Anti-Gay Bigots Unite!

When frightened evangelical and Catholic anti-gay bigots like Franklin Graham and the so called Catholic League get together to try to hang onto their traditional power, here’s what they produce in the name of Jesus. I’ve annotated their latest anti-gay screed with a few admittedly smart ass remarks to expose the hidden truths in their otherwise meaningless far right “document.” In a letter more than 200 conservative know-nothing activists — ranging from the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue to Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) — vowed to ignore any ruling in favor of same-sex couples. The group of endorsers, signing under the moniker of Freedom Federation, is composed of anti-LGBT conservatives, many of whom have fallen from prominence in recent years but who struggle on to maintain their fundraising powers with their mostly white, Southern, aging and ignorant “base.”


My (inserted) comments are in BOLD type…


We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them By Old White Males Like Us

We stand together as anti-Jesus “Christians in defense of marriage and the family when we’re not divorcing our wives, downloading child porn, and/or hiding the fact we’re gay by bashing other gays and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common faith in Jesus Christ for fundraising purposes.

We acknowledge that differences exist between us on important matters of religious doctrine and practice for instance we evangelicals believe our Catholic brothers are going to hell but never mind that for the moment because we hate gays more than we hate Catholics. But, on the matter of marriage, Arabs, Muslims, women, black people and science, we stand in ignorant solidarity. As a nation at perpetual war with the world, we have lost our moral compass for instance by forcing white children to go to school with blacks and by allowing women to serve in the military and to have choice about when and where to have children. As a result, we are losing true freedom to own guns and control women and to side with the 1 percent, oil companies and polluters against God’s creation.

We affirm together that there is a moral basis to a free society because the Enlightenment did away with millennia of religious superstition. Though we live in a secular society until we figure out how to eliminate those we disagree with, together we reject relativism unless we need to be forgiven after going to bed with men and women other than our wives or husbands in our churches, or when we priests and bishops bugger children and secularism and science and facts of all kinds.

We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation along with killing, war, greed and rape and illness. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman except in the Bible itself where we find many kinds of sexual arrangements, including men sleeping with their brother’s wives to raise up “seed” for their dead brothers, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family which is why we now accept divorce since we all do that and is why we hid the abuse of children for decades by the international pedophile ring known as the papacy.

Family is the first vital cell of society right up there with the military and the oil companies; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, and the first place many kids get raped by their god fearing family members, first government and first mediating institution of our social order and that is why we tried to stop universal health care reform for families and refuse to fund child care.

The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family which is why we want to cut education funding and head start programs. Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman (except in the Bible) was not an idea manufactured by the Christian Church because in the Bible polygamy was the norm, as was sex before marriage, sex with your slave and rape as God-given in war to punish the enemies of Israel. It precedes Christianity. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching along with slavery, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Moral Law, written on the human heart by Roman Catholics once they realized that religious arguments have no basis in fact and wanted something to make them seem respectable in spite of the evidence, and discernible through the exercise of reason on Fox News… 

We pledge to stand together to defend marriage as what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children who our priests and bishops can then rape… As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds by Republicans in Congress cutting all funding for education and child care in this nation we love so much we want to keep it white and make sure only poor people serve in the military, not our kids. The Sacred Scriptures when read by people ignoring what is actually in them, like the rape of captives as commanded by God, and unbroken teaching of the Church that also burnt heretics and denied science confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman because we say so. We stand together in solidarity to defend marriage and fundraising and the family and white middle class (and fundraising!) society founded upon them

Signed by 200 frightened right wingers who see their hold on America slipping away…

About Frank Schaeffer

Frank Schaeffer is an American author, film director, screenwriter and public speaker. He is the son of the late theologian and author Francis Schaeffer. He became a Hollywood film director and author, writing several internationally acclaimed novels including And God Said, "Billy!" as well as the Calvin Becker Trilogy depicting life in a fundamentalist mission home-- Portofino, Zermatt, and Saving Grandma.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Concerning homosexuality, author Tom Krattenmaker writes, “a matter that receives nowhere near top billing in the Bible.” EXACTLY! If Jesus had been down with homosexuality, don’t you think He would have authoritatively said so, and it would also be clearly stated in God’s Holy written Word??? Where, oh where does Jesus endorse, advocate for, make it clear to one and all that He and His Father made homosexuality “good?” It is certainly is missing in Genesis where He distinctly proclaims all that He created as “good.”

    Au contraire, Jesus made it crystal clear what marriage is, as well as what it isn’t when he said, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6; Jesus is referring here to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24).

