From the archives: The Gay-Hatin' Gospel

By Fred Clark, July 9, 2011 11:05 am

(I’m collecting and recollecting some older posts in the hopes of possibly bundling some of them into something book-like. So since I spent a chunk of yesterday revisiting the posts below, I figured I’d re-post them here in slightly repolished form.)

A 2007 poll conducted by the Barna Group revealed some remarkable developments in the public perception of American evangelical Christians:

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

The respondents identify the key matter here: an antipathy that goes “beyond” any traditional opposition to extramarital sex, an unprecedented and inordinate “excessive contempt … toward gays and lesbians.” And this contempt is perceived as central to the meaning and substance of Christianity — the “most common perception” of the faith for Christians and non-Christians alike.

This is a change, a new thing, a recent and radical alteration. It is an astonishing and deeply weird development.

The great creeds of the church make no mention of homosexuality — let alone singling it out for particular and pre-eminent condemnation or suggesting that such condemnation plays a central role in the faith. Yet now the majority of Christians and non-Christians alike view this as the primary defining characteristic of Christian faith, practice and spirituality.

The Bible gives us the word “shibboleth,”* but the Bible is more than a book of shibboleths. And the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of the kingdom of God, was never supposed to be about just listing a bunch of shibboleths that distinguished Us from Them.

So how did this happen? How did gay-hatin’ come to be the “most-common perception” of Christianity?

Theory No. 1: The Safe Target

“No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all,” Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

If you’re a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that’s problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect.

But lately, many American evangelical preachers seem to think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect “sin”** — the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And, statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say “Amen” without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It’s all win.

No other sin provides this kind of free shot. Point an accusing finger at gluttony, pride or envy and the proverbial four fingers pointing back at yourself underscore Paul’s point about temptation being “common to us all.” That’s way too Pogo for comfort — too “we have met the enemy and he is us.” But here, instead, is the allure of an “enemy” who is not us. This is a unique opportunity, and kind of a rush. It’s the chance to rail against sinners who seem completely other — people whose sin doesn’t tempt us in the least.

And since these others are clearly in the minority, we don’t even have to worry much about a serious impact on the offering plate. Contrast that with gluttony, pride and envy — the foundations on which some of the church’s biggest donors have built their fortunes.

I don’t think this safe-target dynamic fully explains the motive or the cause of American evangelicalism’s anti-gay obsession, but I do believe it accounts for part of its appeal.

That appeal is all the more appealing in the American church, where we’re deeply anxious about the fact that we don’t seem significantly different from everybody else in our culture. Since we expend our lives chasing after the exact same things as everyone else, and since we can’t say with any confidence that “They’ll know we are Christians by our love,” we have to latch onto whatever insignificant signifiers we can. We don’t drink (in public), and we don’t dance (well).

Still not convinced we’re the elect, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people? Well then, um, we’re heterosexual.

Dazzled yet? Just look at us – we’re a community of teetotalling, non-dancing straight people. Who could resist joining us?

As that Barna survey demonstrated, the increasing popularity of railing against the supposed safe target of homosexuality has come at a cost. Evangelical Christians have become famous, or rather infamous, for being anti-gay. It is the “most-common perception” of who we are. The public face of Christianity is not the face of Christ, or even of Billy Graham or Martin Luther King Jr. or Dorothy Day. The public face of Christianity has become that of Fred Phelps and of his slightly more tactful, smiling surrogates like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins.

That is the “most-common perception” of American Christianity, both inside and outside the church.

But there’s another theologically perilous cost to this safe-target preaching. The idea that there are “super-sins” worthy of particular opprobrium and the idea that there are “others” subject to temptations not “common to us all” are spiritually dangerous notions. I don’t have the time or the wisdom to unpack all the ways that these ideas have altered our preaching and teaching, but consider just one example: Fidelity is the virtue at the core of nearly all Christian sexual ethics. Yet our safe-target condemnation of homosexuals treats fidelity and infidelity as indistinguishable. That suggests to me that something has come off the rails.

The passage quoted at the beginning of this post is the central insight of G.K. Chesterton’s delightful Father Brown stories. Chesterton’s parish-priest sleuth is able to solve those mysteries not because of his keen powers of observation or because he is a Holmesian deductive genius, but rather because he is an expert on human nature, having studied the subject for decades by hearing confessions. The wisdom of Father Brown is that we’re all pretty much alike, that there is no temptation that is not “common to us all.” This was true for the Corinthians, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the first-century church, and it is true for the Americans, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the 21st-century church.

Chesterton, like Paul, was never so foolish as to think that he could exempt himself when he preached against sin and temptation. Seeking such an exemption by taking aim at safe targets leads to self-delusion, smugness and complacency, and it goes against everything the Bible (and experience) teaches us about human nature.

That point is worth repeating: The anti-gay preaching that has become the pre-eminent characteristic of American Christianity contradicts what the Bible says about human nature. It is unbiblical.

Anyway, so much for Theory No. 1. (As you’ve probably already guessed, I’m following the hackneyed convention here of dismissing the unsatisfactory theories first, gradually working toward what I think the actual explanation is.)

Theory No. 2: Inner Demons

This theory has the virtue of being true. Or, at least, of being true in some cases — some very notable, high-profile cases.

The idea here is that many of the loudest, angriest and most single-minded preachers of the anti-gay gospel doth protest too much. They are self-loathing closet cases, denouncing homosexuality because they are homosexuals and they hate this about themselves. From Roy Cohn to Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, there are dozens of verifiable examples of this dynamic — and many, many more suspected but unconfirmed cases. Ted Haggard, the former pastor of a Colorado mega-church and former head of the National Association of Evangelicals was forced to leave both of those positions after the public learned of his longtime relationship with a gay prostitute. Haggard’s description of that secret side of his life succinctly summarizes the inner-demons theory: “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life.”

So, clearly, this is a real phenomenon. We’ve seen so many examples of this in recent years, so many self-loathing closet-cases exposed as members of the anti-gay leadership, that it reminds me of that scene in Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, when the protagonist succeeds in infiltrating the secret society of anarchists only to look around the table and realize that every single member of its leadership is, like him, an undercover police officer.

Yet despite the startlingly large number of cases, it’s surely not quite as pervasive as Thursday’s dilemma. It can’t be true that every officer in the anti-gay army is secretly a member of the group it seeks to oppose. The religious right/social conservative movement certainly seems to include a larger-than-average number of closeted homosexuals in its leadership, but even if the movement is gayer than Disney World, we’re still only talking about a minority of its leaders and followers (a significant minority, but still less than half).

A significant number of leading social conservatives also seem to be warring against inner demons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. These folks are tormented by an impressive variety of freaky heterosexual appetites. Consider Louisiana Sen. David Vitter’s alleged diaper-play with prostitutes. Or the deeply sad case of the former aide to Jerry Falwell who was found dead due to a baroque autoerotic asphyxia mishap involving, according to an autopsy report posted on thesmokinggun.com, “two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask.”***

The interesting thing about these folks is that instead of lashing out at those who share their particular appetites, like Ted Haggard did, they turn their animosity toward homosexuals too. I can’t begin to explain the psychology at work in this bit of substitution, but in their case it seems something like a mix of the inner demon theory and the safe target theory is at work.

The repressed and tortured psyches of Ted Haggard and David Vitter also don’t explain why so many have been willing to follow these leaders in their “warring against” their inner demons. Their followers can’t all be self-loathing closet cases. Nor does this theory explain why others with apparently milquetoast, plain-vanilla sexual appetites — people like Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell — should be even more vociferous in their condemnations of the Big Gay Menace. For them it seems less a matter of self-loathing and projection than simply your garden-variety hatin’ on the outsider.

So while I’m certain that the inner demons theory is valid in many particular cases, I think it’s more of a contributing factor than a sufficient explanation of the entire phenomenon of gay-hatin’s newfound prominence as the central perception of American Christianity.

So let’s turn next to consider the theory favored by the gay-haters themselves.

Theory No. 3: The Innocent Backlash

This theory requires our serious attention because it is so widely held — or, at least, widely claimed.

Before taking a closer look at this explanation, we need to underscore the particular claims made by the respondents to the Barna survey quoted above. American Christianity has come to be perceived, first and foremost, as “anti-homosexual.” This is not simply due to a moral/ethical teaching that precludes any sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual matrimony – Barna’s respondents explicitly stated that the anti-homosexuality that characterizes American Christianity goes “beyond” that, into the realm of “excessive contempt.” The meaning of the word “excessive” here is clear: the contempt for homosexuals that characterizes American Christianity exceeds mere ethical/theological objection; it is inappropriately severe; it is disproportionate, inordinate, intemperate.

Proponents of the innocent backlash theory thus have to begin by arguing that this perception is inaccurate — that nine out of 10 young non-Christians and four out of five young churchgoers have somehow gotten the wrong idea. The contempt American Christianity displays toward homosexuals, these proponents say, is just the right amount.

Christians, this theory holds, do not regard homosexuals as particularly or especially deserving of condemnation, it’s just that homosexual activists have become so vocal in promoting their radical homosexual agenda that — purely in response — Christians have been forced to become equally vocal in reply. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction – that’s elementary physics. Christians have simply been reacting to the radical homosexual agenda, and this reaction has been equal and opposite (and therefore not at all “excessive,” despite the mistaken impression of 80 percent of young churchgoers).

This explanation for the (mis)perception that American Christianity is inappropriately anti-homosexual is thus something that any grade-school child can understand: They started it.

“They” (gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons) started this disagreement and we American Christians are merely reacting, responding, replying — that is the essence of this theory. This explanation is almost universally cited among anti-homosexual leaders of the religious right, but it is also widely cited by go-slow “liberals” who urge homosexuals seeking equal rights to marry or to serve openly in the military not to push too hard for these goals. Push too hard, they say, insist too strenuously that you be treated equally, and you invite just the sort of backlash that Barna records here.

This sounds a great deal like a warning to homosexuals to “remember your place” — a warning that echoes similar counsels of caution against an earlier struggle for equal rights. The best response to such warnings is that of Martin Luther King Jr. in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was “well timed,” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the [word] “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

But the more pertinent argument in King’s letter is his correction of the confusion of cause and effect at the heart of every innocent backlash theory:

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects, and does not grapple with underlying causes.

“They started it,” is a claim of fact. The legitimacy and validity of the innocent backlash theory rests on whether that claim is true or false.

And that claim is false.

“Radical homosexual activists” pushing their “radical agenda” are no more the cause of the current disagreement than the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was the cause of the conflict in Birmingham.

The innocent backlash theory says that “excessive contempt” for homosexuals is a consequence — a predictable, reasonable, defensible consequence — of homosexuals refusing to remember their place. Or, in other words, refusing to accept their place as less than equal. The backlash is thus, inescapably, a defense of inequality. Even if these “radical homosexual activists” lived up to the rudest and most aggressively impolitic caricature drawn by their critics this would still be the case.

Proponents of innocent backlash theory recognize this, and they realize that a defense of inequality is indefensible. Thus they have gone to great lengths to try to reframe the matter not as one of equal rights, but as one of “special rights.” It’s hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, this is supposed to mean. This is semantic sleight of hand, just like the larger attempt here to downgrade “reactionary” to merely “reactive.” Apparently second-class citizens who demand to be treated equally are asking for something “special.”

The effort to relabel equal rights as “special rights” strikes me as an unironic affirmation of Anatole France’s ironic description of “The majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges or to beg in the streets.”

Ultimately, the innocent backlash theory is incapable of answering our question because it refuses to do so. That question, again, is how did it come to be the case that an “excessive contempt” for homosexuals is the “most common perception” of American Christianity? The innocent backlash theory rejects this question, insisting that this contempt is not excessive, and that this common perception is simply mistaken. The fact that this perception is shared by 80 percent of young churchgoers — people whose understanding of American Christianity comes from direct experience and from what they have been explicitly taught to believe in American churches — apparently only means that four out of five young churchgoers are too stupid to understand what they have been shown and taught.

I find that implausible. The question is legitimate. The refusal to answer it is not.

Rereading the above, I’m not sure I’ve been as charitable as I’d like to have been in evaluating this theory. I have a hard time being charitable toward those who would argue that any degree of contempt can be less than “excessive,” or that blaming the victim is acceptable so long as you do it in God’s name.

Theory No. 4: The Exegetical Panic Defense

In American popular culture, the most accurate and affectionate portrayal of an evangelical Christian is Ned Flanders, Homer’s good-natured neighbor on The Simpsons. Ned is overly earnest and myopically naive, but overall he is, like the majority of our evangelical Christian neighbors and relatives, a Very Nice Person. Barna’s survey results above thus present us with an odd conundrum: What is it about homosexuals in particular that turns these otherwise Very Nice People into viciously negative people distinguished above all by “excessive contempt”?

Part of the answer, I think, has little to do with homosexuals or homosexuality per se. It has to do, rather, with epistemology — with the need for certainty and the panicked hostility that surfaces when that certainty is threatened.

“We see through a glass, darkly,” St. Paul said, warning against the temptation to chase the will-o’-the-wisp of certainty. But American evangelicalism is largely based on the idea that certainty is not only possible, but necessary. Mandatory, even. This certainty can be achieved thanks to the one-legged stool of the Evangelical Unilateral.

That’s a made-up term, but it describes something real. It’s a play on the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” — an approach to theological thinking that relies on the four foundations of scripture, tradition/community, reason and experience.

