bless the wedding of two divorced Roman Catholics.
Could I please get some info on what this refers to? Thank you.

[Bugmaster]

Yeah, I didn't get that one, either. I don't follow religious news (at least, not religiously, heh), or even sports news for that matter.

[Todd Larason]

There was no such incident -- just like there wouldn't be any cases of the national guard forcing a church to bless a same-sex marriage. It was sarcasm or irony or hyperbole or somesuch. Any English majors around?

[Dawn]

"They claim ENDA -- the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation -- would mean your church could be legally forced to hire a gay pastor. It would mean no such thing, and they know it would mean no such thing."

You're right, but I don't think that's the entirety what the evangelicals who don't support EDNA are scared of in terms of hiring decisions. ENDA does contain exemptions for the military, small businesses, and religious organizations, but here's how "religious organization" is defined:

SEC. 6.

(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.

(c) Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant. Under this Act, such a declaration by a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society stating which of its religious tenets are significant shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review. Any such declaration made for purposes of this Act shall be admissible only for proceedings under this Act.

This gives me the impression that groups that are ostensibly faith-based but aren't proselytizing or providing explicitly religious instruction are bound by the Act, which would include the evangelical pet org the Boy Scouts. I assume that with this language it'd be difficult to decide the fate of that type of organization unless a case was brought to trial.

That said, I'm not necessarily against the bill.

[cjmr's husband]

And if you meet an American who lends without expectation of repayment and never engages in gossip, then ... well actually, this being America, you won't meet such a person.

LOL *cough* *hack* *clean kybard*

[burgundy]

re: Clinton sending out the National Guards - someone more dedicated than I can do all the linking, but it's a reference to Eisenhower calling up the National Guard to protect the Little Rock 9 when schools were desegregated. I think "Cardinal O'Connor" is probably a reference to Bull Connor, the Alabama police official responsible for tactics such as dogs and firehoses being used against civil rights protesters.

[cjmr]

There was a Cardinal O'Connor, but his See was New York, not D.C. So I'm guessing either Fred meant Cardinal McCarrick, or it was an allusion.

[cjmr]

Never mind, he got it right. St. Patrick's is the See of New York.

*headdesk*

[ctate]

Oh, Fred. I really don't want to have to report you to Journilliteracy, but... you work at a newspaper! You can write! So, uh...

"It's agenda ... has always been..."

Ts'k ts'k, Fred. :)

[Inexcusable misuse of apostrophe corrected. Thank you, ctate.]

[eyelessgame]

There's an aspect to the two burning issues among evangelicals -- gays and abortion -- that's an interesting counterpoint to what you've said. (thanks for the excellent and insightful analysis throughout, btw.)

In the minds of most evangelicals, these two sins are different from most others in that other people don't see them as wrong. Ministers can rant all day about adultery, theft, murder, lying, cheating, pride, envy, anger, sloth, etc. -- but everbody already knows those things are wrong. There's no difference between an evangelical and a fine upstanding atheist when it comes to the condemnation of murder.

Something to think about. (Of course, you list other things the Bible condemns but most Americans don't. The difference is that most evangelicals don't think those are sins either. Lending at interest? Wearing cotton and wool? The evangelical can't stay completely divorced from American life; they "know better" and have excuses for why those aren't actually "moral" issues...)

[mike timonin]

"In [Menken's] defense, the old fart was, I think, hoping that by ridiculing suckers for being suckers he might provoke them to stop being suckers."

That's a generous interpretation, I think. On his good days, he thought that. On his normal days, I think Menken ridiculed suckers for being suckers because they were easy targets, and he didn't really like people (in general) all that much.

[mike timonin]

Did I, in fact, just misspell Mencken twice? I did. D'oh.

[Jeff]

This gives me the impression that groups that are ostensibly faith-based but aren't proselytizing or providing explicitly religious instruction are bound by the Act, which would include the evangelical pet org the Boy Scouts.

Why shouldn't these groups be bound by the Act?