    Those who purport otherwise are touting “another gospel.” Even young children know the difference between a male and a female. Neither two men nor two women have the capability of becoming “one flesh,” or to procreate. In many ways, young children are wiser than most adults. Of course Jesus did say in Matthew 18:3, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” How sobering is that? The ability to believe which is born in all children, which is as Coleridge referred to it, “the willing suspension of disbelief,” which too often diminishes as we are taught, by the all-wise secular state, that Jesus and the Bible are not truth, thereof not to be trusted. As maturing children, through the seduction and manipulation of satan and the world, we begin to separate ourselves from our God-given conscience, our knowing the difference between right and wrong, with which we are all born. The secular “wise” men that have gone before us, such as Epicurus, Machiavelli, Hobbs, Spinoza, Rousseau, and Darwin have wrought quite an effective brainwashing on society with their deviously designed schemes to cause us all to believe there is no ultimate Lover of our soul. How, oh how can we trust other humans when, from the beginning, they have devised and carried out such diabolical brutality against their own kind? How, oh how can we dare to worship at the altar of mankind, of whom Montaigne wrote, “O senseless man who cannot make a worm, and yet makes gods by dozens.” How do we not trust in the very Maker of our soul, the One who left His rightful place in heaven to come to earth to become one of us, the One willing to die in our place so we can be co-heirs with Him into eternity? “Because we cannot ‘see’ a God we can touch, a God we can comprehend with our rational intellects, we invent new gods to take His rightful place, all the little gods who have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, hands and touch not, and who have nothing to say to us in the times of our deepest need.” ~Madeleine L’Engle

    How manipulative and disingenious it is for folks to use the word “rights” whenever they are out to get their way, and making it their mission to cause those with dissenting views to shut up. Women’s “rights,” homosexual “rights,” children’s “rights,” animal “rights,” and so on. Nobody wants to be accused of removing the “rights” of anyone. God forbid! It’s proven to be a tactic quite adept at silencing people, especially Christians, who do not want to be labeled as intolerant, hateful, judgmental, unloving or bigoted.
    In light of what homosexuals are clamoring for, why not afford special governmental “rights,” protections and privileges to two sisters, or two brothers, or a sister and a brother, or two friends, or a parent and child who have lived together and devoted their lives to each other?

    Listen to this beautiful language from Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. “The reason we are against racism is because a person’s race is sacred. A person’s ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate it. My race is sacred; your race is sacred; I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it. How do you treat one as sacred and desacrelize the other? Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else’s life than I can justify my own proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries. Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight entertained by the imagination and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They are not. They leave you emptier. So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality. When God created mankind and womankind, it was His plan, not our plan. It is extraordinary what He said. He said, ‘It is not good for man to live alone.’ Well, man wasn’t living alone; God was with him. Why did He say that? He created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God, Himself, put only within her outside himself from himself in her in that complimentariness. It is a design by God.”

    Paul tells us in I Corinthians 7:1-7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. No mention of a man having sexual relations with a man or a woman with a woman, huh?

    Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. ~I Peter 3:1-7 Again, absolutely no mention of men having husbands or women having wives.

    Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. ~Ephesians 5:22-33 Obviously, a couple of homosexual men or a couple of lesbians cannot be a symbol of the mystery between Christ and His church.

    “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. ~Matthew 5:31-32 Once again, Jesus’ teaching is conclusively about husband and wife.

    • frankschaeffer

      Hi Ginny, people will think I paid you to write your article “response” to simply restate a position that sounds made up. BTW I love it when people like you drop whole essays ready made into the “response” slot of a blog. Do you just wait all day with your responses pre-written, one for gays, one for women who love other women, one for liberals? What fun you must have correcting the rest of us. Keep up the good work.

      • Ginny Bain Allen

        My check is in the mail, right, Frankie? I wrote my essay last week, to address this issue with a wayward family member, but it certainly is apropos this week, eh? How I wish it wasn’t necessary to correct so many folks who have gone astray from the “narrow way.” It’s quite draining, but the Holy Spirit spurs me on. I can’t escape my mission to those in the SUBmerging church. Even though it seems as if nobody is listening, it is still rewarding, for I am obeying God. As I write, it truly is as if the keys are typed by the Holy Spirit through me. It’s a spiritually humbling experience. I have many haters (hard to fathom, I know, right), but even though it is a lonely path, I refuse to remain silent. It matters not how many call me hateful, judgmental, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, unloving, unChristlike, hypocritical. Those lies only serve to spur me onward, with the full assurance that I am doing something good and right! It’s akin to going to the theatre to watch the movie Patch Adams with one’s bosom chum, and the couple in front of ya keeps turning around to shush you, because you can’t stop laughing at the hilarious scenes. Who would be able to shush up in such a situation? Au contraire, it only served to cause Mary and I to laugh even harder! :)

        As an aside, since he was a news maker before the Supreme Court wielded their judicial tyrannical power, overlooking what the majority of we the people desire for our country, as well as denying God’s natural law, I will mention him. Bono is one of the most popular people on our blue planet, and Jesus is one of the most reviled. Hmmm, according to the Bible, isn’t that a clear indication that Bono is NOT a follower of Jesus! Just askin’.

        Thanks for your encouraging words, Frankie. I will keep up the good work, Lord willin’ and the crick don’t rise!

        • L Mon

          In other traditions, we call what you call “The Holy Spirit” another word: ego.

          • Ginny Bain Allen

            Apparently, you are not a creative person who designs and plans their original creations, such as a writer, gardener, cross-stitcher, musician, or decorator. Otherwise, you would understand about the moving of the Holy Spirit involved in the creative process.

        • kenofken

          Jesus reviled? No. Just the spiritual and temporal thugs who claim to represent him in all matters. Bono exemplifies the Jesus of the New Testament much more than many of you. You guys represent the Pharisees.

      • Kimberly

        She does Frank, it seems that stalking blogs is her main profession. I eventually had to un-invite her from my blog as a troll who was determined to inflict as much harm as possible. Abusers are not welcome at the same table where I am trying to provide balm for the wounded.