The evangelical approach to theological thinking is exactly like this Wesleyan method, except it doesn’t include tradition or community. Or reason. Or experience. All of those things are viewed, instead, as potentially corrosive threats to the pure certainty offered by scripture alone — by the unambiguous and self-evident, prima facie “literal” meaning of scripture.

Such an approach requires not only that the text itself be pure,**** accessible, infallible, inerrant and impervious to misinterpretation but also that the reader of the text be pure, insightful, infallible, inerrant and incapable of misinterpretation. It requires that the reader be some kind of Platonic ideal, a blank slate uninfluenced by culture, language, intellect or life experience.

That is, of course, impossible. The point here, however, is not to evaluate or criticize this evangelical epistemology, or to point out all the ways in which it does not and cannot work, but rather to acknowledge descriptively that this is how American evangelical Christians attempt to view the world.

When faced with apparent contradictions amongst scripture, tradition, reason and experience, a Christian applying something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral will attempt to reconcile them. A Christian applying the Evangelical Unilateral will, instead, determine that they don’t need to be reconciled and that any apparent contradictions between scripture and reason, or between scripture and tradition (i.e., how others have interpreted that same text), or even between scripture and their own life experience must be settled by embracing the apparent meaning of the former and rejecting the apparent meaning of the latter.

A rather vivid example of this is provided by one of my favorite eccentric cranks, Marshall Hall, self-published author and proprietor of the website FixedEarth.com. Hall believes the Bible tells us that the earth is “fixed” — that it does not rotate or revolve, but sits unmoving at the center of the universe. Reason and experience explicitly contradict this belief, and tradition suggests that Hall is misinterpreting the passages he cites as proof of his fixed-earth theory, but he doesn’t care about reason, experience or tradition. Sola scriptura is his motto. The Bible says it, he believes it, that settles it.*****

Young-earth creationism is another infamous example of this Unilateralist epistemology at work. The starting point for adherents of this belief is that the Bible teaches that the world is only 6,000 or so years old. If science claims otherwise, then science must be rejected.

That’s actually relatively easy to manage if you’re not yourself a scientist. Those of us who are non-scientists rely on the conclusions of expert others, supported by the assurances of their peers. This is all very authoritative and seemingly trustworthy, and rejecting it is no small feat, but it is still somewhat abstract, somewhat removed from our own direct experience. Rejecting science due to its apparent contradiction with scripture is still far easier than rejecting one’s own experience. That hits much closer to home and involves grappling with a far more difficult level of cognitive dissonance.

And that — the dissonance that comes from questioning one’s own conscience and experience — is what underlies what I’m calling here the Exegetical Panic Defense. This is what happens when an evangelical who has been taught to believe in the Big Gay Evil finally gets to know a flesh-and-blood homosexual human being and starts to think that, actually, this person doesn’t really seem like they are evil or a threat or righteously miserable due to their sordid “alternative lifestyle.”

For some other Christian, someone relying on something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, this can be an instructive experience. Those kinds of Christians are allowed, and even required, to learn from their experience, from their reason and conscience. For such people, this new friend (or old friend coming out with new information) will serve as a tonic against the idea that Christians ought to be characterized by an excessive contempt for homosexuals

But for an evangelical relying on the Unilateral, weighing your own experience against the purportedly crystal clear teachings of scripture is verboten. Something’s gotta give and that something, in this case, is their own experience, conscience and instincts. That’s when the panic-inducing cognitive dissonance kicks in and fight-or-flight takes over. And then anything can happen.

The stakes here are higher than you may appreciate — their faith, and thus also their sense of identity, is on the line. The Unilateral requires a faith that is so inflexible it becomes brittle — it can never bend, only break. In addition to the disturbing sense that the certainty they’d been promised is slipping through their fingers, these evangelicals are also forced to cope with the deeply unsettling thought that their own mercy may exceed that of God.

That kind of crisis can result in someone chucking their faith entirely. Or they may try to reassert that certainty even more forcefully. That effort — fearful, desperate, defensive, hostile, a bit too white-knuckled and wide-eyed, and vindictively proclaiming the rightness of withholding mercy from the undeserving — manifests itself as something that looks very much like “excessive contempt.” These Christians may not like the idea of lashing out against their new friend, but it’s less terrifying than the slippery, bewildering landscape of a world in which they can no longer say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

This dynamic doesn’t account for the larger causes of the phenomenon described by the Barna survey above. It doesn’t explain how it came to be that an excessive contempt for homosexuals is the “most common perception” of American Christianity, for Christians and non-Christians alike. But while it doesn’t explain where this perception and this emphatically anti-homosexual teaching comes from, I think it does help to explain why it resonates and persists among evangelical Christians in particular. So I don’t see this theory as a broader explanation, but as yet another contributing factor.

We looked earlier at the case of other Christians who seem to begin with a visceral antipathy toward homosexuals and then seek a theological justification for it. This is almost the opposite of that — Christians who seem, against their own inclinations and their own better judgment — to adopt this antipathy on the basis of theological teaching they don’t seem wholly comfortable with.

I’m really not sure which is worse, but this latter case seems almost poignantly tragic for all involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has to be something else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only real difficulty with demonizing homosexuals is that they’re not actually demons. Homosexuals don’t actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals. The demagogues overcome this obstacle by doing what demagogues are best at: lying.

Homosexuals, they claim, are a threat to Marriage (as an institution in the abstract), a threat to The Family (as an institution in the abstract) and a threat to the Word of God (ditto). Reality doesn’t support such claims, so they embellish reality. They claim that same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage because, um, mumblemumblemumble pound pulpit, it just would! Same-sex marriage, they claim, would mean your church would be forced to perform gay weddings.******* They claim that hate-crimes legislation protecting homosexuals from violent intimidation would mean that pastors could be arrested for quoting from Leviticus. They claim ENDA — the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation — would mean your church could be legally forced to hire a gay pastor.

Such legal protections would mean no such thing, and the demagogues know they would mean no such thing. The demagogues’ lies are deliberate, intentional and lovingly crafted to nurture fear and the unthinking allegiance that fear can create.

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

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

That’s not much of a defense and it’s certainly not grounds for congratulations.

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

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

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

Hating gay people with “excessive contempt” has become the defining characteristic of American Christianity. American Christians must either repent and ask forgiveness, or double-down and embrace their new identity as contemptuous antichrists.

- – - – - – - – - – - -

* The condensed version of the story, from Judges 12:

“Art thou an Ephraimite?”
“Um, uh … No?”
“Prove it. Say ‘shibboleth.’”
“Sibboleth.”
“Aha! Die Ephraimite!”
“Oh sit.”

** I want to make a distinction here between two things, both of which I disagree with. The first is the contention that homosexuality is, by definition, a sin. The second is the belief, implicit and explicit, that homosexuality is the worst and most odious of sins. This post is primarily concerned with the latter belief and in order to challenge that here, I have accepted for the sake of argument the language, if not the logic, of the former belief. The larger point is that the belief taught by most Christians — that any sex outside of holy matrimony, narrowly defined, is a sin — does not, and ought not, entail the idea that homosexuality is thus some kind of super-sin or that homosexuals should be singled out for condemnation from which other humans are exempt by the supposed virtue of their heterosexuality.

*** The easy joke here would be to say of this poor minister, as they always do of mountain-climbing- or skiing-accident casualties, that at least he died doing something he loved. But the truth is that he died doing something he seems to have hated, yet couldn’t stop himself from doing. (The second wet suit, after all, suggests that the first one wasn’t really doing it for him.) Unable to come to terms with his own inner freak, he declared war on everybody else’s. Misery loves company, they say, though the sad truth is that misery is pretty miserable no matter how much of it you manage to inflict or project onto others.

**** “Pure” here meaning not only reliable and untainted, but also unitary and wholly without internal conflict, tension, contradiction or paradox. This approach requires that revelation must never contradict or seem to contradict itself. Any such contradictions, real or apparent, would have to be resolved arbitrarily, since this approach provides for — and allows for — no principle or mechanism that would enable us to reconcile or decide between competing revelatory trump cards.

***** It bears repeating here that Marshall Hall’s claim of the pre-eminence of scripture is bogus. He claims, as all Unilateralists do, that he is treating the Bible with great respect as the final arbiter of all things. But he is doing no such thing. What he is really doing is making his interpretation of the Bible the final arbiter of all things. Therefore what he is ultimately arguing is that he, Marshall Hall, is the final arbiter of all things. His assertion, in other words, is not really that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, but that he is. The ability to make such a claim about oneself without bursting out laughing requires about six different kinds of denial plus a heavy dose of duplicity.

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

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

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

categories evangelicals | tags , , , ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/EarBucket David Coulter

    Is it too early to put in a pre-order for the something book-like?

  • http://twitter.com/mikeprocario Mike Procario

    I hope you do write a book, and I hope you have a Kindle edition. Heck the Left Behind series could be a second book.

  • Anonymous

    Such legal protections would mean no such thing, and the demagogues know they would mean no such thing. The demagogues’ lies are deliberate, intentional and lovingly crafted to nurture fear and the unthinking allegiance that fear can create.

    I’ve been intrigued by the number of non-Evangelical moderate conservatives I run into who have been affected by this fear that somehow legalizing same-sex marriage will mean that churches will be forced to perform them. 

    As a Jewish woman who married a gentile man four years ago, I feel that I’m in some position to comment: I wanted a certain synagogue, of which I was a member, and a certain rabbi, for the ceremony, but I was pretty sure I couldn’t have them. I called, and said, “Hey, would B’nai Supercool do an interfaith wedding? Not ceremony, wedding.”

    The lady in the office said, “Sorry, no, we require that both of you be Jewish.”

    “I said, “OK, thanks,” hung up, and found a Reform rabbi who would marry us in my childhood synagogue, and we all got over it. (B’nai Supercool, BTW, does same-sex weddings.)

    I didn’t sue. Partly because I am a nice person, but partly because I’d be laughed out of any lawyer’s office. I couldn’t force them to do my wedding, and divorced people can’t force a Catholic church to do theirs, and an interracial couple can’t force the remaining churches that won’t do those to marry them. And yet, people I find otherwise fairly rational keep coming out with this, “But churches will have to marry gay couples.”

    Oh, and I also want to order the book.

  • Anonymous

    Such legal protections would mean no such thing, and the demagogues know they would mean no such thing. The demagogues’ lies are deliberate, intentional and lovingly crafted to nurture fear and the unthinking allegiance that fear can create.

    I’ve been intrigued by the number of non-Evangelical moderate conservatives I run into who have been affected by this fear that somehow legalizing same-sex marriage will mean that churches will be forced to perform them. 

    As a Jewish woman who married a gentile man four years ago, I feel that I’m in some position to comment: I wanted a certain synagogue, of which I was a member, and a certain rabbi, for the ceremony, but I was pretty sure I couldn’t have them. I called, and said, “Hey, would B’nai Supercool do an interfaith wedding? Not ceremony, wedding.”

    The lady in the office said, “Sorry, no, we require that both of you be Jewish.”

    “I said, “OK, thanks,” hung up, and found a Reform rabbi who would marry us in my childhood synagogue, and we all got over it. (B’nai Supercool, BTW, does same-sex weddings.)

    I didn’t sue. Partly because I am a nice person, but partly because I’d be laughed out of any lawyer’s office. I couldn’t force them to do my wedding, and divorced people can’t force a Catholic church to do theirs, and an interracial couple can’t force the remaining churches that won’t do those to marry them. And yet, people I find otherwise fairly rational keep coming out with this, “But churches will have to marry gay couples.”

    Oh, and I also want to order the book.

  • Chunky Style

    To me, theories 1 and 5 describe two different parts of the same phenomenon.  There’s a feedback loop between the shepherds and the sheep, all hating on the gays; but I don’t think we can say that it “started” with either one.

    And, the “icky” factor should be discussed: gay sex is icky to a sufficiently straight-laced mind, therefore it’s easy to weaponize gay-hate.  As with so many monolithic prejudices, you can easily overshoot the target by overthinking it.

  • Chunky Style

    … And, I think AIDS has brought us closer together than ever.  Remember when AIDS was God’s punishment?  Well if you’re growing up as a sexually active teenager these days, you no longer have the luxury of thinking of AIDS as a curse upon the queermos.  AIDS is an unexpected demonstration of how un-different we all are.

  • Chunky Style

    … And, I think AIDS of all things has something to do with the outlook of the young.  Remember when AIDS was God’s punishment?  Well it’s no longer just for homosexuals; if you’re a sexually active teen or 20-something, you’ve instead grown up with AIDS as a very real demonstration of how un-different we are.

  • Chunky Style

    (Sorry about the double post; the first one didn’t seem to take, and I assumed it got sent to /dev/null because I used a swear.)

  • Tom S

    That idea, that legalizing gay marriage will somehow force people to do anything they don’t want to do, or prevent them from spouting off about how much they hate the gays, is so widespread amongst the wackadoo contingent that it’s often hard to figure out what the hell they’re talking about. 

    In that horrible document Bachmann signed (the one where it said black kids had it better under slavery), it goes off at one point about how as protectors of the First Amendment the signers will fight against the legalization of gay marriage. Even figuring out how that argument is supposed to work requires so many levels of intentional ignorance, obfuscation, and rabid zealotry that it makes my head spin- but apparently it’s one familiar enough to whatever group that document was targeted at that they don’t even feel the need to spell it out.

