“Tolerance” and Chicken Sandwiches in Oceania

Not wanting the Mayor of Boston to be the only jackass attacking the president of Chick-Fil-A for doubleplus ungoodthink, Philadelphia is going to “condemn” a private citizen because of his opinions.

City Councilman Jim Kenney, who is totally not pandering to the gay vote and trying to score some easy ink, wrote Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy to say “As an American you are legally entitled to your opinion, regardless of how insensitive and intolerant it may be, but as a fellow American and an elected member of Philadelphia City Council; I am entitled to express my opinion as well. So please – take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection.”

Just soak in the preening moral vanity of that. Cathy voices an opinion shared by the vast majority of the population, including the president up until a few months ago, and all of a sudden he’s Bull Connor. Kenney will be introducing a resolution officially condemning Cathy for his statement of traditional values. (Not for any actual discrimination, mind you: just for his thoughts.)

Meanwhile, Chicago don Rahm Emanuel says “What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe.” Really Rahm? None of the people of Chicago agree with him? Amazing.

And so the city fathers of various places are making an effort to vilify and drive out a private business–one that generates jobs and revenue in a time of severe economic distress–because they don’t like the views of its president. Dan Cathy has committed a thoughtcrime, and so he must be punished. Not, mind you, by citizens opting to spend their money elsewhere in protest. I have no problem with that at all. It’s the right, and perhaps the duty, of individuals to vote with their dollars. No, this is people with real power over zoning and approvals and police forces saying that they are going to use the mechanisms of the state to block a citizen’s ability to do his business because they hold his views in contempt.

In order to advance the progressive cause for each new generation, the left needs a constant state of conflict, whether such conflicts exist or not. A generation arises and sees no great suffragette, civil rights, free speech issue to galvanize the masses for revolution, and so one is invented: gay marriage! It’s a civil right! (Never mind that there’s a distinction between a right and privilege, and the newly minted idea of same sex “marriage” is certainly not a universal right.)

Anyone opposed, for whatever reason, is a bigot and a hater. Do the opponents of gay marriage have good reasons based in logic, faith, or morals? Inconceivable! Once goodthink and bellyfeel have been achieved in Oceania, why bother considering things any more deeply, when we can just move on to the next designated Emmanuel Goldstein and begin the two minute hate?

Does the PC left even realize that Orwell was writing about them?

Just to be clear: I object to same-sex “marriage” because it attempts to make marriage something it’s never been before. It is reinventing the meaning of a foundational concept of civilization, and using the worst kind of demagoguery to accomplish this change in an alarmingly short period of history. It’s like trying to reinvent the meaning of “red” or “table.” It’s not actually possible, no matter how many sad stories people tell about hospital visitation.

And I can tell you that it’s not at all about hospital visitation, or legal parity, or any of those things, which can be achieved through many different means. We have same sex unions in New Jersey that have all the benefits of actual marriage. Every last one. Except, of course, for one: we don’t call it marriage. We call it a civil union.

So what happens? The gay lobby sues New Jersey to overturn the civil union laws, because nothing short of a union that is called “marriage” will ever be good enough. It is not about legal rights. It is about mainstreaming homosexuality and forcing people to acknowledge that the union of two people of the same gender is the exact same thing as the union of opposites.

Except it’s not, and wishing won’t make it so. See that word I used a little earlier? Union. Two people of the same gender may have a deep and abiding and lasting love for one another, but one thing they cannot have is a union. They lack the complementarity that is essential to forming the kind of complete union defined by the word marriage. Our bodies, including our gender, are not incidental to our beings, and they’re certainly not incidental to an idea so rudimentary as marriage. To believe otherwise is to fall back into the old heresy of Gnosticism.

Ever since the radically politicized revision of the 1973 DSM removed homosexuality as a disorder, there’s been a effort to recast it as a mere variant of a healthy sexuality. This is pure, concentrated nonsense, and any honest gay person will admit that their same-sex attraction has its foundation in extremely complex and mysterious psychological and developmental issues. Its relative rarity tells us that this is an anomaly, not a norm.