    • Jeff

      It’s wonderful that you’re so enthusiastic about your social club, and take an interest in its workings. Everybody needs a hobby, and your passion is inspiring.

      I worry, though, that you might be spending too much time amongst your fellow hobbyists, to the point where you’re forgetting that not everybody belongs to the same club. I, for example, am not a christian and have no interest in joining such an organization. As such, I am under no obligation to follow the rules of Christianity (just like I am under no obligation to follow the rules of the Girl Scouts, or the Kensington Homeowners’ Association). Nor do they have any authority to reprimand or punish me for engaging in activities they forbid.

      One of the reasons I’m uninterested in joining Christianity is the fact that most of its rules are either arbitrary or unnecessarily harsh. Like all that stuff you said about men marrying women. I have no interest in marrying a woman; I’m gay. It makes no sense for me to join a club that not only forbids me from pursuing the romantic relationship of my choosing, but coerces me into joining a lifelong partnership with somebody I’d prefer not to. It also makes no sense that I be expected to conform to those rules despite my non-membership in the organization that issues them. And it’s downright cruel to try to write those rules into law if they have no rational justification that would allow them to stand on their own outside the borders of someone’s authoritarian organization. And as the US Supreme Court determined this week, there is no rational justification for forbidding same-sex marriages. So if you choose to live your life this way, more power to you. Diversity is fantastic stuff that makes the world a richer and more interesting place. Just remember that I do not choose to live my life the way you live yours, am under no obligation to do so, and resent any attempt to foist such a lifestyle upon me.

      • GilbertDavis

        Life is very short . It is best to find out what it is all about and if AnyOne has explained sufficiently what it all means and if there is anything that can be done to make it better, satisfying and even everlasting .

    • smrnda

      I think you must be ignorant of history. This ‘selfish’ idea of rights that you’ve been bashing has done more to improve the quality of life for more people than all of religion combined. Rights have made the world a fit place to live in. It’s thanks to rights that workers can’t be chained to machines, that men can’t beat their wives, that children can’t be sent to work in mines at the age of six and that we don’t just lead the disabled out into the wilderness to die, and that your boss can’t fire you for refusing to have sex with him.

  • Donalbain

    Anti Gay Bigots Unite! Power of….. whining!

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Of what use is the enlightenment to a postmodernist?

  • GilbertDavis

    Mr. Schaeffer , what are you doing ? You know bettter .

  • Lee Johnson

    You don’t need to be a Christian to see that same sex marriage is a lie. You don’t need religion at all. It’s just a fashionable thing that the intellectual elite want right now, and so they get to have it. We who disagree are to be stigmatized and vilified.

    • frankschaeffer

      Hi All: My little screed brings up 2 points: First is the issue of gay rights. The second is the issue of gross hypocrisy. Let’s just take the second for a moment and leave aside the issue of gay rights for a moment. On that score don’t you all agree that it passes belief that the Roman Catholic Church would ever make a comment on any sexual matter, let alone any moral matter after the worldwide meltdown over sex abuse? I mean really… what’s next, taking advice on Jewish/Christian relations from Nazis? As for the evangelicals, do you really think anyone sane will take moral advice from these empire-building fundraisers? My point being that neither the Roman Catholics or the evangelicals seem to understand Christ’s saying re taking the plank out of one’s own eye before attending to the speck in your brother’s eye. I’ll go so far as to say that one reason gay rights is moving ahead so swiftly is because the Roman Catholic Church and most evangelicals oppose them. With enemies like that you don’t need friends.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Gays are better paid than 99% of America, they don’t need rights.

        And you can skip the Donatism over the clergy sex abuse scandal considering your own sin in that arena, Frank. After all, you are divorced- and divorce is a much worse sin in the New Testament than what the priests did.

        • kenofken

          “Gays are better paid than 99% of America, they don’t need rights.”

          That’s exactly what they said about Jews in Europe. “Those people” don’t know how good they have it…

          Divorce worse than child predation in the New Testament? The versions I’ve read have always distinctly had Jesus calling for summary execution of those who harm kids. The Vatican somehow always mis-translates the Aramaic so that “hang a millstone around their neck” gets interpreted as “promote them and aid and abet their predation.” But then Catholicism has always been about the lawyer loopholes and moral relativism in service of power.

    • smrnda

      I just realized something the other day. If I took 2 couples, one same-sex and one opposite sex, and wrote an account of a day in their lives but removed the names and left only initials, unless I got extremely graphic sexually there’s be no way to tell the difference. Anybody would just see two relationships based on trust, love, and commitment (well, I’m being an optimist there.) If marriage is, instead of being about love and commitment, is about ‘penis in vagina’, then I think that’s a rather limited and shoddy view of marriage that ignores what really matters.

      There exist people who believe that there’s no such thing as rape within marriage; that women don’t have a right to say NO once they’re married. Express that opinion and you’d probably disgust most people. Nobody’s opinion is entitled to respect, you’ve gotta earn that. It’s not oppression that people don’t agree with you.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Given gay pride parades, is it possible to write a day in the life of a homosexual couple without getting graphic sexually?