  • Tonio

    A classic entry by Fred. I have an additional theory for his consideration – perhaps a good portion of the evangelical homophobia is merely a proxy for the numerous changes in American society since the 1950s. Not just civil rights or women’s rights or even gay rights, but court decisions banning mandatory school prayer and the teaching of creationism as science, the increasing ethnic and religious diversity of the country. Mixed in with the positive changes are the negative ones, such as the decaying infrastructure and the greater tendency toward oligarchy. For people used to a certain degree of majority privilege, all these changes seem threatening, as if everything they considered normal was now abnormal. Particularly if they adhere to a specific reading of scripture that predicts everything going to metaphorical hell leading up to the end of the world. Homosexuality made the perfect bogeyman for such fears, personifying for such people the inversion of normality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marshall-Pease/1324310862 Marshall Pease

    Recall the whole notion of Gay Sex was emphatically not in the American mainstream until rather recently … the Stonewall riots were only in 1969. That’s really an instance of American’s general lack of comfort for sexual topics generally, although Urban Liberals are getting away from it at least lately. So I agree that Theory Number Five is important, and it works because there is a wide-cultural queasiness that some use as a wedge issue.

    I suppose that as homosexuality becomes more acceptable in the general culture, the Evangelical issue will go away. Speed the day!

  • Caravelle

    I was talking with my brother the other day, and it was interesting because we totally got into privilege issues and stuff – he had only recently realized that awareness campaigns work, and why – I don’t often get to talk about that stuff off the ‘net.

    Anyway, he was reading an early book by Harlan Coben, which involved AIDS, and he was telling me how strange and surprising it was that in the book AIDS was framed as a gay disease.

    I pointed out a few ways in which the idea wouldn’t have been as surprising to me – basically I think I was on the very tail end of “AIDS=gay”; I heard enough about how AIDS wasn’t a gay disease to understand that some people thought it was.

    And he’s six years younger than me and had no clue.

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    I’m not sure how or where this fits your theories, but American Christianity is completely ill-at-ease with heterosexual sex too.  They don’t like their own bodies, and what those bodies want to do.

    So the body and it’s desires must be resisted, punished, repressed, hated.  

    Abstinence education isn’t about preserving yourself for some holy fucking with your heterosexual spouse. It is about instilling shame, fear and hate of your body and your desires.

    If you have had a lifetime of hearing, “Bad”, “Dirty”, “Sinful”, you will not be able to flip the switch on your wedding night and get a serious groove on.

    The general hostility they have to any masturbation only reinforces the understanding that sexual desire is a sin too, not just having it extra- or pre-maritially.

    American Christians are not going to look at gays or gay sex positively, because they can’t, won’t and don’t look at straight sex positively.

  • Tom S

    Hmm, I think that body and sex hatred are definitely part of what’s happening there, but it’s also a function of repressive patriarchy- though there’s a fairly equal preaching of doctrines of purity towards men and women both, it’s clear that ‘straying’ is infinitely more accepted and forgiven among men, so long as it’s within the patriarchal bounds of acceptable male desire (in other words, in a position that remains ‘masculine’ and ‘dominant’, and with a woman.)

    I think an enormous amount of the hostility towards homosexuality in both genders is that in either case it’s a slap in the face to the notion that the only meaningful arrangement for a family is a dominant male, subservient wife, and a bunch of children. It makes nonsense of gender expectations, makes ludicrous any claim that any other arrangment can’t hold, and seriously threatens not only ideas about which sex should be in which position but the whole idea that there are a series of traits held by men and a series held by women, all of which are inherent, natural, praiseworthy, and inviolable.

    People enjoying sex is scary, because if people have sex outside of marriage it’s a threat to the use of sex as a tool of repression. Homosexuality, even apart from sex, is infinitely scarier, because it’s a threat to the whole system.

  • Deggjr

    I feel abortion is in the same category as homosexuality, confessing the sins of others, political gold.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    And, the “icky” factor should be discussed: gay sex is icky to a sufficiently straight-laced mind, therefore it’s easy to weaponize gay-hate. As with so many monolithic prejudices, you can easily overshoot the target by overthinking it. 

    I believe that you are refering to the fallacy of the “wisdom of repugnance“, itself formed to justify legislating on “gut feeling” instead of critical analysis.  And as someone already mentioned, American Christians also feel a lot of “ick” toward heterosexual sex, which adds a lot of shame for heterosexuals to fuel this, and double that for homosexuals raised with the same set of sexual values.

  • Christopher™

    I’ve been discussing what you’ve described here as Theories Four and Five for *years* with friends of mine and with contacts I have within gay rights organizations.  For those of us working for marriage equality and other civil rights issues that affect the GLBT community, it is absolutely vital to understand how Evangelical Christians think and how to talk to them.  

    The problem is that because of the very real and personally destructive history of “excessive contempt,” it has created a vocal subset of GLBT persons who, understandably, want nothing to do with religion or religious folk, so they write them off completely.  Then, when a straight Evangelical Christian finally “sees the light” about gay issues and wants to actively join in with the gay rights cause, they’re rejected outright because they happen to be straight and Evangelical Christian.  Even though they can speak “Christianese” and want to build bridges between communities–which could have a profound impact on their Evangelical church and even that larger subculture–they’re hated on and told to go away.

    On the flip side, when a straight, Evangelical Christian comes out in support of GLBT people and their humanity, then that Evangelical Christian–who has been a faithful and productive member of their faith community and who has modeled Christ in their lives for many years–is suddenly completely rejected by the very community that they’ve served faithfully for years.  (And the more prominent a role they’ve played in the community, the more deeply rejected they are.)  All the reality of Christ in their lives is completely disregarded because they have chosen to Love The Wrong People.

    That’s the sad legacy of excessive contempt.

  • ako

    The ick factor is such a huge thing.  Nearly all of the fanatically homophobic propaganda I’ve seen relies heavily on grossing people out with descriptions of unusual sex acts.  And, particularly since HIV was discovered, with the implication that gay people are all filthy disease-ridden plague carriers.  It’s right up there with “You’re a pedophile!” and “You’re gonna burn in Hell!” in their arsenal of emotionally inflammatory assertions.

  • Reverend Ref

    Same-sex marriage, they claim, would mean your church would be forced to perform gay weddings.******* You know, just like when President Clinton sent the National
    Guard into St. Patrick’s Cathedral to force Archbishop O’Connor to bless
    the wedding of two divorced Roman Catholics. (To clarify, no, that
    never happened. And it never could happen.     

    This needs to be said over and over again.  As long as the right-wing protestors bring up the “fact” that churches would be forced marry gays if the U.S. passes equal marriage laws, then we need to speak out ever more and evermore loudly that this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    From the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church:  Canon I.18.4:Sec. 4. It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this Church to decline to solemnize any marriage.

    In other words, as an Episcopal priest, I do not HAVE to marry anyone I choose not to for any reason whatsoever.

    This is called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  And it means that the right-wing, conservative fundamentalists who disagree with gay marriage DON’T HAVE TO DO IT. 

    The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

  • ako

    The “Your church will be forced to perform same-sex weddings!” lie is popular for a very simple reason – a lot of leaders are making a living out of homophobia and are willing to lie to make their arguments more convincing, and a lot of followers get emotional satisfaction by seeing themselves as righteously opposed to immoral behavior and are willing to embrace lies to maintain that feeling. 

    Without lies like “Your church will be forced to perform same-sex weddings”, “Your pastor will be arrested for speaking against homosexuality” and “Your children will be forced to learn the explicit details of gay sex in kindergarten” (note the use of both the ick factor and the implicit suggestion of pedophilia), they can’t imagine themselves as righteously oppressed and trying to defend themselves.  “You should all be forced to obey my religious beliefs” is a much less pleasant position to admit to holding, and a much harder one to sell.  Hence the incessant lying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Pelikan/100000903137143 Jonathan Pelikan

    Amazing post. I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion, since this old classic pretty much summarizes the whole deal. (Oh, except a lot of hate towards reactionary religion-hijacking authoritarian oppressors, but hey, writing a bunch of that would only spoil my perfectly good dinner.)

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    Spot on and gold.

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    This is called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  And it means that the
    right-wing, conservative fundamentalists who disagree with gay marriage
    DON’T HAVE TO DO IT.

    Well, remember that right-wing conservative fundamentalists don’t believe in separation of church and state.

  • P J Evans

    They don’t believe in it and they assume that no one else does either. Because of course everyone else is just like them, they’re only saying they’re different. /s

    There’s a mindset among conservatives that has them pointing at others, claiming that those others are (or would like to be) doing what the conservatives actually are doing (and saying that they aren’t).

  • Chunky Style

    “Well, remember that right-wing conservative fundamentalists don’t believe in separation of church and state.”

    I haven’t had the opportunity yet, but I hope someday to get into a discussion with a far right Christian about eliminating the separation of church and state.  I will claim to be in favor of doing so, except that I will be approaching it with a goal of “Catholicism only” — finally being able to outlaw Protestant and fundamentalist cults for the heresies they are.  Hopefully I’ll get a good tale out of it.

  • Anonymous

    Fred, this is a great article.  You could make it into a Kindle single, and possibly make a little bit of money off it too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Vinson/100002426710253 Tom Vinson

    Fred:
    > Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all.

    It’s interesting to contrast that belief with what C. S. Lewis says in the introduction to a reissue of Screwtape Letters (taken from a speech to a group of servicemen if I remember correctly).  He points out that he purposely didn’t discuss homosexuality or gambling precisely because he had never been tempted to either.
    And of course Jesus was “tempted in every way” as we are. 

  • Tonio

    How does homosexuality make nonsense of gender expectations other than those outside family models? Do people who insist on such expectations believe that all gay men are swishy and all lesbians are butch?

  • Tonio

    I’ve written before that while I certainly wouldn’t force clergy members to officiate at gay weddings against their will, I also see the argument about their conscience as faulty. (Most often it’s not even made by the clergy themselves but by politicians and commentators claiming to be looking out for them.) I might understand the argument if it was about the clergy not going against the rules of their religion, but realistically that should only apply if two gay members of that same religion are seeking solemnization.

    In some European countries, the couple must have a short civil marriage ceremony with a mayor or judge or other official before the marriage is legal. Then can have a religious ceremony later if they wish, but the religious one has no legal force. Although that would mean more inconvenience for couples, it would help further untangle government from religion. From my standpoint, a clergy member licensed by the government to officiate may expose the licensing government to liability for discrimination if he or she refuses to officiate for gay couples.

  • chris the cynic

    Never mind, ignore this post, I can’t read basic English sentences.

  • Anonymous

    To use the metaphor of household chores: “the traditional” model holds that the man mows the lawn and fixes things, and the woman cooks and cleans, because Men And Women Are Different And Complementary. With a same-sex couple, there is by definition at least one person doing the chores their gender isn’t supposed to do, and therefore gays undermine God’s Preferred Gender Roles.

  • chris the cynic

    And horror of horrors if they should take turns doing jobs in both sets.

    But that’s something that falls into the category of “family models” and Tonio was asking for examples outside of those.  I think.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=581585394 Nicholas Kapur

    Re: Ick Factor

    I have ultimately come to believe that the apparently reflexive disgust generally expressed (and truly felt) by straight people, primarily men, is some 90-95% cultural. I realize that I’m hardly everyone, but if you had asked me a few years ago, I probably would have told you that I personally found the thought of gay sex, even in the abstract, immensely unappealing.

    But since then, mostly through sheer exposure to people of different sexualities and especially to people anywhere in the trans* field, I’ve come to realize that there was almost nothing particularly instinctive about that revulsion. Because most of that is focused on the nature of someone’s genitalia, and while I have no particular attraction to men,* it turns out that I really have no problem with women with penises.

    ———-

    * Except Bill Kaulitz and the drummer from Hot Chelle Rae, of course. And Bill Kaulitz.

  • Anonymous

    I think your percentage is wrong. Anal sex involves santorum. Nasty.

  • Christopher™

    @EllieMurasaki:disqus :  If it involves santorum, you’re doing it wrong. :-)

  • Anonymous

    Good to know.

  • Tonio

    Yes, I was looking for examples outside of family models. Although my impulse is to challenge a fundamentalist to produce scriptural support for the idea that men aren’t supposed to cook or clean. I don’t remember the title of the textbook, but one fundamentalist mother challenged the book back in the 1980s because it showed a boy cooking.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Ya know I almost wish a different name had been chosen.  Because I have to admit, having Rick Santorum pop into my head when I think of anal sex is… unpleasant.

    Though I do admit it could be for a hilariously awkward (and very crude) comedy sketch of some kind.  I’m not the one to write it though.  (And yes I find him more disgusting than the other definition.  That’s saying something.)

  • Anonymous

    I pity the man who cannot cook or clean. It is not as though either task is difficult. And while I don’t like cleaning any more than the next person, cooking produces edible art. What’s not to love?

    Also there’s the skewed gender ratio among people who attend or have attended culinary schools, particularly the prestigious ones. Current attendees of nonprestigious culinary schools, it’s about one to one, but past attendees and/or prestigious schools, it’s mostly men. Doesn’t square so well with the idea that men shouldn’t cook, but does fit neatly into the pattern of work being more highly valued when men do it.

  • Anonymous

    I guess I’m not understanding *why* you want examples outside family models, then. As I understand the fundie viewpoint, they base their whole model of how society should work on having everyone in “proper” families, with men working and women taking care of the home. The opposition to gays is part and parcel of the belief in men-at-work and women-at-home, just like the opposition to working moms and stay-at-home dads. In addition, the “traditional” family has the man in charge and the woman obeying, a power hierarchy that reflects the power hierarchy they want/expect in society at large – a same-sex couple undermines this principle too by not having an obvious basis for one of them to be in charge.