[Ebonmuse]

Beautiful, Fred - I think you nailed it in one here. The religious right has always been a movement that defines itself by its enemies - they need there to always be barbarians battering at the gates, to always be evil people coming to destroy what we good believers hold dear. It used to be the communists and the blacks; today it's the gays and the Muslims. It's always the groups who are near enough to seem sinister, but far enough that they can be effectively demonized.

You mentioned evangelicals being duped. I think a large part of the reason for that is that their leaders do their best to keep them in a perpetual state of rage and fear with these ridiculous, melodramatic pronouncements of what's at risk. When people are angry or frightened, they're far more easily persuaded not to think.

[Toby]

Fred,

My household is glad to see you making good on your pledge always to refer to Dobson as a "wife-beating apologist", but maybe you should throw in a link to the original post, so newcomers can follow along.

[jim]

I don't know. Is it just coincidence that the Anglican communion is teetering on the edge of schism over attitudes to homosexuality?

I rather think that no church has managed to come up with a theory of sexual sin -- which acts in which contexts constitute sin, and how bad that sin is -- which is internally consistent, consistent with its other teachings and acceptable to the moral sense of a majority of its communicants. Homosexuality is obviously problematized.

[mike timonin]

Ebonmuse - Chris Hedges, in _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America_, agrees with you. Or, possibly, you agree with him, I'm not sure how that works. He contends that, regardless of the group starting the hate, gays are always close to the top of the list. Close enough to seem sinister, but far enough to be demonized. Hell, it was the gays and the commies and the blacks in the '50s too.

[McMartin]

Is http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/07/save-the-bucksh.html the post to which you refer?

[Jon H]

"I don't know. Is it just coincidence that the Anglican communion is teetering on the edge of schism over attitudes to homosexuality?"

That's a little different, because a lot of the friction is coming from African congregations, which aren't always as temperate as English or American congregations, and where there may be cultural, tribal, or pre-Christian influence on their practice.

Frankly, if I were Anglican, I wouldn't want the communion to be led by the faction most likely to descend into murderous sectarian killing.

[Scott]

I wouldn't want the communion to be led by the faction most likely to descend into murderous sectarian killing

All churches should descend into murderous sectarian killing. I'm sick of them and "the Baby Geebus demands submission and obedience and obedience and submission and submission." F-ck the Baby Geebus and his demands for political power, left or right. I'll believe in a God when someone shows me one who doesn't need a govt program to get something he wants done.

they need there to always be barbarians battering at the gates, to always be evil people coming to destroy what we good believers hold dear

Thank God the left needs no enemies to demagogue against, no tirades against "the rich" or "corporations" or "the top 1%".....

I think a large part of the reason for that is that their leaders do their best to keep them in a perpetual state of rage and fear with these ridiculous, melodramatic pronouncements of what's at risk

Like when Al Gore threatens everyone w/ a 20 foot rise in sea levels and daily hurricanes?

[hapax]

I'll believe in a God when someone shows me one who doesn't need a govt program to get something he wants done.

Hi, Scott! Want to come on over to the Thursday thread and let us know how YOU pick what charitable donations to make?

I'd be interested in hearing your criteria.

[Scott]

Is it just coincidence that the Anglican communion is teetering on the edge of schism over attitudes to homosexuality?

I donate regularly to The Covenant Network of Presbyterians for no other reason than the hope that gay pastors will split the PCUSA. I want my favorite Southern Baptist wanabee pastors forced to either leave for the PCA or baptize in the name of the "Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer" and pray to "Mother God" or whatever else the liberals want after all the conservatives are driven out.

[hapax]

Oooh. Vengeance and spite! Oddly enough, those weren't criteria I even contemplated. (adds them to the list)

[Brel]

Good work, Fred.

I have been reading this miniseries avidly, and you definitely do an excellent job in bringing together the various threads that have been woven together to form this "gay-hatin' Gospel" phenomenon. Such a good job, in fact, that I am almost sorry to see it end ;)

I am sorry for another reason. I think there is still a thread that you have not spoken of enough during the course of this examination, and one that I definitely believe needs mentioning.

That one aspect of the issue is the obsession certain Evangelicals have with supporting and reinforcing traditional gender roles.