If you have an opposite opinion, fine. It’s a complex issue, and I understand being on the other side of it. There’s an emotional response that sees love and wants to acknowledge it as fully as possibly. This response elevates fairness above all other considerations. In weighing the complex factors that go into forming an opinion, there will always be those who emphasize one element (empathy, equality, truth, reason, etc) over another. For supporters of gay marriage who refuse to see any distinction between straight sex and gay sex (because, in the end, sex or sexual attraction is the central defining element of marriage) it simply comes down to a matter of fairness, and all other considerations fall by the wayside.

See that? I didn’t call people on the opposite side names or try to get their business shut down or work to get them fired. I disagreed, and my disagreement is based on ideas and principles, not on blind hatred. I know that merely voicing such an opinion could cost me work down the line, and if you consider yourself a liberal that idea should leave you deeply ashamed of your political fellow-travelers. A principled liberal would never seek to punish someone for their opinions, but, again and again we see the left rising up to persecute people who deviate from the Received Wisdom on this issue. They have achieved a level of wild-eyed zealotry that is frightening in its intensity, and the response to Dan Cathy marks a turning point in this war.

There is a scorched-earth policy that has manipulated language to make this a civil rights issue the equal of racial segregation and discrimination. It’s not. This is not an attempt to extend existing rights to all people regardless of their race. This is an attempt to change an established privilege of society into something it’s never been. It’s certainly possible to make the case that this change is desirable and necessary, but it’s done through a civil debate of ideas in an open society. It’s not done by declaring the issue settled and initiating a policy of intimidation and contempt for those who continue to hold beliefs that were overwhelmingly common just a decade ago, and, indeed, throughout the entire course of human history. But if the history of progressivism tells us anything, it tells us that progressives are not a patient people. They want their change and they want it now, and if that requires the precautionary beheading of dissenters, well, such is the price of revolution.

This really wasn’t a fight I wanted. With abortion and euthanasia and war and poverty and economic ruin ripping apart humanity, it’s absurd to spend energy on this non-issue, which caters only to the vanity of a vanishingly slim percentage of the population. People are so tired of the subject they’re giving in with the faint hope that maybe then everyone will shut up about it.

I have several gay family members, and we managed to grow up and love another without incessantly about their homosexuality. That’s no longer allowed: now we’d have to pick over every detail and celebrate the wonderfulness of their sexuality with rainbow stickers and catchy slogans. One of the formative figures in my life was my mother’s cousin. I loved him dearly, and dedicated my second book to him. I wouldn’t be who I was without his efforts. Both he and his companion were a regular fixture in our (extremely conservative Catholic) home. His sexuality was never an issue. It was simply part of who he was. It would have been very low on his list of things that defined him, below high-school principal, author, expert on Jane Austen, and translator.

What the Forces of Tolerance forget is that almost every family can tell a similar story. We somehow got through our lives living with and loving gay people without endlessly talking about the rather boring and personal subject of their sexuality.

I’ve always been more or less libertarian on this issue. I don’t oppose civil unions, and I think any contract or agreement or arrangement two people wish to form is their own business. If that’s all it was, then more power to them.

But that’s not all it is. This was always a culture war. This was always a means to punish those those with traditional beliefs and get mainstream acceptance of homosexuality: to place it on utterly equal footing with conventional relationships. And once “marriage” is achieved, lawsuits against those who refuse to go along with the charade will follow. That was always the endgame: not happy middle class suburban gay couples living in bliss with their 1.5 adopted children, but punishment for those who objected. Is it any coincidence that the rise in prominence of this issue paralleled the rise of aggressive evangelical atheism? They go hand-in-glove as attempts to knock down the last bastions of principled conscience in the public square.

I haven’t written at length about this issue, because I detest the noise surrounding it, which drowns out any reasoned discourse and leads to debate-ending attempts to characterize opponents as haters and bigots.  It seems like a fabricated controversy, generated by the elite to manipulate public opinion for their own ends. Writing about it just seems to feed it.