  • Markov

    There definitely seems to be a “barbarians at the gate” feel to alot of the more strident anti-gay nonsense being spouted. At my wife and I’s church, you would think sometimes that “the gays” are using battering rams to get in the place. The whole topic of our church’s response has led to some fairly serious conversations between my wife and I as to our continued attendance there. 

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I for one enjoy cooking.  Largely because I enjoy eating. (. .) Perhaps a bit much really.  *pokes gut*

    Cleaning on the other hand… when do I get my robot butler/maid/chauffeur hybrid again?

  • Reverend Ref

    They don’t believe in [separation of church and state] and they assume that no one else does either.

    Yeah . . . I forgot that tidbit.  The assumption would be that since they want a theocracy, everybody else must want a theocracy also.  And since everybody else wants that, it stands to reason that we already have a theocracy of sorts based upon the god of selfish desires.  Therefore if the State says gays can marry, then everyone will have to follow along.

    I think that’s how the logic goes.

  • Anonymous

    I have actually read one fundie blog where the author claims that hetero egalitarian marriages are essentially same-sex marriages for this very reason.  She believes it only counts as a real marriage if the woman is completely submissive to her husband.

  • Reverend Ref

    In some European countries, the couple must have a short civil marriage
    ceremony with a mayor or judge or other official before the marriage is
    legal.

    I would much prefer this.  I actually tried it on the first couple who came to me wanting to get married.  Let’s just say that . . . it was not well received.  On the plus side, however, they are still members of that congregation after six years.

    From my standpoint, a clergy member licensed by the government to
    officiate may expose the licensing government to liability for
    discrimination if he or she refuses to officiate for gay couples.

    If we could get to a point of requiring a State-issued marriage license before a religious ceremony, and if there were clergy who registered to officiate at State ceremonies, then they should be required to wed anyone presenting themselves for such a service as long as they met all the legal requirements.  To refuse to do so would incur negative repercussions — similar to the recent dust up over pharmacists who refused to administer the “day after pill” on religious grounds.

    It seems to me that the way to deal with it is NOT for right-wing clergy to flood the system as licensed agents and then to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies — the way to deal with it would be to remain in your church and hang a sign in front of your building that reads, “Living Waters Bible Church:  Everyone Welcome EXCEPT Gays (Especially Gay Couples).”

    But, if your whole ethos is about saving the greater society from gays, then that’s probably not confrontational enough and you need to get yourself elected to the Senate.

  • Anonymous

    Men can be chefs if they are doing it for money to support their family.  Women are cooks who do it for free to serve their family.

    I frequent a board that follows fundie blogs, especially Quiverfull ones.  A lot of them believe it’s fine for a woman to do most things, as long as it’s done to support her father or husband, and not for her own ambitions.  The Duggar girls frequently work alongside the boys for construction projects (in unsafe long skirts too), but it’s ok because they’re supporting their father’s real estate business.  You rarely see the boys doing “women’s work”, but they would do it if they got paid for it (such as cleaning a rental house).  It’s not really so much what they do, but why they do.

    And since they believe so strongly in gender essentialism, they think that while some women and some men might naturally enjoy and be good at cooking, all men would also naturally be competitive and greedy and enterprising so they would find a way to turn into an enterprise, while women are naturally caring and nurturing and only want to do what helps their family, and don’t really want to get paid for it anyway.

    So it’s hypocritical, but they don’t see it that way because they believe so strongly that the motivations of men and women are (or should be) completely different.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I think an enormous amount of the hostility towards homosexuality in
    both genders is that in either case it’s a slap in the face to the
    notion that the only meaningful arrangement for a family is a dominant
    male, subservient wife, and a bunch of children. It makes nonsense of
    gender expectations, makes ludicrous any claim that any other arrangment
    can’t hold, and seriously threatens not only ideas about which sex
    should be in which position but the whole idea that there are a series
    of traits held by men and a series held by women, all of which are
    inherent, natural, praiseworthy, and inviolable.

    This is my theory as well. It’s why I think that the claim that same-sex marriage threatens their “traditional” institution of marriage is actually not spurious. They rightly fear that if society sees gay men (because that’s who they always focus on) as people, it will also start to see women as people.

  • Lindenharp

    I pity the man who cannot cook or clean. It is not as though either task is difficult.

    My husband and my sister-in-law were taught the same set of basic life skills by their parents.  Both of them could cook simple dishes, do laundry, sew on a button, change a flat tire.

    Just to put things in historical perspective, all three of us graduated high school in the northeast U.S. in the early-to-mid 1970s, though I was in a different state.  In my school, girls attended Shop class for two weeks while the boys attended Home Ec.  We girls made a bookshelf; the boys baked a cake. This was Highly Progressive for the time.

  • Anonymous

    Man, if I end up with a male Significant Other for the rest of my life, he’s screwed. I could burn water, I’m that bad at cooking. 

    Or maybe just bound for obesity. I can bake, somewhat. 

  • http://indiscriminatedust.blogspot.com Philboyd Studge

    I burnt a pack of instant noodles once.  The microwave was full of smoke and smelled terrible for days.  Of course, I forgot to put in any water, take the lid off, or even remove the plastic shrink wrap*.  I’ve improved somewhat since then, though.

    *And in my – admittedly pathetic – defence I wasn’t exactly sober.

  • Anonymous

    interesting article Fred, it shows the great wisdom of whom is without a sin throws the first stone.

  • Anonymous

    When you have written your book, I will buy it.

    Ps
    I hope you will also write fiction.

  • Tonio

    Valid point, but it’s still grossly irresponsible for opponents to claim that gay marriage threatens straight marriage. It implies that straight people will be motivated to leave their marriages and turn gay, or that straight marriage will be outlawed. I’ve actually encountered two similar claims. One was that legalizing gay marriage will communicate to straight people that procreation within straight marriage is unimportant, and the other was that straights will be so repulsed by gays marrying that they will reject the entire institution. And it’s not accurate that they “always” focus on gay men as people – a great man opponents seem fearful of the dreaded two-mommy scenario.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I’m collecting and recollecting some older posts in the hopes of possibly bundling some of them into something book-like

     
    Excitement! Make sure it sells (or at least ships) o/s.
     

    The religious right portrays itself as a religious movement seeking to reshape politics, but in fact it is a political movement seeking to reshape religion

     
    That right there is one of the most succint sentences I’ve read on the whole religious right debacle.
     
    @Makabit:disqus 

    and an interracial couple can’t force the remaining churches that won’t do those to marry them.

     
    They still EXIST? WTF?
     

  • Tonio

    Can you provide other examples of fundamentalists claiming that certain tasks should be assigned to spouses according to gender? I still remember receiving James Dobson’s Love for a Lifetime as a wedding present, never having heard of Dobson or his Focus on the Family, and being repulsed by the screed about the Christian god allegedly mandating that women be subservient to men in marriages. One reason I ask is because in my experience many homophobes both in and out of fundamentalism talk about gay men “acting like women” in a way that’s clear they mean personality and mannerisms as well as marriage roles. Some of them seem to see being penetrated as an inherently submissive role and doing the penetrating as an inherently dominant role.

  • The_L

    Adding to this is a fear in some churches of the natural world in general (of which our bodies and urges are arguably a part). It breaks my heart to hear my cousin talk about how we all should stop being “of the world,” to hear Green Dragon conspiracy theories, or to see all those NOTW bumper stickers.

    Whatever happened to Genesis 1 and the earth being “very good?”

  • Anonymous

    I have ultimately come to believe that the apparently reflexive disgust generally expressed (and trulyfelt) by straight people, primarily men, is some 90-95% cultural

    This is absolutely true. We are told “it’s a bad thing” and so we feel disgusted by it. Disgust is actually supposed to be reserved for snakes, spiders, and rotten food. All things that could harm our ape ancestors (same thing with fear). But we can be conditioned to be disgusted by anything. I, for example, can’t eat fish because the last time I ate fish I got food poisoning. Animals have been conditioned to be disgusted by even completely innocuous flowers.

    There’s nothing natural about feeling disgusted when you see two gay people. Certainly no animals experience something similar. They mostly just go along with their lives and ignore it as unimportant. So it has got to be culturally transmitted.

  • Tonio

    Disgust is actually supposed to be reserved for snakes, spiders,
    and rotten food. All things that could harm our ape ancestors (same
    thing with fear).

    I know people who actually boast of the fact that if they saw a snake, any type, they would run like hell. I’m tempted to say, “Oh, come on, there’s only one snake endemic to this area that is actually poisonous.” I have a momentary spike of fear when I spot a snake in the wild (as opposed to one in a cage), but I doubt that’s the same feeling.

    The Bible Story children’s series insists that the “enmity between thee and the woman” passage presages the victory of Jesus over sin, although it doesn’t name him specifically. Recently it occurred to me that the passage could be interpreted as simply explaining fear of snakes, with snakes biting people’s heels and people stomping on their heads in self-defense.

  • P J Evans

     In the neighborhood where I grew up, mowing the lawn was done mostly by women and teenaged boys. Men fixed cars and built large things (cinderblock walls and other concrete-type stuff).

  • P J Evans

     I went out with a guy who claimed he could boil water four times out of five.
    I got him ‘Cooking for Absolute Beginners’, in which the first recipe is how to boil water.

  • chris the cynic

    Disgust is actually supposed to be reserved for snakes, spiders, and rotten food.

    But, with the exception of rotten food, those things are adorable.

  • Caravelle

    Ya know I almost wish a different name had been chosen.  Because I have
    to admit, having Rick Santorum pop into my head when I think of anal sex
    is… unpleasant.

    You’re obviously doing it wrong. The idea is to have anal sex pop into your head when you hear about Rick Santorum.

    My prescription would be to increase your exposure to anal sex and focus less on US politics, especially the horse-race aspect (which is the junk food of politics anyway).

  • http://twitter.com/elfsternberg Elf Sternberg

    You left out one detail about Rev. Gary Alridge, the pastor who died over-indulging in his wet-suit fetish, from the autopsy report itself: “There was a dildo in the anus, covered with a condom.”

    You described this as part of the “impressive variety of freaky heterosexual appetites.”  Given what his community concentrates on with respect to gay people– it’s all-sodomy, all-the-time in homo land*– Aldrige must have been wrestling with his own worries about getting his homosexual freak on.

    * I wish!  Or maybe that’s just my inner bitter middle-aged queen talking.

  • Anonymous

    But, with the exception of rotten food, those things are adorable.

    Hey, I like snakes and spiders. But 100,000 years ago we didn’t have zoology to tell us which snakes and spiders were deadly poisonous, and which were not. So we have a natural affinity for aversion towards those types of things.

  • Michael Cule

    Oh, my godfathers! ‘Resisting The Green Dragon’!

    What a monstrous abuse of a religious organisation! To tell people that  disagreeing with their political party’s take on a scientific issue is not only wrong but sinful! Selling the gifts of the holy spirit is called simony. To use the position of a servant of the One God in the  service of Mammon… Is something worse. I don’t know if there is a name for it. 

  • Chrissl

    In addition, the “traditional” family has the man in charge and the
    woman obeying, a power hierarchy that reflects the power hierarchy they
    want/expect in society at large – a same-sex couple undermines this
    principle too by not having an obvious basis for one of them to be in
    charge.

    I think this is a large part of what people mean when they say that gay marriage “undermines the institution of marriage.” This patriarchal sort of marriage is the place where children growing up learn about authority and subservience and where their “place” is. Thus, it seems completely natural to them to feel that *all society* is founded on the principle of authority and submission.

    If they don’t learn that at home, they might grow up feeling that (gasp!) equality, cooperation, collegiality, consultation, compromise, and consensus-building are *actually important.*

  • Chrissl

    In addition, the “traditional” family has the man in charge and the
    woman obeying, a power hierarchy that reflects the power hierarchy they
    want/expect in society at large – a same-sex couple undermines this
    principle too by not having an obvious basis for one of them to be in
    charge.

    I think this is a large part of what people mean when they say that gay marriage “undermines the institution of marriage.” This patriarchal sort of marriage is the place where children growing up learn about authority and subservience and where their “place” is. Thus, it seems completely natural to them to feel that *all society* is founded on the principle of authority and submission.

    If they don’t learn that at home, they might grow up feeling that (gasp!) equality, cooperation, collegiality, consultation, compromise, and consensus-building are *actually important.*

  • Chrissl

    Am I the only one who missed the Chesterton quote?

  • Tonio

    So we have a natural affinity for aversion towards those types of things.

    Natural is not the same as good or preferable in this case. Imagine someone so fearful of snakes that they drive out of their yards the ones that are beneficial to people, the non-poisonous ones that eat disease-carrying vermin. I think there’s room for natural affinities to be ameliorated by knowledge and experience.

  • Tonio

    It may be likely that some of the “undermining marriage” crowd does indeed believe that marriage should be a hierarchy. I suspect that some others believe that homosexuality is nothing more than a temptation.

    And from my own reading, there’s a third category that no one seems to address here – the belief that marriage is for “civilizing” men. Many SSM opponents claim or imply that without marriage, men would merely spread their seed far and wide instead of raising their children. A variation on the “boys will be boys” mentality.

  • Chrissl

    Also, this phenomenon is interesting because I’m old enough to remember when *divorce* was the Great Sexual Sin being preached against. While most evangelicals agree that it’s Bad, I don’t hear about a lot of whole sermons being preached against it any more.

    I also have a feeling that before I was really old enough to pay much attention, birth control was equally controversial.