This issue means a lot to me, and I see it underlying so, so much of the rhetoric of the demagogues you speak of here. Just flip open a copy of Citizen, Focus on the Family's "activist" magazine. In it you're almost sure to find some advertisement relating to the "problem" of gay teens and how to fix it. Look at the picture in the background of said ad. It is of a boy who is clean-shaven, smooth-skinned, and long haired--i.e., a very androgynous individual. Of course, this is a very minor instance of the prejudice I speak of, but if you look closely, you can find it everywhere you look. Organizations like Focus on the Family explicitly condemn homosexuality precisely because it is a "rebellion" (in their eyes) against traditional gender roles. It is the most flagrant example of what happens when men don't want to be strong fathers and guiders of a family, and when women do not want to accept their traditional roles. This is such a huge aspect of the Evangelical "contempt" for homosexuals. Their horror of the "homosexual agenda" stems in large part from the fact that they see the "lifestyle" as a conscious rejection of "God's plan for men and women". They, and especially the "sucker" Evangelical on the street who has been goaded by the demogogues into taking up their hatred, do not hate gays so much as they hate gay stereotypes--the feminine gay man, the masculine lesbian... the ones who look and act most unlike the roles society has traditionally allotted to their gender.

For an example see this page: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/A000004753.cfm
The first argument Dobson presents is "The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family." Here is a quote from the article: "...when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family..." (my emphasis).

I speak as someone not heterosexual or gender normative who grew up in a conservative Christian home. The problem Evangelicals have with people like me is thus quite noticeable.

[RickRS]

They claim ENDA -- the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation -- would mean your church could be legally forced to hire a gay pastor."

But we know that true, because the Supreme Court has ruled that churches that believe women belong in the pews/kitchen, not the pulpit, must hire womem pastors....NOT!

[Karen]

Here is some support for Brel's comment @11:49. Note the final comment by Diane, in which she compares egalitarianism and Biblical criticism to a "virus."

[Jenny Islander]

I don't know. Is it just coincidence that the Anglican communion is teetering on the edge of schism over attitudes to homosexuality?

I asked my priest why we should object to a homosexual bishop, since everybody chosen for the position is going to be a sinner in one way or another. She pointed out that the man in question was an oathbreaker--that someone who was faithless to one person could not be trusted to be faithful to many.

(I'm a Lutherpalian--baptized and confirmed Lutheran, switched to an Episcopal church when I moved because it was closest.)

[Ember Keelty]

@Brel

Amen! My Christofascist physics teacher writes editorials for the local newspaper, and everything he's ever published (including a treatise on how teaching evolution in schools leads to teenagers behaving badly and using Darwinism to justify their actions) is hanging on the walls of his classroom. My favorite is the anti gay-marriage piece wherein he claims that the primary purpose of marriage is to provide a stable family unit for the upbringing of children, and that children without one parent of each sex will not learn the proper role of their own gender, and that therefor gay marriage is unstable and there ought to be a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.

...

Do you think that this could be grounds for justifiable homicide? If being exposed to Teh Ghey can drive a reasonable person to kill, certainly so can being exposed to Teh Stoopid.

[Ecks]

Wow, this dobson screed is amazing, thanks for the link. Some of his points defy the imagination. If we allow gay marriage:

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee.

Because, frankly curing the sick and the poor is unChristian! What would poor Jesus think if he saw us spending money to heal the afflicted? Thanks THE LORD we have James Dobson standing up for morality in this world!

7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy?

And now those liberals want to feed the fricking poor! The literal word of the bible is very clear that Jesus is FIRMLY against this, and will surely exact bloody vengeance on any who perpetrate it. My sweet Lord, they'll want food banks next. If God didn't want me to be rich, and other people to be poor, he wouldn't have given me a back to turn on them.

9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.

...Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me recently that his country is carefully monitoring what is happening in the United States.