But then I see images like this, and marvel at the overweening self-regard of the person who would post it:

Created by a Christian whose Bible doesn’t include Luke 18:11





Every one of those words applies to the person who circulates this image. It is the dominant tone of the debate, which is not debate at all, but an attempt to characterize the opposition as merely contemptible and thus end the debate. The Dan Cathy affair is a terrifying escalation of this rhetoric. We’re moving into new territory here, with political leaders using the powers of their positions to hound people who hold different beliefs. We’ve finally crossed into an area where people like myself, who were largely willing to sit on the sidelines, are going to push back. When a person can’t even express the most mild support for traditional marriage without winding up on the big screen for his two minute hate, then we’re in a dangerous place.

UPDATE: Sorry about the extreme length of this one. Elizabeth addresses things better and more briefly here. Don’t miss the video at the end.

About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • victor

    Well said. I should also state that I am dismayed by the rampant pollophobia on display in this country over the last week.

  • elGaucho

    It is dismaying to hear the government take up a de facto cause almost out of nowhere, without even the consent of the voters, and start making rulings on it. So Chicago, embroiled in violence, unreported violent flash mobs, riddled with debt, and large corruption cases being exposed over the school milk scandal and suddenly, Chick fil A is targeted by the mayor for not matching Chicago’s “values”.

  • http://www.orthorev.net Paul Vendredi

    Many thanks for this calm analysis of the Left’s latest attempt to squelch free thought. Do the sanctimonious lads and lasses on the other side not realize that they have slipped into self-stultification? Their battle cry seems to be, “We will not tolerate your intolerance!”

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    I too, like you, am really fine w/ people doing whatever they want to do, or creating a civil partnership. I have a problem with the oppressiveness though, like you. And I’m glad you brought up the “I’m sorry” poster. I’ve been meaning to write about that for a while. It’s so cowardly. It reminds me of stories we’ve read about capos in concentration camps, snitching on their fellow prisoners, or beating them, in hopes that they will be regarded “one of the good ones” and thus spared. They won’t be, though.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Oh, that poster is being passed around progressive Christian blogs and Facebook pages like a crackhouse pipe, and it’s so smug. Since the minute I saw it, the first thought in my mind was, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people, or even like this tax collector.”

  • Gavin

    For the most part, this article is reasonable, well-written, and certainly hits at the uncomfortableness I feel as someone on the left who, while extremely in favor of same-sex marriage, is very worried about being just as intolerant as our opponents. But then you included these two sentences: “Ever since the radically politicized revision of the 1973 DSM removed homosexuality as a disorder, there’s been a effort to recast it as a mere variant of a healthy sexuality. This is pure, concentrated nonsense, and any honest gay person will admit that their same-sex attraction has its foundation in extremely complex and mysterious psychological and developmental issues.”

    My God (or, rather, not my God, because I’m quite agnostic). Can you really believe that? I’m attempting to be as open-minded as possible, but those two sentences ruined your argument for at least this liberal.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I’m not quite sure what you’re objecting to. Clearly heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is a variance from that norm. If indeed homosexuality is not a “choice” but an integral element of the psyche, then it must have a cause. Either that cause is nature (the idea of being “born gay”) or nurture (the idea that homosexuality develops out of childhood experience), or perhaps a bit of both. Are you denying that there’s a cause, or denying that heterosexuality is the ideal?

    In any case, I don’t see how that ruins the rest of the argument.