    The next Great Sexual Sin to rear its head was abortion. For awhile that dominated the discussion.

    Now it’s gay marriage.

    Some of this shifting focus, of course, has been due to society at large: the legalization of abortion started public discussion of that issue, and the increasing visibility of homosexuality has had a lot to do with that focus.

    But it does seem that somehow, all of the Really Big Sins have something to do with sex.

    If backed into a corner and forced to resort to their actual theological education, I think a lot of evangelicals would admit that lying, stealing, greed, pride etc. are extremely serious sins as well. But I have actually heard a rationale given for why sexual sins are The Ultimate and a hundred times worse than these. (I’m not saying I believe this, but I’ve heard it.)

    The theory is that, over and over again in the Bible, we see sexual relationships and sexual faithfulness or unfaithfulness used as metaphors for God’s relationship to people. Therefore (goes the reasoning) sex has a sort of “sacred” meaning beyond the meaning that sex has between humans. (The same reasoning applies to motherhood and fatherhood, BTW.)

    This, I think, is what gives the added “whammy” to sexual sins in their minds: it’s not just that you are breaking God’s rules, you are breaking your relationship with God in some larger way.

    People reasoning this way seem to forget that, according to that same theological education that they are avoiding thinking about, sin is ALWAYS a matter of breaking your relationship with God: that’s the definition of sin.

  • Anonymous

    Natural is not the same as good or preferable in this case. Imagine someone so fearful of snakes that they drive out of their yards the ones that are beneficial to people, the non-poisonous ones that eat disease-carrying vermin. I think there’s room for natural affinities to be ameliorated by knowledge and experience.

    Very true. Fear of / being disgusted by snakes and spiders and scorpions is not something that is innate. Those are just things that, due to our evolutionary heritage, are more likely to provoke those kinds of reactions. You can train a monkey to be adverse to flowers, but it is magnitudes of orders easier to train a monkey to be adverse snakes.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Given what his community concentrates on with respect to gay people– it’s all-sodomy, all-the-time in homo land*– Aldrige must have been wrestling with his own worries about getting his homosexual freak on.

    Given the contempt and disgust so many bigshots in RTC-land profess for those ICKY GURLS, it’s not surprising so many of them seem to be so deep in the closet they can see Narnia.

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    Yes, but if you want those things, you are a Communist.  And we can’t have any of those around. /s

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Oh, my godfathers! ‘Resisting The Green Dragon’!

    Let me google that….
    http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/
    So now caring about the environment is a Satanic plot?  Figures….
    The Rapture can’t get here fast enough – the sooner I can stop sharing a planet with this sort of dangerous dingbat, the better.

    To use the position of a servant of the One God in the  service of Mammon… Is something worse. I don’t know if there is a name for it.

    [cynic]“Business As Usual”?[/cynic]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I think that it’s another one of those cases where their claim is based on an actual concern, but they know that truthfully voicing that concern will not go over well (racist dogwhistles are all about this), so they create spurious explanations for how same-sex marriage will threaten “traditional” marriage.

    You’re right that there is plenty of focus on the “two mommies” scenario, but my experience has been that the vast majority of their noisemaking is over gay men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    And yet I think snakes are really pretty and like holding them.

  • Anonymous

    Alas, a blog has spent a number of recent posts shredding a defense of the idea that only marriage that could involve penis-in-vagina sex is real marriage.

    Lesbians get less press than gay men in general. Sexism at work, folks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    There’s a very strong, if often unspoken belief, that penetrating is masculine/dominant and being penetrated is feminine/submissive. This is hardly new or unique to American culture (I remember reading about Imperial Rome having the same attitudes). Thus you get rapists who rape men while insisting that they are completely straight/masculine, and their victims are the gay/feminine ones.

    I think it ties in with the whole masculine=dominant=valued, feminine=submissive=not valued kyriarchy.

  • Tom S

    Yeah, while it’s that gay marriage and gay relationships in general actually do threaten both the institution of marriage as constructed in terms of gender roles and the patriarchal worldview in general, that’s certainly no defense of the case that they are trying to put forward, for a couple of reasons: a.) if they ever put the argument baldly, they’d lose anyone who didn’t believe in strictly patriarchal, male-dominated households- there are plenty of people in egalitarian relationships that still buy into their nonsense, and they can’t afford to lose them- and b.) the way in which gay relationships threaten patriarchy is by demonstrating that claims made by those who would preserve it is false. It’s like arguing that NASA is evil because it threatens the institution of traditional geography.

  • Caravelle

    Tell me… Was the name “Alas, a blog” picked for the very purpose of being used in sentences such as the one you just wrote ?

    I had no idea, but if true it’s pretty awesome.

  • Anonymous

    Damned if I know.

  • Anonymous

    Damned if I know.

  • Anonymous

    Damned if I know.

  • Tonio

    The theory is that, over and over again in the Bible, we see sexual
    relationships and sexual faithfulness or unfaithfulness used as
    metaphors for God’s relationship to people.

    I’ve never heard that theory. How do you think the evangelicals in question came up with it?

    sin is ALWAYS a matter of breaking your relationship with God: that’s the definition of sin.

    I never heard that until I was in my 30s. From the outside, it seemed like sins were simply immoral acts, or acts forbidden by the religion’s god. I admit I’ve never understood what a relationship with a god is supposed to be. (I’m not asking for an explanation, just expressing confusion.)

  • Tonio

    So you’re saying that “threatening traditional marriage” is simply a sexist dogwhistle? You may be right. Do you have any suggestions for debating techniques that might result in them being more upfront about the sexism?

  • Tom S

    The problem in that debate is that, in my experience, most anti-gay marriage people will just repeat “marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman” over and over and refuse to explain what that means or why it should mean anything. You can’t really argue with that.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    @Tonio: I’ve never heard that theory. How do you think the evangelicals in question came up with it?

    The Bible is full of analogies in the form bride:bridegroom::people:God. Psalms was fond of it, so was Jesus.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Agreed. My response to the prospect of same-sex marriage destroying their authoritarian “traditional” institution of marriage is that marriage equality shouldn’t stop at same-sex couples. It’s not a very convincing argument when your opponent regards your predicted outcome as a good thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    That is exactly what I’m saying. I don’t know that there are any debating techniques that could make them upfront about it, because they aren’t arguing in good faith in the first place.

  • Reverend Ref

    There’s a very strong, if often unspoken belief, that penetrating is
    masculine/dominant and being penetrated is feminine/submissive.

    Which is why I think that Leviticus 20:13, the (in)famous, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman . . .” verse, isn’t really about gay sex.  People will look at that and say, “See!  It says right there that men shouldn’t have sex with men.”  When in fact, it says that a man should not lie with a male as with a woman.

    When this Levitical law was codified, women were property of men, bought, sold and traded for as with any other animal, and were totally submissive to the whims of men.

    I am convinced that this passage is not about two men having sex; it’s about men not treating other men as submissive pieces of property.

  • Lunch Meat

    For examples of “not following the Christian deity” being like unfaithfulness, see also most of the prophets, especially Ezekiel and Hosea.

    I hear a lot of anti-SSM people, especially NOM and various supporters, say that same sex marriage will somehow infringe on the “right” of straight Christians to define marriage for everyone. My response (which I haven’t had the opportunity to use yet) for someone who IS arguing in good faith would be to say, “for thousands of years, marriage has been described as a business transaction in which the man “buys” his wife, rules her, and does not permit her to have property, self-determination, or freedom. So if the majority of people still believed that, would it be their right to say that only marriages in which the wife promises to obey the husband would be legal marriages? Is it fair to exclude those who have a different philosophy of marriage? Is it fair for the majority to define the purpose of marriage for everyone? If I disagree with you that the purpose of marriage is for the husband to be tamed and taken care of, and for the children to have one (1) mommy and one (1) daddy, why do you get to decide that your definition trumps mine?”

    Of course, the people who are using “protect traditional marriage” as a dogwhistle woul love to be able to define marriage as “one husband/master and one wife/slave”, but it might have an impact on those who haven’t really thought about it yet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    Well, remember that right-wing conservative fundamentalists don’t believe in separation of church and state

    Of course they do!  The proposed ban on military clergy performing same-sex weddings is… umm… IS separating [their] church and state… um… somehow!

  • Anonymous

    Proposed what now? What happened to DADT repeal?

  • Mouse Party

    I’d contribute to a kickstarter to get you writing/editing a book. 

  • Anonymous

    The general attitude, at least that I’ve encountered in my (admittedly limited) chunk of humanity, is that only male gay sex is gross. Two women getting naked is hot. 

    Edit: This was supposed to be a reply, but doesn’t appear to have posted as such…Sorry. >.<

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    This came as soon as DADT was rendered moot (a court found against it, and the White House won’t appeal).  See here:

    On Capitol Hill on
    Friday, the House voted to stop military chaplains from officiating
    at same-sex marriages on military bases, even if same-sex marriage is
    allowed in the state. The measure would cut off money for materials
    to train chaplains about the new policy. The move was the latest
    attempt by House Republicans to hinder implementation of the policy’s
    repeal.

    In other words, they are deliberately
    interfering with [a] implementation of the new law, and [b]
    interfering with clergy who WANT to perform same-sex weddings.
    Slime.

  • Tom S

    I think the different mental attitudes towards gay and lesbian sex are part of the huge culturally engendered gay-panic among American men- it’s getting better, but at least when I was a kid there was a constant implication that a.) gay was not something you wanted to be if you could help it and b.) if you didn’t get mildly nauseated by the sight of a penis, you were probably at least a little bit gay. Whereas (at least from what I saw) the indicators girls used to accuse one another of lesbianism were not being sufficiently performatively ‘feminine’- if you didn’t shave your legs or wear makeup, or you liked sports and arguing with people, you got called a lesbian.

    There are other factors- women’s bodies are much more heavily marketed than men’s in general, etc- but I think the ‘gay men! eww!’ thing is very much borne of gay panic.

  • Danny Mclemore, Picker of Nits

    I’m a huge fan, but if this is going in a book, I feel the need to pick a nit. The phrase ” the proverbial four fingers pointing back at yourself underscore Paul’s point” comes dangerously close to a mixed metaphor in my opinion. Then, in the same paragraph “That’s way too Pogo for comfort”. It was a relatively tough paragraph to read.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=752002772 Andrew Glasgow

    Well, it kinda depends on what he was thinking about when he was putting the dildo in his ass, doesn’t it? If he was fantasizing about a man’s penis, then yeah, he was a closet queer. On the other hand, if he was just using it for the prostate stimulation, he could have just been a kinky hetero. And as Dan Savage has pointed out, if this kind of thing wasn’t so stigmatized and taboo, he could have had a partner there to help him when he fell into distress.

  • Matri

    These people can crow all they want about how the WBC are not Real True Christians(c), but when they are obviously adopting the WBC’s doctrine, it’s plain for all to see.

  • Anonymous

    only male gay sex is gross. Two women getting naked is hot.

    Ties into the idea that the nude male body is unattractive and the nude female body is beautiful, which itself is an expression of, to quote somebody (I think it’s this person who said it first), how it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired or for a woman to have sexual desire. The straight man (present company and other QUILTBAG allies excepted) can’t imagine and can’t tolerate imagining being desired, especially by another man, which makes gay sex inconceivable and intolerable, and the straight man (ditto) can’t imagine and can’t tolerate imagining women desiring, especially each other, but is perfectly happy to imagine women putting on a show of desiring each other for his benefit, which makes lesbian sex acceptable. Isn’t intersectionality fun?

    And all this interacts in fascinating ways with…I have a vivid memory of seeing a magazine cover with a US Congressional Representative, possibly Rep. Weiner, with his shirt open to show off his six-pack, but I can’t find the picture. Eh well. Anyway. Men can do that but if a woman of similar rank tried she’d be savaged.

  • Anonymous

    Two words. Lipstick lesbian.

  • Arc

    @Fred:disqus
    A few points to consider:
    *) While evangelicals are clearly not getting their homophobia from the Bible, it’s not as though it’s a complete mystery where this is coming from.  It isn’t, I think, the case that they were quite relaxed about homosexuality until some demogogues started stirring them up about it.   They’re embedded in a society which traditionally has been quite homophobic – and by ‘society’ I mean ‘western civilization’, not necessarily American society (yes, I know homosexuality has been acceptable in the West at certain points, but homosexual relationships have had to be hidden relationships for centuries).  I appreciate that you want a reason why of all the hangups around why homosexuality ends up being the one to go for, and that isn’t explained merely by pre-existing homophobia, but it is a deep-running tendency not just in evangelical circles. 

    Is today’s evangelical really any more disgusted by homosexuality than the average american in the 1950s?  I think some of the cause is that evangelicals have simply been left behind on this issue, and your post gives many reasons why that would be so.

    *) This leads me on to theory 3 – you note that you don’t think you’ve been sympathetic enough to this, and I agree. This section is, in my view, the weakest part of your (otherwise excellent) post, and it’s weak because you end up arguing against the position rather than explaining why it’s there to begin with.  This seems to be because you’re taking it on face value that theory 3 has to have internal well-motivated theological arguments for it to work as a theory.

    Theory 3 is the theory held by many evangelicals (none of your other theories would be accepted by very many of them), as you note, and could be summarized as ‘we’ve always been exactly this anti-homosexual, it’s just that in the past it wasn’t so obvious because there wasn’t so much of it around – no-one was saying that homosexuality was a good thing back then, so there wasn’t anything to argue against’.