In fact, if we legalize gay marriage, those crazy Canadians will probably criminalize it again, just so they can re-legalize it, and show the world how devoted they are to faithfully copying every facet of domestic American policy! That's right, folks, if we make gay marriage legal, the Canadians will surely be influenced to make it extra extra EXTRA legal. Just like they copied our fabulous private health insurance system. Can you even imagine every Canadian being given health care regardless of ability to pay? I can hear Jesus crying over this from here. And let me tell you, he's been eating his Wheaties and pumping some iron up there in heaven, and when he comes back down here (aaaany minute now, trust me on this), he's gonna have an M16 in each hand, a bandoleer of grenades around his shoulder, and he's gonna teach all those socialists, world over a lesson their bloody corpses won't forget, to respect the constitution of the United States of America!!1!!11

Yeah. Because he's all about the family like that.

[ako]

Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee.

Wait, he's postulating legions of HIV-positive gay men who are willing to marry just to get health insurance, but aren't willing to marry women to get health insurance?

Because, to borrow from a popular fundy talking point, no same-sex marriage doesn't prevent gay people from getting married. It simply prevents them from marrying anyone they'd be in romantic love with. Desperate fake-marriages for health insurance are still possible. Just find someone of the opposite sex with insurance, who's either willing to participate in a sham marriage, or very gullible.

Plus, you know, the whole "OMG, sick and uninsured people might get treatment!" attitude is just delightful to see.

Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy?

Isn't the standard fundamentalist conceit that nearly all gay men die young of AIDS? And lesbians all die of breast cancer as God's punishment for not having babies? So really, aren't they going to be raking in money from all the doomed gay couples?

And I like how his entire argument is that gay people have been putting far more into the system with far fewer benefits, and gay marriage would fix that, so we shouldn't allow it.

[ako]

That's right, folks, if we make gay marriage legal, the Canadians will surely be influenced to make it extra extra EXTRA legal.

Oh, and that sentence is worth an internet and a half.

[Brel]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

@Ecks and ako: this is where the phrase "excessive contempt" comes in.

[Brel]

(Sorry for the double post.)

I must add that my point above about Evangelicals' objection to homosexuality and homosexuals as coming from a desire to preserve traditional gender roles is not only a Christian cultural trait, but one inherited from modern Western culture at large. It is not their invention, or fault, alone. To paint a simple picture: until fairly recently (i.e. the 1960's or so), traditional gender roles were supported and enforced almost unquestioningly by society in general. Christians alone cannot be blamed for clinging to certain sentiments about gay people based on the gender role issue. Gender is a pretty deeply-held concept in any society, and reactions to what is seen as inappropriate are going to be very strong regardless of the religion (or lack thereof) of the individual or group involved.

Even today, public acknowledgment of the plight of transsexuals (who are after all the T in LGBT) lags behind that of gays and lesbians. Transsexuals represent a greater challenge to the gender binary to most people than homosexuals. There are, of course, very valid evolutionary and other reasons for upholding the gender binary and enforcing sexual dimorphism: namely, to aid in reproduction. Of course, this does not make the excesses of such people forgivable.

Consider the traditional disgust of crossdressing and the like. Ever notice how, in these days at least, the crossdressing man is more maligned than the crossdressing woman (in fact, given the freedom of dress women now have, it's actually hard for them to "crossdress")? And that the discussion of homosexuality, and especially its supposed wrongness, is very much fixated on homosexual men? It is almost certainly because men have more pressure upon them to play their role.

Furthermore, I think that most of the non-Christians who are homophobic are so on these grounds. "Gay hatin'", we must recall, is not merely an Evangelical phenomenon. Because homosexuality is seen as a threat, to whatever degree, to traditional (Western) gender roles, there will always be a backlash against it to some degree, even if people keep it mostly quiet (this is also true in the case of feminism, or at least some forms of it. I remain surprised at how many people seem to think that calling a given feminist a "feminazi" etc. can amount to an automatic debunking of whatever he/she might be saying. It is rather like expecting to dismiss someone by calling them a Nazi in general).

[burgundy]

(who are after all the T in LGBT)
Sadly, I've known a number of LGB who think the T is unnecessary. Since the T's are about gender identity and expression, not sexual orientation, so we shouldn't all be in the same group. This is why I like "queer" as an umbrella term, and not just because it's easier to say. Because the rules we're challenging are basically the same rules.