        • kenofken

          The only people who obsess over the mechanics of gay sexualtity are you guys and porn directors. Why is it that anti-SSM crusaders, who swear they’re 140% straight, can’t ever, ever, even once, conduct any discussion about public policy, without lurid obsession over what gay men do in their bedrooms? There’s an awful lot of mental energy and imagery and thinking about an act you insist is unthinkable.

    • kenofken

      Actually you do have to be a Christian, and a pretty narrow minded one, to come to that conclusion. You’re in it alone, except for the Muslims and the orthodox rabbis, and the latter understand the difference between religious law and civil.

      • Lee Johnson

        That’s just silly.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Yep, civil law is very immoral.

  • klhayes

    I think one thing that will change hearts is realizing that gay people can feel love like straight people. I worked in insurance and one time this man called b/c he needed a transplant and wanted to go to a preferred provider. His partner got on the phone and the love and concern in his voice was as genuine as a husband and wife.

    In my head I am wondering “do they have familial support? Do they have arrangements so that if the policyholder cannot make medical decisions, his partner can? Will his partner have a right to his assets if the other does not make it?” These may seem like silly questions, but these are rights married people have. That is what marriage is about. It is a legal institution. My parents had a civil marriage in a courthouse and they have all those rights.

    No one is obligated to be a Christian or believe in God in America. Many people have used the Bible to justify being against interracial marriage and every day of my parents life they are offending someone. TOO BAD!!!! You cannot make everything that offends you illegal.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I don’t believe that for a second. To feel love like a straight couple does, they would have to be capable of procreation.

      • klhayes

        It is what I heard over the phone. Love and concern are not limited by gender and sexual orientation. And based on your argument, infertile couples can’t feel love like that?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Yes, that is correct.

          The human family is special for a biological reason that has nothing to do with the law.

          Which is why I’m for civil unions. For everybody. Marriage should be restricted to those who intend to have natural children, or to men and women intending to adopt. The fact that a child needs both male and female parents should be reason to restrict adoption to marriages rather than civil unions.

          But everybody deserves to have the same benefits for their household, children or not. You should be able to use a civil union registration to put your domestic partner on your insurance, gain rent, fight back against discrimination, provide for inheritance and hospital visitation rights, etc. Everything legal that marriage is, instead of Sacramental, should be available to civil unions.

          • klhayes

            So my parents should not have had kids because they had a civil union? In the 40 years they have been together they should not have been able to adopt? And since they did procreate, are they able to love each other more than a gay couple going through a medical crisis?

            The arguments are so weak.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            True love is limited by gender. True love would have given you both a mother and a father, and taken *ANY* sacrifice to do so, including every sacrifice of self for 40 years, for 400 years, for 40000 years.

            That’s what love means- not lust but love.

          • klhayes

            I have a mother and father who are had a civil marriage and at this point in their lives can no longer procreate…and the b.s. arguments against gay marriage were the same ones they had to deal with as an interracial couple. And I know plenty of same sex couples who are married and raising well-adjusted children. The tide is changing and your ideas are losing steam.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            The tide has been changing for 100 years. But my ideas have survived the death of other cultures several times now, and will survive this attack on common sense and biology.

          • Jeff

            So you’re saying you have psychic powers?

            Not in those specific words, obviously, but you’re claiming to be able to observe my emotions (specifically my romantic emotions towards my boyfriend) and make a quantitative comparison to the romantic emotions of a randomly-selected heterosexual couple. At least that’s how I read statements like “To feel love like a straight couple does, they would have to be capable of procreation” and “True love is limited by gender.” There’s an implication within those statements that you have the ability to read minds. Either that or you’re making broad generalizations based on superstition and bigotry.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            No, I’m saying that romance is specifically for procreation, and because you have same sex attraction, your romance is flawed by scientific impossibility.

            No reading minds necessary to know that a sperm and a sperm do not create a child. All that is needed is the knowledge of sex that any 5 year old child raising rabbits on a farm learns.

            I will NOT lie to you and claim otherwise. You are reading a statement of fact as a statement of emotion, there is more to love than just emotions, and more to romance than just buying your boyfriend flowers and making him feel special.

            I would say the *exact same thing* to an infertile heterosexual couple or to a couple that practices contraception. Until you’re willing to deny your own lust for the good of the person you’re claiming to love, you haven’t achieved love.

          • Jeff

            Yeah, stuff like this is why I left open the possibility that your comments were inspired more by superstition and bigotry than by which of my deep secrets you observed with your Third Eye or crystal ball.

            As an agnostic, I’m also open to alternative possibilities, which is why I’m bothering to respond to your word salad instead of writing it off as… well, word salad. But before I can properly consider what you’re saying, I first need to *understand* what you’re saying. For example:

            “romance is specifically for procreation” – How are you defining “romance” here? It seems some necessary quality of it is heterosexual intercourse, or else that little sex-ed 101 paragraph was just a useless non sequitor. So what is romance, and why is mine flawed by scientific impossibility (whatever the heck THAT means)?

            “You are reading a statement of fact as a statement of emotion.” Which statement of fact did you make that I misinterpreted as an emotional thing? And what is a “statement of emotion,” anyway? I understand “statement of fact;” that’d be something like “2 + 2 = 4″ or “The U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.” Would a statement of emotion just be something like “I’m angry” or “I’m happy?”