  • Brendan McConville

    Goodness! What a tirade! I take it you are not homosexual? :-) What I found familiar was your discussion of growing up with several gay members in your family. You say you grew up loving each other without incessantly talking about their homosexuality. In remembering my situation, I suspect you managed to not incessantly talk about it because no one ever felt comfortable broaching the topic. If your gay realatives were like me, it was better not to bring it up because it made the ones I loved feel so uncomfortable. Have you ever asked your mother’s cousin if he would have wanted to marry his…what did you call him? His “companion”? I bet your uncle would have much preferred to be able to call the man he loved his husband.
    I hated the idea that I was gay. I used to say I had blisters from saying perpetual rosaries, begging God to not make it so. But it was so. And I finally realized that the only choice I would ever have to make was to be honest about who I was. Trust me, I NEVER chose to be gay.
    Marriage, as an institution, is not all that it is cracked up to be. When the generally accepted statistics seem to indicate that 50% will end in failure, you’d wonder why gays would want to be part of an institution that even half the straight people can’t make work. But as an American who happens to be gay, here is what gives me pause. You, as a heterosexual American are entitled to marry. I, as a gay American, am not. For me, this is not about religion, (I rely on the concept that this nation is built on a separation of church and state, thereby ensuring that all participants have the freedom to worship, or not, as they see fit), but about some Americans being entitled to something that is denied to others. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with that. I don’t expect you to understand why I want to marry another man, but I certainly do have a problem with you obstructing my right to do so. It really is as simple as that.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    So then you skipped the entire middle of my “tirade,” I guess? Because a religious argument never even entered the picture. You can’t marry because marriage is a union of opposites, not of sames. You can do other things, but it’s not marriage. No one is “obstructing” your right to marry because it’s a non-existent right never even contemplated until recently.

    And now that it’s in the air, we’re supposed to go from “huh?” to full acceptance and compliance in a few years, or risk the contempt and vilification of the cultural and political elite? Sorry, no: you don’t get to make up a whole new thing and ram it through on the basis of hysteria, demagoguery, and lawsuits without society as a whole taking a good long time to consider the benefits and ramifications. This isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s not about righting a wrong and allowing black people to ride the bus or vote without obstructions. It’s the redefinition of an entire legal, social, and moral aspect of human civilization. You don’t get to write a lot of letters to the editor, air a few Very Special Episodes of Glee, and then go straight to altering the fundamental building block of society.

    And, oh yes, we totally “avoided” the subject of my gay family members by … having gay couples stay in our home and share our holidays. And I’d love to ask my cousin or his companion (still puzzling over the weird scare quotes for that one), but they’re both dead.

  • http://www.orthorev.net Paul Vendredi

    Sorry, Brendan, but when you write that you have a “right” to marry another gay, you are assuming facts not in evidence. Since when is it a right for people of the same sex to “marry”? Much like the Democrat party of Chicago, I believe in extending the franchise to the dead—and thousands of generations of people now dead forbad any kind of marriage other than a heterosexual one. Do you really think that all of those generations of human beings were simply moronic or bigoted? Or did they forbid same-sex marriage because they were wise enough to know that this kind of behavior spells societal reprobation and sudden, irreversible demise of the culture? I’d wager that it’s the latter.

    But if you have a “right” to marry your partner, then whose obligation is it to supply you with the means to exercise that right? Do I, a photographer, have to consent to photograph your sham wedding? If I refuse, will I be slapped with a crippling fine as the state of New Mexico did to Elaine Hugenin when she declined to photograph a lesbian ceremony? If the Eastern Orthodox Church, to which I belong, declines to perform a same-sex wedding because it decries sodomy as a sin, can I expect to see the government shutter my parish?

    If you want the benefits of marriage, Brendan, then find and marry someone of the opposite sex. I, as an unmarried person, cannot complain about not being given the same tax advantages as married people. But if I really, really wanted those tax breaks bad enough, I could always find someone of the opposite sex to marry.

  • Susan

    Very well said. Let the people boycott or patronize legal, legitimate businesses as they wish. When the government steps in to ban businesses that don’t toe the PC line (a la Mayors Mennino and Emmanuel), then we’re talking fascism. Those of us on the sidelines, who haven’t wanted to jump into this fray, who know and love people who happen to be homosexual, must speak out against these aggressive progressives/fascists/whatever you want to call them. There’s a dark, ugly cloud hanging over this country, and it only seems to get worse every day.

  • Hallie

    This article is fabulously written and I enjoyed it greatly. Although some would disagree, I am a liberal and am fed up with this whole gay marriage uproar. Everything that has to do with gay marriage is simply annoying and I wonder if anyone actually knows the definition of “tolerance”. Really, Mr. Cathy may say what he wants because I mean, Freedom of Speech, right? I don’t care, my beef (haha) is more that he donated money to a group that spends their time hating gay people. And while he’s donating and they’re hating, little kids are asking for donations to further cancer research because, even though they’ll still die of cancer maybe the next diagnosed kid won’t.