It is almost certainly because men have more pressure upon them to play their role.
I've always thought of it in terms of hierarchy - maleness is privileged over femaleness. A woman who lays claim to maleness is breaking her role but is at least moving in the "right" direction; a man who seems to be more female is moving down the ladder and challenging not only gender roles but the relative value of them.

[Ecks]

I also like this bit:

The entire health care system could implode.
Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.

Y'know, I've always worried that alien mind control rays could send us into mass homicidal sprees.

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.
We should therefore steer clear of the wild and crazy risk of not wearing tinfoil hats. I call on the world's inventors as a matter of urgency to come up with a version that doesn't get knocked off by our pillows when we sleep, or they might get us then, too.

Wait, he's postulating legions of HIV-positive gay men who are willing to marry just to get health insurance, but aren't willing to marry women to get health insurance?

I find your use of logic and clear thinking to be disturbing. If we let people use these thinks, then as with legalized gay marriage we will find:

11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).

And do tell me, oh holiness Dobson, what would that be like?

This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless — unless — God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation.

(I'm not making this up, this is the text that follows point 11)

Darn tootin'! Hear that, God's people, that's Dr. Dobson, PhD calling you to action! And just to be clear here, an unambiguous LITERAL reading of the bible will quickly make it crystal clear to you that God's people are... oh, the Jews. So, uh. Jews, I guess this fight is on you. Uh. Does this mean we have to turn in our new testaments now? No, but wait, Jesus said... oh, that stuffs all in the New Testament isn't it. Uh.

So, gays! threat! Panic! circle the wagons! Jack booted government thugs! Libruls! Boys holding hands! It's the eeeennnnnddd offf the woooorld!!

Wait... which means it'll bring on the rapture, right? And it's cheaper than giving all that money to send jews back to Israel, right... So really the crazy ass fundies should WANT to pass laws legalizing gay marriage... Holy shmunky, am I on to something here, or is it just 1:30 and I'm making stupid shit up because I'm tired? (don't answer that).

[Ecks]

On an entirely serious note, Brel & burgundy, I think you're onto something pretty solid with this gender roles analysis. I mean, people get pretty freaked out when they see even a breach of table manners (Really. Go to a sit down restaurant, and start shoveling food into your mouth with your bare hands. You will quickly see a whole lot of people get seriously high blood pressure over their implicit social rules being violated). Start messing with the gender divide, and you're freaking them out about the foundation they built half their social world on.

[Brel]

burgundy wrote: Sadly, I've known a number of LGB who think the T is unnecessary. Since the T's are about gender identity and expression, not sexual orientation, so we shouldn't all be in the same group.

Yes, and I have met plenty of straight people who don't mind homosexuality and have gay friends but draw a line at transsexuality. They seem to think that transsexuals are "protesting against nature" or somesuch thing (their arguments are not very well laid out). Either way I find it hypocritical and irritating. One of my best friends is transsexual. I am not but I can definitely sympathize with the atypical gender role thing.

Also, burgundy, you do a pretty good job of putting into words the sentiments people have against males who show interest in their femininity.

And thanks, Ecks. You are indeed getting a little hyper, but in a good way ;)

[Consumer Unit 5012]

Ebonmuse - "When people are angry or frightened, they're far more easily persuaded not to think."

See 9/11/2001 through mid-2006 or so for a particularly stark example. That panic wasn't JUST natural--BushCo carefully nurtured it for maximum political gain. Thankfully, even they weren't able to keep it going at maximum intensity forever.

[DonaQuixote]

Not to take too much of a turn o.t. into the Anglican issue, but as an Episcopalian it interests me how our "near-schism" is being viewed from the outside. First, from inside I don't think there's nearly the same pressing sense of urgency in most dioceses as some might believe. In my immediate area there are three different congregations with three very different opinions on this issue, none of whom are trying to schism. It's a few far-right Americans aided by African and Asian priests who are raising most of the fuss. So from my perspective the issue in my denomination has quite a lot to do with culture and with attempts by a church that was once an arm of British colonialism to grapple with a real commitment to the increasing influence of non-Anglo-dominated parts of the world in our tradition. It's painful, but it's also a good thing for us to do.