    And I think there’s a lot of truth to that – your issue with theory 3 as you are arguing it is an issue with the further rider ‘… and our opposition is theologically well-motivated!’

    That their anti-homosexuality is wrong or poorly motivated or leads to indefensible positions doesn’t mean that theory 3 is wrong as a sociological account of how they ended up with those beliefs.

    So while it might be worth arguing against the theological rationale (in this article, I mean), I think you also need to address the de-theologized, sociological version of this theory, which is merely that evangelicals have been left behind on this issue, and that yes they’re more angry about it than they were in the 50s, but not because their attitudes are different, but because there’s more to be angry about.

    a couple of smaller points:

    *) the Catholic church also rails against homosexuality quite a bit.  Perhaps it’s not quite as defining an issue for them, but there’s certainly enough reports about this for people to be aware of it.  That probably is informing people’s understanding of Christianity, particularly if they have any awareness of the fact that Catholics and Evangelicals usually don’t see eye to eye – if they agree on this, it must be a core Christian value!

    *) Writing ‘enough reports’ above reminded me that the media probably has a lot to answer for here, at least with the attitudes of the non-Christians, but possibly also informing the christian understanding.   The media loves a potted controversy, and given the option of some firebrand damning a somewhat visible subgroup, or a group of evangelicals going around serving soup to people, they will always, always choose the first one.

  • Anonymous

    I’d buy your book.

    Used.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Tonio

    I think you also need to address the de-theologized, sociological
    version of this theory, which is merely that evangelicals have been left
    behind on this issue, and that yes they’re more angry about it than
    they were in the 50s, but not because their attitudes are different, but
    because there’s more to be angry about.

    I raised a similar point earlier, which is that these evangelicals have seen their social privilege erode in a variety of ways. A few years ago, one radio talk show would regularly play clips from Boys Beware to ridicule the homophobia depicted – “One may never know when a homosexual is about.” After hearing the clips, I wonder why such attitudes didn’t lead to regular lynchings of gays and suspected gays.

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    Hey Fred! I didn’t think that you really did have “IT” in you although some of my imaginary friends have suggested that you did but your post certainly does prove me wrong. Congratulation for setting all possible perception that these so called American evangelical Christians might have as far as most Christians being “anti-homosexual” who follow the gay- hatin so called Gospel. I agree with you that today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual” and if you ask most of Victor’s imaginary friends, I’m sure that they live for these evil Christians and ”IT” does not surprise me that you know and believe “IT” when I say that you do a great JOB of setting these lost sheeps in the right direction!

    Hey sinner vic and sinner victor! What are you guys doing here so far from home?

    Mind your own business Victor cause this has nothing to do with you cause you’re a Canadian and this topic is only concerning Americans who hate gays and their friends.

    I don’t hate gays and I can prove what I say you bunch of hypocrites!

    In that case why don’t you join u>S (usual sinners) Victor and help correct these injustices?

    I won’t join you because I agree to disagree with Fred and although I agree that a man having sex with a man is A SIN, I also agree that there are greater sins but two wrongs still won’t make “ONE” right no matter how sweet, tasty and convincing our words might sound. 

    I could go on and on chasing my tail explaining why me and myself feel this way which I believe also includes my soul and spirit but instead, I’m going to let God’s Word correct this and if push comes to shove I’ve already told my wife that i will simply wear my ring around my neck and wait for this seed of mine to die to self.

    Trust me folks, you don’t want to get him started cause he’s already dead, well in bed anyway so says his wife and he won’t use viagra anymore!

    It is not funny folks cause his wife use to give out The Eucharist in church but she choses not to do ”IT” anymore in hope that he’ll start using viagra again. She’s also going crazy cause she’s starting to think that if they do have a sex life at their age, God might get UPSET if she gives out The Body and Blood of Christ after one of their little skit if you know what I mean. Go Figure!

    I’ll close NOW by simply saying that when Victor is good, he’s very good and when he’s bad, he’s Sensational! :)

    Good Luck Fred

    SHALOM

  • Anonymous

    I’m genuinely surprised it took this long for a troll to comment on this thread.  Speaking of which, are you going to explain why you hate America yet?

  • Tom S

    I’m not trying to defend the idea that not being ‘feminine’ and being a lesbian are in any way connected- I’m just saying that, when I was a kid at least, calling one another lesbians was how the girls I knew did their gender policing.

  • Bificommander

    It’s the HAHAHAHAHA that seals the deal. Extra text and effort put in the post to point out that others should be offended, in case they missed that in the post. Or put it even shorter, an attitude of “Does this bother you? How about now?” Total Poe.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    @1cfd07d71c70392c27d26165e23b0cf2:disqus 

    The theory is that, over and over again in the Bible, we see sexual
    relationships and sexual faithfulness or unfaithfulness used as
    metaphors for God’s relationship to people.

    I’ve never heard that theory. How do you think the evangelicals in question came up with it?

    Evangelicals didn’t come up with it. Central to Catholics identifying marriage as a sacrament is the belief that the marriage relationship is supposed to reflect, as much as any human institution can, God’s relationship with humanity. Hence faithful, enduring, and life-giving.
     
    Now that said, I want to point out that believing this doesn’t have to mean you agree with the Church’s position on what marriage means in practice, much less what marriage outside the Church should be “allowed” to mean. In particular, personally I agree with this interpretation of marriage but, unlike the official Church, I don’t define “life giving” as “able and willing in any circumstances to produce biological offspring exclusively through heterosexual intercourse”. My understanding of the term “life giving” includes optionally childless couples and same sex couples, and excludes psychologically damaging power relationships, for example.

    Anyway, point being: it’s not an evangelical thing.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    And yet many women would disagree to either or both claim.

  • Tonio

    Thanks for the explanation. I was asking because I didn’t understand how one could view sex specifically as a metaphor for a relationship with a deity, as opposed to sexual faithfulness. Puts a new spin on “Oh, god!” It’s interesting that almost all the sexual encounters between gods and mortals in Greek mythology involve male gods and female mortals. Some of that involved the Olympian religion appropriating other religions, apparently. But from my memory, the only encounter with the genders reversed was Aphrodite and Anchises (parents of Aeneas), and the story claims that such mortal men lose their sexual potency.

  • The_L

    And from my own reading, there’s a third category that no one seems to address here – the belief that marriage is for “civilizing” men. Many SSM opponents claim or imply that without marriage, men would merely spread their seed far and wide instead of raising their children. A variation on the “boys will be boys” mentality.

    If these people knew that my boyfriends and I intend ultimately to live together and mutually raise our children as if everyone were the father (and remember, we can’t all be legally married under current laws), they would self-destruct.

  • Anonymous

    This issue of gender policing is actually pretty interesting.  Where I grew up, of course “gay” was used an insult for boys who didn’t sufficiently meet the arbitrary thresh-hold of masculine.   I think that “lesbian” was occasionally used to police the girls, but at my schools, “slut” was the much more common insult.  There were a few girls who were “tom-boys”, but they were actually pretty well accepted and often got boyfriends as easily as the girls in skirts and make-up.  But if you were a girl and assertive and powerful (within the context of high school society), suddenly you were a slut.

  • Anonymous

    This issue of gender policing is actually pretty interesting.  Where I grew up, of course “gay” was used an insult for boys who didn’t sufficiently meet the arbitrary thresh-hold of masculine.   I think that “lesbian” was occasionally used to police the girls, but at my schools, “slut” was the much more common insult.  There were a few girls who were “tom-boys”, but they were actually pretty well accepted and often got boyfriends as easily as the girls in skirts and make-up.  But if you were a girl and assertive and powerful (within the context of high school society), suddenly you were a slut.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Prost/100002434484052 Tony Prost

    From the Deipnosophist:
          “Goddesses quarrel with one another constantly on
    the question of their relative beauty. Was it not a beauty contest among
    goddesses that laid the ground for the Trojan War? And speaking of goddesses,
    whom do goddesses carry off? Is it not the most beautiful men? Certainly they
    live together with them: Dawn with Cephalus, and then Cleitus, and then
    Tithonus; Demeter with Iasion; Aphrodite with Anchises and Adonis. “Also, Achilles’ mother was a goddess, and his father a mortal.

  • Anonymous

    Oh shut up, do you really think you’ll get anywhere by asking and re-asking that STUPID loaded question? You’re not. I’m not even going to acknowledge it again because it is deceptive in its intent.

  • Anonymous

    You know I think there’s a certain level of … discomfort here.  I consider it to be basically an unassailable fact that most people are not gay, and would rather not have gay sex.  I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think this is a “choice” that they made.  I never chose to be straight – nor did I “choose” to be somewhere between vaguely and extremely uncomfortable at the thought of having sex with another person of the same sex.

    Furthermore, this discomfort is not limited to gay sex.  I am somewhere between vaguely and extremely uncomfortable with the thought of S&M.  My discomfort with other peoples sexual proclivities is one of those things that I have to quash – because I know that their rights don’t hinge on my comfort, but the idea that people can enjoy polyamory, or nipple clamps or any number of other things that I don’t enjoy and almost certainly wouldn’t enjoy gives me a sense of unease.  Not that I think that I’m going to be kidnapped by poly’s or anything…. But… I don’t understand it.  I can’t understand it.  It’s a moment where I literally have no power to process the situation on my terms – I must accept the subjectivity of somebody else, and I can’t filter it through your own experience.

    So I think that there’s another bit of this theory.  Which is sort of related to theories 4, 3 and 2 – it’s that some people legitimately find the idea of gay sex so utterly discombobulating that they are left with no choice but to condemn it as a sin.  Even if the Bible said “Thou shalt not give a crap if your neighbor sleeps with dudes” – there would be a subset of people who would be so discomfited by the idea that they’d set up some kind of anti-gay society.  The reason that “Christianity” has become so identified with anti-homosexual bigotry is because it attracts the people who for whatever reason can’t get past it. To a certain extent you’ll find this in any bigotry.

    There are always elements of the “other” that you can not understand (that’s what makes them “other”.) The questions is whether or not you can say to yourself “Well, I guess I’ll just have to be uncomfortable / bewildered / not-understanding then – and make the best of it.” Which is hard – because it requires accepting certain truths of the human experiences that are uncomfortable – that you are all alone – that there is no-one who will ever know what it’s like to be you, and that this true of EVERYONE.

    All very Sartre in post-war Paris, really.  The despair of existence and solitude.  I mean, it’s hate gay people or stare into that bottomless lonely abyss.  One choice is easy, and the other is hard.  If you’re a Christian, you believe the abyss isn’t really bottomless – but jumping into that darkness… Well – I think that’s why Kierkegaard called it a “leap” of faith.

  • Anonymous

    Have you written a similar post about abortion? Because that is the other issue that evangelicals are strongly identified with. It is difficult to reconcile these arguments with abortion. Especially the “safe target”. Abortion is a just common enough procedure that there are bound to be at least two women in each church with 50 members or more who have had an abortion. I know the real reason is #5 (it is totally political and helps guys like Dobson raise tons of money) but I’d be interested to hear why else you think that demonizing people who have abortions has been such a winning strategy for evangelicals.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • Anonymous

    I second (or 17th or whatever), the idea of compiling the Left Behind series into a book. I’d love to have it myself, and suspect it will be ideal gift for my nephew in four or five years.

  • cyllan

    because I know that their rights don’t hinge on my comfort, but the idea
    that people can enjoy polyamory, or nipple clamps or any number of
    other things that I don’t enjoy and almost certainly wouldn’t
    enjoy gives me a sense of unease.  Not that I think that I’m going to
    be kidnapped by poly’s or anything…. But… I don’t understand it.  I can’t understand it.

    You know, I don’t like eating squash either, but I don’t have a problem sitting down at a table where people are enjoying their summer-squash casserole.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    “it’s that some people legitimately find the idea of gay sex so utterly discombobulating that they are left with no choice but to condemn it as a sin”

    I’m guess I’m willing to believe that some people don’t know any way to engage with things they don’t understand other than condemnation… who have, as you suggest, no choice in the matter.

    I can even manage a certain amount of compassion towards those folks… certainly, any desire I might have to punish them pales into insignificance when I consider what such an existence must be like; I can’t think of anything I might wish upon them at my most vindictive that isn’t negligible by comparison.

    But I strongly suspect that for every person like that, there’s another hundred who could learn a third option, and simply never have. And there’s another ten thousand who [i]have[/i] learned other options, but choose not to exercise them.

    I find compassion more difficult in those cases.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Trigger warning:  Anger and implications of violent desire.

    You know, there is just… something about the assumption that interpersonal power is defined by gender that sets my blood boiling.  I do not know what it is, it just pisses me off for reasons I cannot completely articulate.  When I see a woman who believes that a “woman’s place” is to be subserviant to a man, I want to brainwash her to “fix” her misconception.  When I see a man who believes that it is a “woman’s place” to be subserviant to a man, I want to beat him up. 

    Crimes that involve an attempted imposition of power, such as rape or the battery of a signifigant other, make me feel almost berserk.  I have sometimes wanted to volunteer at women’s shelters, but I do not for two reasons.  First, as a man I doubt that many of them would be predisposed to find my presence and assistance comforting.  Second, just knowing that the guy who drove them there in the first place might still be out there would make me want to hunt him down and break a few of his limbs. 

    This has actually been a source of discomfort to me because I have a lot of friends in the kink community, where voluntary submissive/dominant relationships are somewhat common.  I have reconciled this with the idea that any kind of healthy exchange of interpersonal power involves the knowledge of all concerned that the submissive one holds the all the real power, and the dominant party only commands at their sufferance. 