    Anyway, as for marriage, some seem to forget that gay marriage was legal up until mid-1500s. Marriage was created to protect the husband’s land and to ensure the man was raising his own children. Religion entered later as a scare tactic and then love entered in much later down the line. Now, the gay marriage debate is not “sudden” as you put it, but rather, 20? years old. And marriage has changed rapidly since the 1920′s, when women were allowed to vote.

    Now, as for the complete destruction of the human race due to gay marriage: don’t give yourself so much credit for being straight. If anything, gay people will save us from the overpopulation mess and all the orphan kids who need homes and parents, wether or not they’re straight.

  • Dennis Mahon
  • Gavin

    What I’m objecting to is the idea that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, which seems pretty clearly implied by the “has its foundation in extremely complex and mysterious psychological and developmental issues.”

    It doesn’t ruin the rest of the argument in terms of the argument itself, but it makes you look bigoted for no reason. The rest of the article you’re doing a pretty good job of walking that fine line and then that sentence just pushes you off a cliff. It hurts the argument by hurting your credibility, and the article would be just as strong without it. That’s what I’m trying to say.

  • JoFro

    some seem to forget that gay marriage was legal up until mid-1500s – huh?

    I love my history but I don’t seem to have read of gay marriage being legal up until the 1500s! Could you please elaborate?

    And please dont send me a link to that idiotic article that says Christians were blessing same-sex marriages in a ceremony where two men or two women were blessed to become brothers (for the men) and sisters (for the women)…

  • Gavin

    Also, does this mean that every person who is a minority is a “variance from a norm?” Does that make women a variance from the norm of men? Does it make a certain skin color “the norm” and all others “variances from that norm?” Am I a “variance from the norm” because I have blue eyes? Don’t you see how weird that starts to sound?

  • Gavin

    Should have said men a variance from the norm of women. Looks like there are more women than men in the world.

  • Gavin

    Or not. Is there a way to delete these extraneous posts? I don’t want to clog this up by not being sure if there are more men or women.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    “Inferior” is a loaded word, and it’s imprecise for something this complex, so I wouldn’t use it. But let’s break this down. (And forgive me if this sounds like a lecture. It’s a habit from teaching.)

    The four kinds of love are eros, agape, philia, and storge. What we’re talking about is eros (passion, longing, sensual love). In a homosexual relationship, the object of the eros is a person of the same gender. The quality of that eros is not inferior. The love is no less deep or strong or lasting when compared to the love of heterosexuals, and in many cases it may be superior. The bond is genuine, and, at least in Catholic teaching, not considered a sin. Homosexuality in and of itself is not condemned by the Church: only individual disordered sex acts. This is based on the idea that our bodies have a purpose and same-sex sex, like contracepted sex or premarital sex or lust, distorts that purpose. It’s important to keep this in mind, since the current intensity of the debates gives the idea that Catholics condemn homosexuals simply for being gay or finds them uniquely sinful, which is not at all the case. It’s no worse than heterosexual adultery.

    So the quality of same-sex love is not inferior. However, the other aspect of eros is sex itself. Even if you remove the philosophical element and look at sex from a purely biological perspective, it has one clear purpose across all of nature: procreation. The pleasure is a nice fringe benefit, and helps in bonding the couple. (Bl. John Paul II saw sexual pleasure as a gift from God as a foretaste of heaven.) Since homosexual acts cannot participate in that aspect of sexuality (and, indeed, same-sex “intercourse” isn’t actually possible given the lack of complementarity), those are, indeed, “inferior.”

    My point (overlong, as always) is this: if we look at eros in two parts (emotional and biological), clearly heterosexuality fulfills both parts of the demands of human sexuality, while homosexuality fulfills only one. Quite obviously, biologically, it is not as either nature (for the non-religious) or God (for the religious) intended.