One of the reasons we seem more fragmented on this issue than other groups in America also has to do with our odd combination of doctrinal flexibility and hierarchical ministry and organization. In other words, it's just not so easy for an Episcopalian congregation to break away and join up with the non-denoms, and it's also very very easy for Episcopalian congregations within a few blocks of one another to have very different perspectives on fundamental doctrinal issues.

Also though, and I'm surprised actually that this isn't being talked about more often on this topic, when the debate really does come up here in my diocese (I'm at a very progressive congregation one town over from a very conservative one - which is not, btw, involved in the schism dispute), the most passionate people on either side tend to get very involved in the issue of scripture (what is scripture, how do we read it, what is our relationship to it). Those of us on the progressive side generally fall into the category of seeing it as a sacred but historical living document that must be understood in context. We wrestle with it more than submit to it. On the more conservative side is a stronger argument for the authority of scripture read as the unchanging Word of God. I do think that there are well-meaning conservatives who believe that this is what they are fighting for. I very much disagree with their concept, interpretation, and use of scripture, but I also don't think they are all being psychologically disingenuous. The point is that it's not just about different interpretations of scripture but a different notion of how we live as a faith community in relationship to it.

[Brel]

Here's another (pretty sickening) example of the phenomenon I was talking about: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/concerns/A000001515.cfm

I call it sickening because it is utterly sexist against men. For example: "...it was Jimmy's fantasy world that caused everyone the most concern. He had a "make-believe" life in which he spent hours alone in his room drawing cartoon characters. And Gloria had observed another disturbing pattern—whenever Jimmy became intensely frustrated as a result of a painful event in his life, he immediately retreated into the world of feminine make-believe."

Oh no! We can't let our son show any signs of an imagination and dislike of athletics! Clearly those sorts of things are "pre-homosexual" behavior and must be stopped now.

[Jesurgislac]

Is it just coincidence that the Anglican communion is teetering on the edge of schism over attitudes to homosexuality?

Not at all. The reasons Fred has outlined for why evangelical Christians whip up hatred against "homosexuality" apply just as strongly to Anglican Christians. The Church of England is tightly interconnected with the Establishment - two archbishops and several bishops have seats in the House of Lords, and may vote on legislation: final decisions of the Anglican Synod must be confirmed by the UK Parliament: officially, the archbishops are appointed by the Prime Minister of the UK (though in practice, since James Callaghan was PM, this has amounted to: "Tell me who you say the right candidate is, and I'll appoint him").

The first out gay man to be appointed a bishop in the Anglican communion was not Gene Robinson: Dr. Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Reading in June 2003. A month later, he had resigned the appointment without ever taking it up: a crew of homophobes who wanted their gay priests and bishops to decently lie about their sexual relationships, not be honest about them, had convinced him that if he took up the post he would "split the Anglican communion". It is ironic that, having screamed the house down at the thought of an honest - but celibate - bishop, who had not made the mistake of marrying a woman, but who had had a past relationship with man - this crew then got Gene Robinson.

(Having read the account of how Robinson separated from his former wife, the notion that he could be described as an "oathbreaker" sounds like pure malice.)

[Dahne]

My favorite section is part 2:

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

Cause it's not like children live in a world run by strange creatures whose behaviors often make no sense at all to them. Whenyou're a kid, everything's bizarre. You've got no way of knowing what family situation is more 'natural' than another. Hell, until a probably embarassingly late age, I didn't understand the concept of any type of sex at all, so I just ignored it and went and played with My Little Ponies or something. Children prioritize.

You know, I think what frightens Dobson's ilk the most about teh childrunz is that it might not phase them at all.

Also, I love the strategy of pulling numbers out of his ass, along with the exhaustively researched and attributed "some studies." A thousand partners? Really? Think about that for just a second. That's twenty solid years of having sex with a new person every week, with two weeks off per year to go on vacation or into a coma or something. Where do you even find that many people?