            I was under the impression that love, at its core, is an emotion just like happiness or fear or whatever (although it might more accurately be described as a collection of emotions such as happiness, concern, hopefulness, contentment, etc). And much like happiness or fear, love inspires people to behave in certain ways that may vary in the details from person to person (and in some cases vary quite wildly; on a planet with over 7 billion people some strange outliers are to be expected). For example, a sad person will probably be inclined to sit quietly and eat comfort food. A happy person will be inclined to smile and be personable. A person in love will be inclined to spend time with the object of their love (whether it be another person, or a hobby or even just a favorite food). The thing about emotions is that they’re entirely personal, and “demonstrating” one’s emotions to an outsider can really only be achieved by engaging in the visible behaviors that are socially considered to correspond to that emotion. A person may feel happier than they ever have, but they’d have a difficult time demonstrating it to someone else if they didn’t display excitement or exuberance or even just a simple smile. And odds are they’d resent a person telling them they “aren’t really happy” because they don’t, for whatever reason, exhibit those outward behaviors. Hence my earlier statement that you might have psychic powers – a person’s outward behavior is not always an indication of their emotions, so it’s massively condescending and insulting (unless you really can read minds) to tell another person what they are or are not feeling. So if love is more than just emotions, what is it?

            As for “Until you’re willing to deny your own lust for the good of the person you’re claiming to love, you haven’t achieved love”: I have no idea what this means, but I can tell you that I denied my own lust as recently as yesterday afternoon, when I was feeling frisky and my boyfriend was feeling sleepy. For his own good, I opted not to pursue sexy times with him and instead turned off the lights and read a book in the other room while he took a nap. I met your qualification: I denied my own lust for the sake of someone else. Thus, I have achieved love. Except I haven’t, because there isn’t a baby or a pregnant lady anywhere in that story?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Let us take this a bit more slowly.

            “How are you defining “romance” here?”

            The mating ritual of homo sapiens for the creation of children.

          • Jeff

            I like the idea of taking things slowly. These lengthy posts are a pain to write.


            Romance = heterosexual intercourse that results in pregnancy. Does romance also include heterosexual intercourse that *does not* or *can not* result in pregnancy? And what role does intent play in this? You say “for the creation of children,” which implies to me that intercourse undertaken with the intent of creating children is romance, whether or not that intended consequence manifests or has any possibility of manifesting.

            I suspect you’re in the minority for defining romance that way. “Romance” and “Romantic” are complex words that have very different connotations in historical and literary circles. I won’t pretend to have the necessary background to explain the differences between a romance and an epic, nor will I insult you by paraphrasing the Wikipedia article on the subject that I just read myself.

            All the same, even colloquial uses of the word lean more towards the wooing process than the actual sex part.

            Regardless, in the context of this discussion, you’ve got a solid-enough definition of the word. And in the context of this discussion, using your definition, I have never experienced anything even close to romance. So it’s erroneous to say my romance is flawed, because I don’t have any romance in the first place. It’d be like me telling you that your zeppelin has a leak (assuming you do not own a zeppelin).

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I was going to respond one way- but your final paragraph does indeed put us in agreement. Yes, my definition is by far in the minority in a culture that worships the orgasm as the height of human experience, but I am fine being in the minority.

            One thing you might be missing- I’ve also redefined sex. Sex done right- to me- is the creation of new fully functioning adult human beings. That would include everything from the initial wooing, as you put it, clear up through a father walking a daughter down the aisle to give her away, or a son buying his own home to bring his bride to. Sex done right- can take between twenty to thirty years.

            And sex done wrong- well, maybe that’s what my wife and I have been experiencing for the past 10 years in our failed attempt to give our son a sibling.

          • Jeff

            And as far as I’m concerned, you’re doing it right if you both enjoy yourselves.

            Our agreement in the final paragraph is based entirely in the context of our conversation. Outside this discussion, I do not believe I have never experienced romance, because I tend to consider that word more in the “wooing” sense. Or maybe, if it’s context-appropriate, I’ll use the Classical definition in which “romantic” roughly means some combination of “idealized” and “heroic”.

            So using your definition, you are correct that I have never experienced romance. Using the far more commonly-accepted definition, I most certainly have.

            I have absolutely zero objection to the attempts of others to modify our language. Words take on new meanings and drop outdated meanings all the time. Whole new words are invented to express something for which ten words already exist, or maybe new words are invented for entirely new phenomena. What I’ve noticed, however, is that it’s a huge pain to get other people to start using your preferred new usage. Old habits die hard, combined with an unfortunate idea in our culture that a person who’s been speaking a language for their entire life has no right to add to that language or change it in any way. So you might want to get used to having to define your own usages of these words if you’re going to be including them in conversation.

            Moving right along: “Statement of fact” and “statement of emotion.” What’s a statement of emotion?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Statement of fact: ” To feel love like a straight couple does, they would have to be capable of procreation.”

            A straight couple’s love is enhanced, and in fact directed to, procreation. Without the child, the family is not complete. Some would say, without the three children needed to assure replacement rate, the family is not complete.

            That’s a statement of fact.

            What you heard is “homosexuals can’t feel love at all”, which is a statement of emotion, and not what I intended. In fact, chaste homosexuals can show us a type of love that is utterly ignored in our culture and which the Greeks considered to be *higher* than all other love, Philia, the celibate and self-sacrificial love that can be experienced only between intimate but chaste friends.