    Since I often get people toddling along and only reading the last lines of what I write, I’m going to repeat this: I attach no value judgement whatsoever to the quality of same-sex LOVE, which indeed can have all the qualities of heterosexual love. However, the lack of a procreative element in same-sex SEX makes that aspect of homosexuality a lesser thing.

    I think that also should answer your other questions: race, eye color, left-handedness, etc are incidentals. Sex is integral to our being. It’s incredibly complex. Not many people have desires, fantasies, urges, etc about blue eyes, but sex has always been a very primal force that drives man, because it’s intricately tied up in life itself. That openness to life is key in the Catholic understanding of sex.

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Catholic Church | Big Pulpit()

  • Pingback: Amber the Quisling Chikin Says…()

  • Angel

    Right, it’s cowardice and some are just false brethren–no real loyalty. Tolerance, particularly religious, is a Christian legacy, so it always strikes me as weird when people in media with an obvious bias talk as though “intolerance” is uniquely characteristic of Christianity or Christians. I also don’t like it when they speak as though all gays are aggressive activists and like Christians are the only ones who oppose endorsing homosexuality as a societal norm and virtue with out tax dollars; lots of honest, thinking people who are capable of controlling their emotions for a few minutes to look at bare facts do not agree with this whole push.

  • Angel

    The argument is the argument; those two sentences are notwithstanding. It’s a large media and political campaign using proven marketing tactics; anyone who has studied communications and worked in marketing can recognize that, it’s just a matter of whether they will be honest about calling it what it is. I personally don’t need someone else to make or break an argument for me, I feel that it is the proper function of someone who considers herself or himself an adult to deploy evaluation of that which self-evident without the distraction of all the emotional manipulation. As far as the DSM thing, what I’ve tried to do is concentrate on the logic that placed homosexuality in the book in the first place and the political impetus or other impetus for taking it out; I try to be concerned with the basis for what people say, not with whether or not it makes me feel right or whether what is being said seems in step with what a popular majority or persuasive minority would rather have them say or would mock them for saying.

  • Angel

    I don’t know if I would go so far as to represent what this man’s personal family dynamics are or to “bet” what the real case is; he has more authority to speak on that than me. But I can say that marriage didn’t do anything to anybody. The reasons marriage among heterosexuals don’t work as well as they should (and once did and in many other places outside of America do) is because all humans have an inherent selfishness that is very powerful and often underestimated, and I’ve also seen a few articles talking about the unrealistic expectations as a huge factor; that is, many selfish and immature people are just not doing their homework. I’ve seen people who got married without even having a substantial enough conversation to make sure the other person wanted children or wanted to live on a certain coast, only after the fact–pretty stupid. Lots of people marry out of lust and it clouds their judgment, but I don’t think that always means they’re marrying the “wrong person”. The failings of some should not be taken as an example of a normative (we haven’t talked about how many of these same couples reconcile for example).

    As far the the marriage right thing, sorry, marriage is a privilege with the added benefit of tax-payer-funded perks because of the good that, when done right, it brings to society–mainly civilized males and contributory children. Marriage pre-dates law as we know it today and the institution of government; also, if you know any legal history, there is a concept called “natural law”. What happened in history was, heterosexual people who are fitted by nature to survive and thrive with complementary sexual organs and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics were entering into a covenant to become one and reproduce, when government was invented, the government said, “Oh! You all are producing children and they seem to have an inward, law-beneficial compass that keeps society orderly and efficient. In addition to that, males are not on the street womanizing and committing all manner of criminal mischief. In addition to that, many of your children are inventors revolutionizing our quality of life here in this country for the better and enhancing our status as a world economic superpower. In addition to that, the wives of these marriages convince their husbands to purchase appliances invented by others like washing machines, sowing machines, etc that most males would naturally be continent to do without and spend that money on booze and maybe drugs. When the government saw all of those natural outcomes of a natural marriage THEN they said–”Oh! Here’s a tax credit, here’s this benefit, here’s that benefit.” So you see, it was all the product of what the government DECIDED THEY WERE ENTITLED TO, not something they coveted or assumed they were entitled to and forcefully campaigned to make so. Marriage is most accurately described as a privilege with entitlements attached; something that people just do and have been doing since the beginning of human history, and that is a privilege based upon service and not feelings or a deep conviction that “Dammit, I’m entitled to be recognized!”