[Jesurgislac]

And, fwiw, the Presbyterian Church, which lacks the political dimension of the Anglican Church, dealt with the issues of ordaining women, and LGB clergy, without any fuss or bother at all: the big debate in the Church of Scotland's assembly in the UK last year wasn't "OMG ordaining gay clergy!" it was "Shall we give the civil partners of ministers and other church employees the same pension rights as husbands?" (To which the answer, after some debate, was "yes".)

(For various uninteresting historical reasons, where husbands and wives have *different* rights in their spouse's pension, civil partners get matched with the husband rights, not with the wife rights.)

[Spalanzani]

Brel's article: "And Gloria had observed another disturbing pattern—whenever Jimmy became intensely frustrated as a result of a painful event in his life, he immediately retreated into the world of feminine make-believe."

"Feminine make-believe"?

...

Wow.

[Ian]

DonaQ, I'll second your thoughts on Anglicans and gay marriage. I would add that our doctrinal tolerance is the very thing that keeps the conflict going; any sensible denomination would have broken up years ago. I'm proud that we have not (quite) written each other off.

There are places where the gay marriage debate is urgent and ugly, and I'm afraid I live in one. I'm an Anglican in the diocese of New Westminster. There's venom on both sides, and we are in semi-schism; there is a perpetual battle over the extent to which our bishop has episcopal oversight over breakaway conservative parishes.

I have my fingers crossed that the standard Anglican method for resolving a theological dispute will succeed: focus on common practice, ignore the conflict as much as possible, keep formal discussion of the issue inconclusive, and wait for changing social norms to render the debate irrelevant.

[Jesurgislac]

Dahne: Also, I love the strategy of pulling numbers out of his ass, along with the exhaustively researched and attributed "some studies." A thousand partners? Really? Think about that for just a second. That's twenty solid years of having sex with a new person every week, with two weeks off per year to go on vacation or into a coma or something.

Heh.

While Dobson is nuts, of course, these figures are solid for some gay men. As has been exhaustively documented by AIDS researchers, if you are a man who enjoys sex with men and who lives in an urban environment where mechanisms enabling you to have casual sex with other men on a regular basis exist (which is, as far as I can tell, pretty much any major city in the world....) then in a big enough city, yes, you can easily have sex with a thousand other men. In a year.

Where Dobson is nuts, of course, is presuming that this model applies to all gay men - it doesn't. (Though he's surely encouraging little evangelical gay boys listening to him to believe that it does.) Also, he's eliding lesbians with gay men, but there you go.

Where do you even find that many people?

Well, in my city, there's this park you can go to....

[Brel]

Also, he's eliding lesbians with gay men, but there you go.

Nearly all the antigay Evangelical movements seem to do that. I have come across very little lesbian-specific material, and statistics and "advice" for "avoiding temptation" is nearly always clearly aimed at gay males. I tend to think it's because a lot of Evangelicals' antigay rhetoric (e.g., the AIDS risk and such) does not apply to lesbians much. In fact, they have to consciously ignore the fact that lesbian sex is generally safer for women than heterosexual sex. I saw a screed (I was reminded by an earlier post in this thread that I love that word) some time ago, published by Focus on the Family I believe, which gave its statistics about lesbians with the assumption that women who slept with other women were more likely to be promiscuous in general (i.e., sleep around with many men) and went from there. No joke.

I for one am rather tired of them pretending lesbians don't exist. If they're going to bother condemning people, they might as well do it equally.

[Brel]

Also, lol @ "Some [children] have even been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood".

Most of the stuff he writes is contemptible, but that's just hilarious, especially given the context. Wonderfully random.

[Spalanzani]

Jesurgislac: "then in a big enough city, yes, you can easily have sex with a thousand other men. In a year."

Having sex with a thousand different men in a year would mean that on average you would have to have sex three or four times a day. Seems like that sort of thing would eventually wear you out. Not to mention that finding a thousand men is a bit different from convincing them all to have sex with you. The whole thing just sounds like far too much work. Why not just take up knitting instead?

[bad Jim]

The day after Halloween may not be the best time to emphasize just how transgressive, over-the-line and out-of-the-question cross-dressing may be. Not when you might have sat next to someone with a foot, or some other appendage, appearing to sprout from the forehead.