            We’re so focused on Eros in this society that we try to force homosexual relationships into that mold; but they don’t fit. Eros is the romance that leads to Storge- the love experienced by a parent for a child. True Eros, as you said before, can’t be experienced by homosexuals.

            But Philia CAN. And Philia, done right, without sexuality, is so much more than mere Eros or Storge. Eros and Storge are necessary if the species is to continue- but Philia is necessary for civilization to continue.

            And we haven’t even approached the fourth love yet, but I’ll leave that for the next reply.

          • Jeff

            It looks like things are starting to derail a little here, and it also looks like you’re jumping to a lot of strange conclusions.

            “To feel love like a straight couple does, they would have to be capable of procreation.” Like I said, you’re probably not a mind-reader (you aren’t, are you?). You have NO IDEA what the actual emotions and sensations are in any given couple, gay or straight. You have a certain amount of insight into your own relationship, and I mine, but it’s impossible to compare because you cannot feel anybody else’s feelings (assuming, of course, you have no psychic powers. I’m going to operate under the assumption that you don’t; feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if I am mistaken on that point).

            Your entire argument really seems to be based around novel definitions of well-established words. “Romance” the way you use it is specifically about a fertile heterosexual couple, so *of course* any arrangement besides that is going to be different and utterly incapable of meeting your standard. “Sex” is apparently a tedious 30-year project that’s entirely about keeping humans on the planet. Now you’re bringing up the different kinds of Greek love and trying to narrowly define those, also. If you’re allowed to decide the definition of any given word in this discussion, then you’re going to be right every single time.

            And if this were purely an academic, intellectual project, there would be nothing wrong with any of that. Well-defined terms are important in debate and logic, and nuance can make a world of difference. But this isn’t just academic; it’s a real-life issue with real-life consequences for real people. Actual human beings’ lives are made worse because other people, people with authority, think that they are inferior or dangerous for terrible reasons. Terrible reasons like, for example, redefining commonly-used words for basic human emotion to have a heterosexist bias.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Once again, no mind reading necessary. The key words are “like a straight couple does”. A straight couple- a good straight couple- feels love because they are open to procreation and life, and that love is fulfilled when children come along.

            The homosexual is utterly incapable of that. I don’t need to be able to read minds to tell me that a homosexual relationship will be barren.

            I bring in the Greek precisely because it is far better at explaining what I mean than the English.

            Yes, it is a real life issue with real life consequences for real people; but what you seem to want to skip over is that it isn’t the “people in authority” that are flawed, it is the concept of the homosexual relationship itself that is flawed.

            And even the CDC has noticed that homosexual sex, is violent:

          • Jeff

            What’s the flaw, exactly? That pregnancy probably can’t result from homosexual couplings? I say “probably” because there’s an entire religion with more than a billion followers that says a person can become pregnant out of the blue, with zero sex of any kind, at the hand of a being that isn’t even the same *species* as her. I personally think it’s all a crock, but to believe that story is true or plausible means you have to believe it’s possible that I could get knocked up by my boyfriend. I have no idea if you belong to the christian club or not, but as a general matter it’s incredibly self-serving and disingenuous for people to say “human + god-being = baby” and at the same time say “male human + male human = no baby ever because that’s impossible.”

            And who the heck decided that procreation is so great, anyway? I personally hate kids, especially babies, and want nothing to do with the sticky-handed little beasts. Not to mention that the planet is very quickly reaching capacity and that a great deal of people will die very unpleasant deaths if we get to a point where there are more people than there is, say, clean water to go around. I don’t believe for one second that my relationship is flawed – it’s not flawed as a result of the almost certain possibility that I’ll never get saddled with some screaming burden I don’t want, and it’s not flawed as the result of it not contributing to a global problem. The implication of the word “flaw” is that there is an ideal type of relationship, and that this kind – my kind – falls short of that ideal. That it’s missing something that would make it better. It’s like you’re trying to argue
            that rocky road is the ideal ice cream, and every other kind of ice cream is fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t have chocolate, nuts and marshmallows.

            And your argument is taking this ice cream metaphor even further. You’re saying that anything that isn’t rocky road ice cream isn’t ice cream at all. And if you want to define “ice cream” as “below-freezing semi-solid sweetened chocolate-flavored dairy product with marshmallows and nuts” then YES, using that definition, anything that isn’t rocky road isn’t ice cream at all… in much the same way that you’re saying I haven’t experienced true love because you define true love with a bunch of very specific qualifiers and pretty much ignore the more culturally-accepted and commonly-experienced indicators of love.

            And that link you sent was about HIV transmission, not violence (unless you’ve got some special definition of “violence” you’d like to bust out). But really, any sexual encounter can have varying degrees of violence to it. I’m not into that stuff personally, but I know people who are and they thoroughly enjoy it.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            “What’s the flaw, exactly? That pregnancy probably can’t result from homosexual couplings?”

            No. The flaw is not that pregnancy probably can’t result from homosexual couplings. The flaw is that pregnancy DOES NOT result from homosexual couplings.