    My heart aches for my friend Pierre, he grew up being told he would never be anything and being called “idiot”; listen, I did not grow up with that kind of talk toward me, (that I can remember) just a very neglectful mother who apparently was more interested in becoming a “star” than taking care of her daughter, but it hurts thinking about what he told me. I cannot imagine what it is like for a little boy to experience that–especially from his father. The fact is, I’ve known several gay guys down through the years and there is a common thread of horrible pain that reaches to the core of them, and that pain has a lot to do with simple approval. I never understood until recently how deathly important it is for a father be secure in his masculinity and not have some dumb definition of manhood that requires beer pounding, loogies, farting, violence to win social points with other males who don’t much more of a clue than he does and who will not carry his legacy. It is only out of the security of a true definition of manhood that has more to do with how God actually made him than superficials that a father can properly impart to his son instead saying terrible things to him or just ignoring him because he doesn’t measure up or is ashamed of him–HORRIBLE, DEEP PAIN that follows a man into his adult life (same for females but I personally think it’s harder for males because society expects them to keep quiet).

    Anyway, I don’t want to go on and on; just know that there is a great big likelihood that all of this political fervor is just, at its core, a son shouting at his father (and God ultimately) with bloodshot face, tight neck and tears, “Accept me! Tell me I’m good too! I deserve the approval and love!”

    Take Care

  • Angel

    Yeah. I mean, I know and have known several homosexual people (mostly males) and none of them are aggressively activist and have all of this threatening power; most of them are wondering if there really is a way out of the lifestyle at the moment, because a few of them have been in abusive relationships that take on a whole other level of intensity compared to male-female relationships, and some of them are just miserable because they never can be fully satisfied deep inside one guy told me.

    My situation is: I’ve known and know mostly gay guys, as I said, but also I will mostly like have to work alongside them since I’m moving in less than two months back home to California and I am a designer and I paint. I’ve had to communicate to them as diplomatically and lovingly as possible, that I do not support homosexuality as a normative lifestyle that should be blessed by society in a way that makes it seem like it is no different from heterosexuality, and downplays or completely ignores the individual and public health issues that go along with it; having a friend die from AIDS and seeing one of your female supervisors who got very badly beaten by her girlfriend tends to have that affect on you. It really irks me when these political talking heads don’t make any distinction between homosexuality and a person who happens to be in that lifestyle.

    But all emotion and, “I have a friend” or “I have a brother [cousin or relative]” stories aside, we have to make calls in the interest of society as a whole that are tough but in no way as confusing and complicated as some would make it (I’ve noticed that they seem to be backing off of stressing that it’s biologically-determined, which of course was always a weak argument in my mind because even if homosexuality were biologically or generically dictated, acting on attraction and feelings is not). So, that’s my situation. I can only hope that whenever someone wants to engage me on the topic (I generally only speak when spoken to) I can give them a clear presentation of my thoughts about it all and that they won’t, as some have, yell at me or dismiss me before I can even finish my first sentence, “Hater! Hateful! Bigot! Ignorant! Intolerant!”; good grief.

  • Angel

    I think private businesses have a right to send their money to support what they want that is beneficial and needed; I don’t see myself, just because I may have patronized them at one point or another as in a position to tell them what they should be doing to make better use of their funds.

    What evidence do you have that the money they are donating is being used to “hate” gay people–enough of the reckless use of the strong and alienating language, please. What evidence do you have that there is actual hate going on in any of these groups?

    If you are saying that teaching the virtues and values of natural heterosexual marriage is hate then there is something else going on here than being open-minded, and, really, just minded one’s own business when it comes to how parents choose to raise their children besides actual abuse.

  • Andy

    I don’t think you did chose to have the feelings or attractions you developed; I think you did or do choose to fulfill them though.