Perkins is Against Demonizing Gays. Honestly.

Sometimes the chutzpah of the religious right is staggering. Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council did a radio show about that memo to DOJ managers from a gay rights group about how to make the workplace welcoming to LGBT employees and Perkins said that he is firmly against extreme rhetoric that demonizes gays:

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/93566959″ params=”show_artwork=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Yes, he only “speaks from love.” Like when he said that gay people are “pawns of the devil.” That was incredibly loving.

httpv://youtu.be/hfNVgJ4rwMo

And when Sprigg said:

“I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.”

Can’t you just feel the love? And when Sprigg said that he wanted “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior,” he meant it only in love. And when Kenyn Cureton, the FRC’s VP of Church Ministries said that gay rights activists were the “demonized forces of hell itself,” she meant it in the most loving way possible.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1017276335 Strewth

    Am I the only one who gets the impression that some of these folks are catching on that their rhetoric is in the process of turning into career poison, and are looking to start whitewashing? Only they have forgotten that we live in the information age, and that the internet is forever?

  • doublereed

    This comes from people who say that God is loving and benevolent. This kind of bait-and-switch is not only possible in these circles, it’s incredibly easy.

    Yes, he will completely claim to have said all those things in the most loving way possible. They can basically just say that us evil liberal atheists took him out of context and VOILA! no homophobia here.

  • dingojack

    “… And when Kenyn Cureton, the FRC’s VP of Church Ministries … ”

    I thought women were supposed to sit meekly, silently and obediently at the back of the the church and take a completely passive role it the affairs of the church just like it says in their favorite book of fairytales*.

    They wouldn’t be religious hypocrites now, would they?

    :) Dingo

    ———-

    * 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

    33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

    34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

  • gorgias

    You have to keep in mind, there are only two contexts for believers of Perkins’ stripe to view non-believers: 1) intentionally evil or 2) unwitting dupes of evil powers. And whenever they get called out for making the first assumption, they put in play the second one, in which they try to be “understanding” of the fact that people are being controlled by Satan. To them, this IS their kinder, more loving option, and sadly, it’s the closest their worldview allows them to show empathy to people of differing opinions.

  • Moon Jaguar

    Hate the sin but love the evil, filthy, disgusting, perverted, nasty sodomite on-his-way-to-hell sinner.

  • http://composer99.blogspot.ca composer99

    Since, in their minds, turning people away from being homosexual helps to save them from eternal damnation (if not being a sufficient condition for salvation), I can see how Perkins et al can conclude they are being loving, assuming they are accurately representing themselves.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Hate the sin but love the evil, filthy, disgusting, perverted, nasty sodomite on-his-way-to-hell sinner.

    Ahhh, the Haggard approach.

    No, seriously, what I find interesting is that they usually say that they avoid “hateful” rhetoric, but when challenged they say “telling hard truths is an act of love”. Okay, if someone was really an agent of the devil and you said that person was an agent of the devil, that wouldn’t be hateful.

    But “demonizing”? He says that there’s no place for demonizing? What is demonizing if it doesn’t include portraying someone as a minion of Satan? Seriously. I am dumbfounded. I expect these people to defend demonizing. Their rhetoric is so incoherent I am flummoxed.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    Can’t you just feel the love? And when Sprigg said that he wanted “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior,” he meant it only in love. And when Kenyn Cureton, the FRC’s VP of Church Ministries said that gay rights activists were the “demonized forces of hell itself,” she meant it in the most loving way possible.

    Well, when you have a universe designed by a god who promises to condemn many to eternal suffering, the rhetoric expressed here by Tony Perkins et al is enormously loving; relatively speaking of course.

  • gopiballava

    Maybe he thinks that quiet, meek gays who don’t flaunt it (ie: appear heterosexual) are fine. It’s the uppity activists who don’t know their place that are the problem. An activist being anybody who wants things to be different from what Perkins wants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    Being called a prawn doesn’t bother me at all but don’t ever call me a shrimp.

    The language fundies use when the talk about gay people shows that they are really not about trying to convert them and make them leave their wretched lifestyles. They need LGBT people to use them to scare others into giving them more money. Evangelicals throughout our history have used perceived threats to control the sheep.

  • twincats

    This comes from people who say that God is loving and benevolent. This kind of bait-and-switch is not only possible in these circles, it’s incredibly easy.

    Not just possible, not just incredibly easy, but absolutely necessary.

  • vmanis1

    There’s another factor that hasn’t been mentioned. While many people would consider these people’s behavior reprehensible, they have something else going on. Most people (except perhaps Aleister Crowley) don’t want to think of themselves as evil. So they try to convince themselves that they’re the moral ones, and the rest of the world is immoral. It’s much like a pedophile convincing himself that his victims wanted it.

    The mixture of hypocrisy and rationalization is toxic. I’m convinced that hard-core sufferers like Perkins genuinely don’t have any connection with reality on culture war issues, so far gone are they. It’s sad.

  • sezme

    Kenyn Cureton is a male. Don’t know where Ed got “she”.