            While Parthenogenesis is possible, though rare, in higher mammals such as humans, such a process is decidedly asexual, not homosexual. Gynogenesis and pseudogamy (where the sperm triggers the egg to develop without actually contributing any genetic material) is also possible of course, but is always heterosexual.

            It is never plausible for a man who is not transgender with a female uterus to carry a child- ever.

            To hate children is to hate yourself, for you were once one of those sticky handed little beasts (and in fact, likely still are from a certain point of view).

            I certainly would consider anal sex to be violent, based on the fact it tears skin enough to transfer blood, which is what causes the HIV transmission.

            Are you always this emotional about scientific fact? If so, that would yield a great deal of evidence towards what I see as the denial of science by homosexual lobbyists.

          • Jeff

            Yes, yes, thank you for more biology 101. Adults were once children, sperm + egg = fertilized egg, all that good stuff. Seriously, you don’t need to remind me of this part. I paid attention in school. The point I’m making is that there’s more to romantic relationships (using the commonly-accepted definition of “romantic” and not your super-specific No True Scotsman definition) than biology and procreation. If you want to have 30-year-long choresex with your heterosexual woman-wife for the purpose of babying-up the planet

            …. seriously, did you *really* think you needed to remind me that I used to be a child? I was THERE. I remember. I know biology. Every freaking time I tell people I hate kids, they throw that little factoid at me as if it’s some huge revelation that’ll completely change my opinion. The fact is, like all children, I was loud and irritating and stupid. It’s just the nature of childhood. Some people have the patience and temperament as adults to spend extended periods of time with children; I do not. I prefer to spend my time with *adults*, because they tend to be less loud, less irritating and less stupid. And if I do find myself in the company of a loud and irritating adult, I’m free to walk away from him without having to find a person to look after him and make sure he doesn’t wander into traffic or whatever.

            But getting back to the point, I don’t like kids and don’t want to share my house with them. That fact has ZERO to do with the quality or nature of my relationship or how I feel towards my boyfriend, once we leave behind your pedantic definitions and resume our place in the real world.


            You’ve been nothing but respectful this whole discussion, and I appreciate it. But it might benefit you to understand that while you may not have any animosity towards gay people, your mindset is one shared by a great many people who *do* have such animosity. And I’ve been dealing with people like that for a long time.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Sorry, I assumed that anybody who could write “I hate kids” simply doesn’t remember childhood very well.

            If you don’t have the patience to deal with children, you don’t have the patience to deal with adults either. I think your assumption of animosity (and thank you for that phrase, I’ve GOT to use it with a pro-life neocon sometime- I know many people in the pro-life movement who have an equal assumption of animosity towards their political foes) comes from not spending enough time with children to develop patience.

            I’ve found that whenever I assume bad behavior on somebody else’s part, it is usually in my imagination or due to a lack of understanding and knowledge.

            I have to wonder- how do you expect to handle even the subset of marriage that homosexuals *are* capable of, if you don’t have patience? Patience is, after all, one of the basic requirements of being able to live with other people.

          • Jeff

            Gah, I thought I had replied to this yesterday.

            Just because I lack the patience to deal with children does not mean I lack patience entirely. As for the rest, well, I’ll be honest: I’m getting bored with this conversation. I’ve got other things to do on my lunch break besides go back and forth about how there’s more to life than squirting out the next generation of humans. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, but it’s just not for everybody…. and nobody is flawed or inferior just because they can’t or won’t participate in that.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            A profound hatred of human nature in that statement- but thank you for it. It reveals much to me. You are right of course- Philia is often the better choice. But Philia requires that you NEVER use your friend for your own personal gain. And that is what homosexuality always devolves into- using the other person for your personal gain.

          • Jeff

            Best of luck to you in future endeavors.

          • Emalia

            “Statement of fact” = Statement of opinion based on worldview, probably catholic, so flawed from the beginning.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Worldview affects basic biology? That’s news to me.

          • Emalia

            Catholics gonna catholic, judging people by their deeds behind closed doors and their use of contraception as “lack of love” is very sad and very un-christian, but thanks to this guy we can see first hand why catholicism is shrinking by milions every month in europe and america.

            I’m really curious how catholics came to this love=fertile_sex idea after reading the bible and knowing jewish history, which says clearly that sex is most sacred RELIGIOUS ritual, not just a tool for procreation but also for keeping your and your mate’s spirits high, help each other with lust, etc. And dat condoms ban by church, but letting people have sexy times when they are in unfertile periods of month is kinda hypocrytical. But catholics, so I can understand.

          • Emalia

            That’s so wrong mate, marriage is not all about procreation, it’s about much more. Sex in marriage is actually helping to deny your love’s lust, even when you don’t have any left, to help your soul mate, not to just poke her with a dck and make a baby every time you feel horny. If you look at love only through sexual intercourse then I feel sorry for you mate, and your wife, because you don’t understand what love is and maybe that’s why you are so outspoken, trying to persuade yourself.

          • cpmmon sense

            What about heterosexuals that marry and cannot have children – where does Jesus say it is wrong to love someone of the same sex – we are all made by God and in his image – this also includes gay people – or did God get it wrong and make a mistake.