    I know I should really pursue egalitarianism and justice with dispassionate dispatch, but this is something that seems to just strike an emotional chord despite my preferences.  How does one deal with that? 

  • Anonymous

    That’s what I’m saying.  People get to eat squash, whether I like it or not.

    So — what about veal?  I find people eating veal very profoundly disturbing.  But people’s right to eat veal doesn’t depend on me feeling comfortable about it.  I mean, it seems if people have the right to eat meat at all, then they have the right to eat veal, and we’re right back where we were.

    Your rights are not impacted by my comfort level with your ability to exercise them.

    I hear myself saying: “People are weird, all eatin’ squash.”

    Now I have a choice.  I can say – “But wait – I like okra.  That’s pretty weird.  Maybe I should just accept this regardless of how yucky squash is – I mean, everybody’s got their thing…” or I can say “No – squash eaters are different than me.  Other okra eaters understand me!  The squash eaters make me uncomfortable, and therefore they must be out to get me!”

    Okra eaters make themselves feel small and powerless by insisting the squash eaters are large and evil – thus they avoid responsibility for my own feelings – and they avoid encountering their own solitude.  Essentially, bigotry is cowardice that insists on it’s own moral superiority.  There is nothing wrong with being afraid – but there IS something wrong with being a coward while proclaiming oneself a hero – it’s the essence of bad faith.

  • Anonymous

    You’re correct.  Most people who say “Buttsecks is icky, therefore I hate gay people.” are just lazy cowards.

    There are a few people who are genuinely incapable of the kind of metacognition necessary to overcome that reaction and I think because engagement is a harder place to get to than that, there’s a certain herd mentality that overcomes otherwise decent people’s inhibitions on this kind of thing.

    Or, it could be that most people are lazy cowards, willing to condemn as scary anything that make them uncomfortable because if it’s difference.  Could go either way.

  • Anonymous

    For what it’s worth, the BDSM community wrestles with questions just like that all the time.  ‘Your Kink Is OK It’s Just Not My Kink’ (YKIOKIJNMK) is great in theory and for most practice, but some people have kinks that can squick a broad spectrum of other people.  Where is the line?  SHOULD there be a line?  (The general answer is that there should be, but where that line is, is open to a metric ton of debate.)  When is a kink ‘Not OK?’  There are no hard and fast answers; there aren’t even any soft and slow answers, and each community has to decide what they will or will not accept within its bounds, much like any other community… but there is one crucial difference here.

    The BDSM community and many, many other communities — including and perhaps especially the many wild and wooly flavors of SF&F fandom — generally do not disparage the people who do not fit in to their community*; those who join, find it’s not for them, and leave; and those who join, have interests that go beyond the community’s standards, and leave for another community.  Such people go on to their own interests, and there is little rancor from the community towards the emigrant.

    Many religious communities, however, are very exclusive (almost by their very nature,) and lay claim to some Truth.  Leaving such a community — which is itself psychologically difficult for many if not most people — means leaving behind what that community sees as “true” or “real” or “eternal.”  There is no understanding that one can go on to a more personally suitable community.  You either CONFORM or you are DAMNED (or at least miss out on the Truth, a subtle distinction when dealing with coercive cults.)  Thus there is animosity or at best pity for the person who leaves such a community.

    TL;DR: It’s really hard to leave a community that’s actively trying to be exclusive, compared to communities that are making at least a token attempt to be inclusive.

    This being said, I can somewhat understand the abyss-gazing depression and lonliness you speak of.  If we are, each of us, unique individuals, then there is nobody in the world, in *existence* who can perfectly complement us, who shares our interests completely, and to whom we can perfectly relate.  Rather than seeing this as a source of horror, however, we can see it as cause for celebration**: We are not so alike that we are identical in thought, word, and deed.  We are not, none of us, interchangeable in the manifold of events and history.  There is always the lurking of the Other, but rather than fear the Other we can embrace it as different, as another color in the spectrum that is humanity.

    Hmm.. reading that over, it sounds rather rainbows-and-unicorns, so I apologize if I am coming off as altogether too optimistic.  There are very, very real hurdles to overcome.  And if nothing else, take solace in this: You are attempting to at least engage with the Other, even if it might be difficult.  The eliminationist is lazy and a rank coward, and does not want to engage the Other; instead the eliminationist wants to destroy the Other.

    * – There are exceptions.  There is some mostly-good-natured ribbing about ‘vanillas’ in the leather community.  The SF&F community tends to have somewhat more hostile attitudes to non-fen, in part because of some self-reinforcing attitudes picked up from a number of earlier (and some later) SF&F works (c.f. “Slan” by A.E. van Vogt, and the use of the terms “mundanes” and “muggles” for non-fen.)  This generally comes from the perceived denigration of SF&F in general by people whom the fen perceive as “not getting it.”  It’s a rather unhealthy attitude, but thankfully SF&F fandom has gotten a lot less clannish and exclusive over the decades.
    ** – Well, celebration for anyone except those looking forward to a unitary-consciousness Nirvana.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop copy-pasting from feminist blogs.

  • Anonymous

    You’re up to seventh (or 22nd….) =) Seriously, though, Disqus is spectacularly user-hostile.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Here’s how I see it -

    I don’t think dispassion is needed at all, at least on the base level.  I think the fact that you get angry at injustice or the reminders of injustice* is overall a good thing.  Righteous fury is the animus that drives positive change.  It is the fire that drives us to seek a more fair and equitable future for ourselves and for others.  It isn’t something to be doused – but something to be harnessed to drive the great engine of justice forward.

    The key then is to be able to control that engine – to temper and direct it in such a way that in your desire for equality it does not inadvertently run off the rails and itself become unjust.  Temper your anger, but don’t seek to get rid of it.

    That’s how I see it anyway. 

    *And this I think is where the issue really comes in.  The latter consensual situation still reminds us of the former genuinely unjust situation.  And sadly humans tend to have a difficult time with nuance by default, so it requires a lot of mental legwork to assure ourselves that consent** can make things that would otherwise be horrible, entirely OK.

    **And really the whole Safe, Sane and Consensual thing taken as a whole.  Yes I just footnoted a footnote. A toenote if you will.

  • Anonymous

    I know I should really pursue egalitarianism and justice with dispassionate dispatch

    I disagree.  Why shouldn’t you be passionate about it?  Being dispassionate is not the same thing as being rational, just as being passionate doesn’t mean you’re irrational.  It’s not shameful to have emotions.

    It’s great that you realize that rape is about power and not just “stealing sex”.  That’s actually a very important point that even progressive men (and women) often miss.  You’re making things better simply by understanding the true nature of this crime.  And I agree with you that abuses of power like this are especially horrific.

    You’ve made the right choice to not volunteer at a woman’s shelter, there are still plenty of things that you can do.  Instead of giving your time, you could donate money if you can afford it.  But there are other little things you can do just by living your life.  You have a unique to position to be part of all-male groups and so you can inject some wisdom when other misunderstand rape, make rape jokes, or even admit to wanting to rape.  That’s hard for women to do because men often don’t say these things in front of us so it’s harder to counter them.  If you have any interaction with children, you can mentor them and teach them that rape is not ok, even when it doesn’t seem like rape.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    There are no hard and fast answers; there aren’t even any soft and slow answers

    I’ve found that “Informed Consent” covers most questions.  Of course, then we get into “What is informed?  How much information does each party need to have?” and “What is consent?  Who can give it?  Who can’t?  Who gives it for those who can’t?

    But this at least ways a start and covers most things that I’m not going to list, because they squick out most readers.  Suffice to say that if two or more adults voluntarily agree on something, it’s not my business to interfere. 

  • Anonymous

    The problem is, you’d only agree to it if both were sane, right? Right. But how do you know? What if what they’re doing is sufficient proof that they’re not mentally healthy?

  • Beatrix

    Okay, here’s what I don’t get – and no, I haven’t read all the comments, I’ll skim them now – why be “Christian”?  Me, I’m agnostic; I’d like to believe, but I can’t, completely.  If I ever get religion I suppose I’ll go hard core Roman Catholic (unless I meet a nice Jewish boy).

    Look, nobody’s holding a gun to your head.  Christian morals on sexuality are pretty strightforward; essentially, if it’s non-procreative, don’t do it.  Homosexuality is by definition non-procreative. 

    It’s not that I’m saying you have to do one thing or another.  But look, if you’re gay, in our vibrant modern society, who’s hurting you? Who’s interfering with you in any way, shape or form?  Equally, if you’re a woman and you want to abort your child/fetus/whatever, well, what’s your problem?  But for the love of coherence stop calling yourself a Christian. 

    If you want to found a religion which is cool with abortion and gay “marriage” etc., do it.  But it’s not Christianity, that’s just daft. 

  • Anonymous

    EXACTLY. Why do people refuse to understand this?

  • Beatrix

    Seems pretty simple to me.  I mean, I don’t believe in reincarnation – s’why I’m not a Buddhist. 

    Don’t we live in the freest society in the world?  If you don’t like a religion, quit it.

  • Beatrix

    Seems pretty simple to me.  I mean, I don’t believe in reincarnation – s’why I’m not a Buddhist. 

    Don’t we live in the freest society in the world?  If you don’t like a religion, quit it.

  • Anonymous

    Look, nobody’s holding a gun to your head.  Christian morals on
    sexuality are pretty strightforward; essentially, if it’s
    non-procreative, don’t do it.

    Source, please.

    But look, if you’re gay, in our vibrant modern society, who’s hurting you?

    The US Republican Party and conservative Evangelical Christians.

    Equally, if you’re a woman and you want to abort your child/fetus/whatever, well, what’s your problem?

    See above.

    If you want to found a religion which is cool with abortion and gay
    “marriage” etc., do it.  But it’s not Christianity, that’s just daft.

    Christianity is at its most basic a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Jesus had fuck-all to say about homosexuality or abortion.  I’m not really seeing the lack of coherence here.

  • Anonymous

    Look, nobody’s holding a gun to your head.  Christian morals on
    sexuality are pretty strightforward; essentially, if it’s
    non-procreative, don’t do it.

    Source, please.

    But look, if you’re gay, in our vibrant modern society, who’s hurting you?

    The US Republican Party and conservative Evangelical Christians.

    Equally, if you’re a woman and you want to abort your child/fetus/whatever, well, what’s your problem?

    See above.

    If you want to found a religion which is cool with abortion and gay
    “marriage” etc., do it.  But it’s not Christianity, that’s just daft.

    Christianity is at its most basic a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Jesus had fuck-all to say about homosexuality or abortion.  I’m not really seeing the lack of coherence here.

  • Anonymous

    But look, if you’re gay, in our vibrant modern society, who’s hurting you? Who’s interfering with you in any way, shape or form?

    In all four of the states in which I have lived, I cannot marry my (sadly hypothetical) girlfriend. In only one of those four can I enter into a legally recognized relationship with her. The federal government will not recognize our relationship regardless. And if I introduce her as my girlfriend to my Roman Catholic mother, my mother might kick me out of the house, whereupon I am thoroughly fucked, because I do not earn enough money to simultaneously pay down debt and pay rent.

    Equally, if you’re a woman and you want to abort your child/fetus/whatever, well, what’s your problem?

    Kansas came damn close to having no one legally allowed to perform an abortion within state borders. Also, I passed by a protest outside a Planned Parenthood once, and it is an experience I hope never to repeat. The pictures on their posters are sickening.

    But for the love of coherence stop calling yourself a Christian.

    Shockingly, some denominations are tolerant of the facts that women have rights and that people who aren’t straight exist.

  • Anonymous

    But look, if you’re gay, in our vibrant modern society, who’s hurting you? Who’s interfering with you in any way, shape or form?

    In all four of the states in which I have lived, I cannot marry my (sadly hypothetical) girlfriend. In only one of those four can I enter into a legally recognized relationship with her. The federal government will not recognize our relationship regardless. And if I introduce her as my girlfriend to my Roman Catholic mother, my mother might kick me out of the house, whereupon I am thoroughly fucked, because I do not earn enough money to simultaneously pay down debt and pay rent.

    Equally, if you’re a woman and you want to abort your child/fetus/whatever, well, what’s your problem?

    Kansas came damn close to having no one legally allowed to perform an abortion within state borders. Also, I passed by a protest outside a Planned Parenthood once, and it is an experience I hope never to repeat. The pictures on their posters are sickening.

    But for the love of coherence stop calling yourself a Christian.

    Shockingly, some denominations are tolerant of the facts that women have rights and that people who aren’t straight exist.

  • Anonymous

    Do you have or can you acquire training as a security guard? I suspect women’s shelters will be more welcoming of you if you’re explicitly there to protect those sheltered. Which isn’t to say you’re wrong to not volunteer there.

  • Anonymous

    And for bonus points: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/10/bibles-guide-to-abortion.html –the things the Bible says about abortion, which is an enlightening read if you’re of the opinion that the Bible forbids abortion. And I saw somewhere the idea that the ‘do not lie with a man as with a woman’ line actually forbids treating one’s male sex partner as though said partner is inferior the way a female sex partner would be. Sexist (add another point to the list of how the Bible is sexist) but not prohibiting homosexual conduct.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    First and foremost, the fundamentalist interpretation of Christian morality is not the only one, let alone the only valid one.  It really hacks me off when I see people just automatically assume that one sect is automatically right.

    Christianity is an enormous religion, and it’s also schismatic as hell.  If you hurled a stained glass window at the ground and then counted up the shards – you might get close to all the little schisms and elements of doctrine over which the various groups disagree.