  • Anna M. J. Holloway

    I agree that the basic letter is filled with hypocrisy and religious bigotry. I do not agree that the way to show that is to move to another extreme. There are several comments below that point out that marriage is more than “penis in vagina”; at least one points out that marriage is not a religious institution but rather a societal one. Most of the others are angry responses to the bolded insertions rather than to the original letter or to the problems the letter (poorly) addresses. The insertions in bold become increasingly strident and uninformative; this is not an effective way of starting a dialog, but it’s a great way to start/promote/sustain a fight. Perhaps there are better ways to undercut the sincere (albeit ridiculous) concerns of the frightened signatories. I am now searching for the original, uncommented letter so that I can do something constructive with it.

  • Jeffrey Tuper

    All I have to say is John 13:34… Jesus is LOVE… and if two people love one another let me quote the bible again and to “Ginny” I say “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” I was told as a child that GOD doesn’t make mistakes. Also, we are ALL created in the image of GOD so if that’s the case… God must have a little gay inside too.

    But how about we go back a few decades when the bible was used to oppress women should we start using those passages again to bring that back to society? OR even bring back slavery because the bible was used to justify that too not too long in our past.

    I mean come on Ginny do you read the bible and take every word literally? Because if you do I hope you stay inside and keep yourself away from the public sector when you’re menstruating because as well all know the bible forbids you to be touched as you are unclean.

    Don’t even get me started on Bacon and Ham and shell fish and and and… Lets take the teaching of the bible and not use them to oppress people we don’t like but use it to lift everyone up and make the world a place of peace and happiness. I think Jesus would be rolling over in his… OH wait he got out of his grave to prove that his teachings are ever lasting so lets not use his words and the words of his father to promote an agenda that de-values any person. I am pretty sure if he were walking around in the flesh today he would be disgusted by the blatant misuse of his word and use of the bible as a tool of Oppression.

    • Jeffrey Tuper

      Sorry I should have posted this as a reply to Ginny specifically

    • Hanan

      >I mean come on Ginny do you read the bible and take every word literally?

      Then why take the teaching – found in the bible – that Jesus is LOVE, literally? Why are YOU picking and choosing?

  • Aaron

    Unhelpful….utterly unhelpful Mr. Schaeffer All this is going to do is polarize people and ensure that many will not return to read what you have to say. If that is your goal then I think you may have just become a demagogue.

    • kenofken

      He’s doing nothing more than holding a mirror up to reality.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        He’s a sinner himself, and he complains about other people’s sins in his eyes.

        • wuzzi

          I would hate to have people sin in my eyes – it sounds painful.

  • Jeff

    I think you accidentally addressed your reply to me. No worries, I’m still getting the hang of this posting system myself.

    After all, the whole point of my post was to remind Ginny (and by extension, everybody here who happens to read blog comments) that as a non-Christian, I am not obliged by any person or organization to be Christlike. So it makes no sense that you would make a point of saying I’m un-Christlike in my response, so to talk about what is or is not appropriate in a kingdom of which I am not a subject. Also, I never called anybody any names, and I made an effort to keep the vitriol to a minimum (although I’m hardly eloquent, so it’s entirely possible some of it got through).

    I’m not sure who you did intend to address your response to, but it obviously wasn’t me. And normally I’d just shrug it off, but I worry that your misaddressed response might perpetuate the thoroughly unrealistic stereotype of combative, angry atheists. So I apologize if I’m coming off as unduly harsh for one common, simple mistake, but since it was a mistake made in a public forum that could very well serve to perpetuate an ugly stereotype, I feel it is important to point out the error and explain why it *is* an error.

  • Hanan

    I don’t understand. Being against gay marriage (let alone within Christianity )means hating gays?

    Your response to the letter is just full of mockery toward Christianity, Christians and the bible. Not very Christian. Why are you even a Christian if you mock it like that?

    • Hanan

      After all, aren’t you just picking and choosing? You decide to find your values from secular progressive values, and simply add a pinch of”Jesus” where it suits you.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Frank Isn’t Christian- he’s POST-Christian. As in a modernist who denies the last 6000 years of human experience for the novel and new.

      • Hanan

        So Progressive Christianity simply means whatever one wants it to mean?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Yep. Or at least it has for the last 500 years, ever since Martin Luther and Jean Calvin came up with the idea that people should interpret the Bible for themselves rather than listening to tradition.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Wow what a hate filled screed

  • Martin Trench

    Well, I’m commenting on the comments, not the actual article, but, (and I say this in all seriousness), I think Ginny and Theodore should make appointments with a qualified doctor of psychiatry.

    Theodore – I loved my wife just as much before we had kids, as I do now that we have kids. And I would love her the same if we couldn’t or didn’t have kids. Procreation has nothing to do with love, and your obsession is, quite frankly, weird.

    Ginny – the Holy Spirit isn’t telling you to do anything, (other than “put you in remembrance of Jesus words” – which include such things as loving, forgiving, turning the other cheek and treating others like you would prefer to be treated yourself).

  • CLarosa

    LOL. I love it. Good job, Frank. One thing I quickly determined on my own, after coming out a year ago, is the hysteria of marriage equality is somehow going to “destroy” the sanctity of marriage. What a joke! Heterosexuals have been destroying and mocking the institution of marriage, through DIVORCE ALONE, for thousands of years! Newsflash: doesn’t take a genius to see how gays are being made the scapegoat for straights’ disastrous divorce rates. Get a real argument, folks.

  • Pingback: Google()