    There is, to my knowledge, only one absolute uniting point among all Christian denominations; and that is the belief that humanity’s sins were/are redeemed through Jesus Christ on the cross.

    Everything else just depends on who you are talking to.

    So… no, the “Christian teaching on sexual morality” is not particularly clear.  The first thing that has to be asked is “Which Christians, where?”

    And for that matter, you could say “The Christian teaching on violence is very clear” and make the exact same argument you just did, except as regards use of force.  I would argue you’d actually have a far stronger case in that respect.

    Or for that matter, how about being generous to the poor, treating your neighbor well and the like?  Again, you could make those exact same arguments – with a much stronger justification – for those things.

    So why does it matter?

    Because – if you actually believe something then *gasp* YOU ACTUALLY FREAKING BELIEVE IT.

    If you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, as Christians do, then you aren’t going to run off and start your own religion no matter what activities you’re engaged in, because you actually believe it.

    That’s sort of the entire point of believing to begin with.  If you were capable of just going off and starting a new religion for shits and giggles, then there’d be little point IN starting that religion because you didn’t believe to begin with and your new religion is probably not based on anything.

    The only exception to that is if someone believes they’ve genuinely received some new insight and thus their old faith was wrong – or is trying to fleece the crap out of people. (In which case they will of course claim the former.)

  • Beatrix

    What is “marriage” to you?  I’m not being passive-agressive or anything, I just mean,:  Why, “marriage”?

    I get why it a gay couple would want a civil union – and in fact I’ve always supported those – but “marriage”?  Marriage exists for the raising of children.  It’s nice when people love each other, but in the end, so what?  And you know what – truely, very, very few gay men want to marry.  There’s no no rush of gays to the alter.  By and large, this is a stalking horse, or maybe a Trojan horse, for poygamy.  Unlike gay “marriage”, polygamy has been the real deal in cultures like our own in the past.

    When a case come before the Supreme Court saying “I come from a country where it’s okay to have 4 wives.  You let two men marry, why not us 5!”  – what will be said, then?

  • Beatrix

    “And if I introduce her as my girlfriend to my Roman Catholic mother, my mother might kick me out of the house, whereupon I am thoroughly fucked, because I do not earn enough money to simultaneously pay down debt and pay rent.”

    But that’s got nothing to do with anything!   Would any legislation, however, loony, alter your mother’s view on anything?  Life is hard, I know, but Christianity is not going to alter its doctrines to accomodate your family.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    OK, I’m going to take you at your word that you’re legitimately asking out of a desire to know: marriage, to me, is the mechanism whereby a community acknowledges that peers have chosen to be part of the same family.

    People can get married without having children, or intending to. My husband and I got married in that way.

  • Anonymous

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States –Wiki’s list of rights and responsibilities of marriages under US law. That’s not everything marriage means to me, but it’s a start. (Especially as I’m studying to be a paralegal, and marriage is important in both estate planning and, and this was a shock to me, real estate law, as well as other areas of law I have not yet studied.)

    There was a study that concluded something to the effect of the best way to raise children is to love the children’s other parent, because that’s the best way to ensure a stable home for the children to grow up in. Naturally I do not remember where I found this study, but I shall look. Also, same-sex couples can and do adopt.

    More people want marriage equality than just gay men. And there is so a “rush to the altar” every time a new jurisdiction legalizes same-sex marriage.

    What will be said then is, one, that arrangement smells suspiciously like historical arrangements where the man had power of life or death over his wives and let’s just avoid that on principle, and two, if Alan and Beth and Cathy want to get married, I’d love to let them, but so many of those rights and responsibilities of marriage get a lot more complicated when there’s more than two people involved. Who’s Alan’s next of kin for emergency medical decisions, Beth or Cathy? If Beth has Alan’s kid and it’s mostly Cathy who raises the child, when the three get divorced, who gets custody? Come to that, if Alan marries both Beth and Cathy, are Beth and Cathy then married to each other? Can Beth get a divorce while Alan and Cathy remain married, or need all three divorce and then Alan and Cathy remarry?

  • Anonymous

    You asked who’s hurting gay people in our enlightened society. I answered.

  • Anonymous

    I get why it a gay couple would want a civil union – and in fact I’ve always supported those – but “marriage”?

    If you get it, would you mind explaining it to me?  Because I really don’t know why anyone would be content with what boils down to a marriage-substitute that lacks several of the legal rights that go along with marriage, and has none of the ingrained cultural respect.

    Marriage exists for the raising of children.

    According to who?  Does anyone really believe that?  That sterile people, or those who simply don’t want to have children somehow don’t have real marriages? Frankly it just sounds like nonsense invented to dismiss gay marriage.

    And you know what – truely, very, very few gay men want to marry.  There’s no no rush of gays to the alter.

    Source, please?

    (And there are gay women too, you know)

    By and large, this is a stalking horse, or maybe a Trojan horse, for
    poygamy.  Unlike gay “marriage”, polygamy has been the real deal in
    cultures like our own in the past.

    You honestly think the push for gay marriage is being driven by polygamists?  Is this like the Underpants Gnomes?

    1. Get gay marriage legalized
    2. ???
    3. Legal polygamy!

    When a case come before the Supreme Court saying “I come from a country
    where it’s okay to have 4 wives.  You let two men marry, why not us 5!” 
    – what will be said, then?

    While the Supreme Court might not always be as on-the-ball as I’d like them to be, I’d at least hope they’d recognize how much of an utter non-sequitur that is.

    (Oh for crying out loud, I fell into the “hit Liked instead of Reply” trap.  Suffice to say that I did not in actuality enjoy Beatrix’s post. I don’t suppose there’ any way of taking “Likes” back, is there?)

  • Anonymous

    In the recent Prop 8 trial, the plaintiffs — the proponents for Proposition 8, in shorthand the ones who were against same-sex marriages — tried to make the argument that marriage is for procreation.  They failed to convince the court, rather dramatically, actually.  The stand that marriage is for procreation falls over when one looks at the historical utilization of the institution of marriage; barren couples; and couples who marry after menopause.  There were other arguments, but I will elaborate on these three only for now.

    Historical first.  For large portions of human history, marriage has been used, not as procreation, but as a political tool.  Families arranged marriages for business and political reasons, to cement alliances and to achieve some sort of economic end.  One cannot make the blanket statement that ‘marriage is for procreation’ without this unpleasantness rearing up its head and saying ‘Excuse me, but….’

    Barren couples.  If marriage is for procreation, what happens when a heterosexual couple marries, and discover that they are, for whatever reason, barren?  The father cannot sire children, the mother cannot bring children to term.  Does the marriage get annulled?  This is speculation here* but I would say that the cases of a couple breaking up because they cannot have children is considered anomalous; indeed, our Western society looks upon this as rather offensive and looks down upon the party who wants to get a divorce in such a case.

    Postmenopausal couples.  Does our society and its laws prevent an elderly couple from marrying, even though there is no medical reason why they can have children (and even more biological reason why they should not)?  Indeed not.  In fact our society looks upon such marriages as charming and sweet.  But no issue can come from such a marriage.  If marriage is all about procreation, then such things must be put a stop to.

    In the end, the problem with ‘civil unions’ is that they do not confer the same things as marriage.  Even with a civil union, partners can be denied entry into a hospital when their partner is ill; they can be denied access to their partner’s health insurance; they can be legally shut out of any will and inheritance.  Much of this depends on how civil unions are defined, which since they are not ‘marriages’ can be subject to the local legal definition of ‘civil union.’  Moreover, not everywhere allows civil unions.

    I would also like to note, that you do not see a ‘rush of gays to the alter’ because in most places, same-sex marriage is still not permitted.  When ‘rushing to he altar’ would get one either laughed out of the courthouse, let alone the homosexual-accepting church, or even in some jurisdictions arrested, there’s not exactly going to be a lot of people trying to buck the system.  Add in that it is still quite common in some places for people suspected of being homosexual to be beaten and even killed, and you may, I hope, understand why many prefer to stay in the closet rather than walking down the aisle.

    Regarding SSM as being some sort of ‘gateway’ to polygamy, I believe you are mistaken in conflating the two.  They are completely separate issues and should be treated as such.  There is nothing to be lost in alowing same-sex marriage; it does not take away anything from heterosexual couples, and allows two people who love each other to enjoy the same benefits that any two people who love each other to share.  Polygamy has a raftload of issues surrounding it, mostly in the fields of group dynamics and coercive religious practicies; polyamory in general does not have this baggage but there are real, practical economic and fiscal barriers to it being accepted.  But marriage equality — marriage between two consenting, loving adults — is not one of those barriers.

    Also, I would like to genuinely thank you for using polygamy as the example for your ‘today same-sex marriage, tomorrow X’ argument.  Too often we’ve seen people use ‘beastiality’ which is simply offensive to homosexuals in addition to being nonsensical.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Why shouldn’t you be passionate about it? Being dispassionate is not the same thing as being rational, just as being passionate doesn’t mean you’re irrational. It’s not shameful to have emotions.

    Unfortunately, when ever I am roused to passion, it manifests as a desire for violence.  Not random thoughtless violence, but focused and direct violence against particular classifications of targets in the service of some larger goal.  When I spoke in previous threads of forcibly disbanding families, that was an example of the kind of meticulous, measured violence I imagine when I get passionate.  I think it seems all the more disturbing since I am otherwise typically very calm and stoic in my interactions with people, so the contrast is jarring.  A friend once told me that, as much as she liked me, she felt like she could not get close to me because something might prompt me to say something like describing a harsh and intolerant progrom.  “You sound like a Republician,” she said.  I have known some reasonable and intelligent Republicians in my time, so that should not sting as much as it does. 

    The point is, if my passions make other people uncomfortable in a way that I do not wish upon them, then those passions must be brought to heel.  The aforementioned forced family seperation ideas, to make an example, produced disgusted reactions on the part of many people here.  Such things disrupt the order of the thread and undermine my future credibility in the eyes of many other posters, neither of which is a desired outcome.  And yet my passions prompted me to give voice to those ideas anyway.  Counter-productive, self-destructive.  Bad. 

    It’s great that you realize that rape is about power and not just “stealing sex”. That’s actually a very important point that even progressive men (and women) often miss. You’re making things better simply by understanding the true nature of this crime. And I agree with you that abuses of power like this are especially horrific.

    I participated in a “SlutWalk” a few weekends ago, a rally to counter the idea that sexually promiscuous people, or those who simply dress provocatively, are inviting others to rape them.  There was a lot of impassioned outcry and protest signs, one of the speakers talked about how some insensitive police officer somewhere said that to avoid rape women should not dress like sluts, etc.  But the point I felt was missed was that rapists do not target victims on the basis of sex appeal, they target on the basis of vulnerability.  Does the person look like they will not report the crime?  Do they look like they would not be able to run quickly in those shoes?  Do they look like they can be cowd into obedience with a show of force?  That is what they look for.  This applies to domestic abusers too, they look for someone that is vulnerable, or whom they can get to make themselves vulnerable over time, just so they can continue to express some twisted need for involuntary interpersonal power. 

    But the thing I have concluded about interpersonal power is that it can never be forcibly taken, it can only be given.  If someone is holding a gun to your head, they still cannot force you to cooperate with them.  They can kill you for refusing to cooperate, sure, but they cannot make you cooperate unless you let them have the power they are trying to intimidate you into giving up to them.  I think that is something that is important for everyone to understand, the victimized party still retains all the power, unless they give that up to the aggressor. 

    This brings me to another point.  I do not want to sound like I am victim-blaming, but it does take two to make an imbalance of interpersonal-power.  Like I said, aggressors will seek out vulnerable targets who will give up power to them, even at cost to themselves.  It is not their fault, but as long as there are vulnerable victims, the aggressors will have someone to target and will be able to keep getting away with their vile games.  Any solution does not involve simply catching and punishing aggressors, but fortifying potential victims as well, so that they never become victims in the first place. 

    You’ve made the right choice to not volunteer at a woman’s shelter, there are still plenty of things that you can do. Instead of giving your time, you could donate money if you can afford it. But there are other little things you can do just by living your life. You have a unique to position to be part of all-male groups and so you can inject some wisdom when other misunderstand rape, make rape jokes, or even admit to wanting to rape. That’s hard for women to do because men often don’t say these things in front of us so it’s harder to counter them. If you have any interaction with children, you can mentor them and teach them that rape is not ok, even when it doesn’t seem like rape.

    Unfortunately, simply being male procludes me from much meaningful contribution.  For example, there was a bit of an internet backdraft some months ago about this Penny Arcade strip.  There were big outcries of “Penny Arcade supports rape culture!  The make rape a joke, the misogynistic bastards!” mainly from people who never read Penny Arcade before.  I tried to interject a bit of calm, saying tha the joke was not about rape, it was about the callousness implied in the kind of quests one finds in MMORPGs. 

    I was immediately met with responses along the lines of “You’re male, there’s no way you could possibly understand!  I can’t accept any disagreement with me on this issue as respectful!  You’re a horrible person for even suggesting that this is not the worst thing in the word!”  At least one person defriended me on Facebook because of that.  Though I admit it could also be because my increasingly desperate attempts to show that I was not her enemy led to me explaining that I would like to see all convicted rapists lined up and executed in one long night of blood to send a clear message to society at large that such behavior would be met with zero tolerance.  See my statements about my passions being bad above. 

    In any case, when I see the Penny Arcade guys again at this coming PAX Prime, I plan on proposing to them that they start a rape-relief charity alongside their existing Child’s Play charity.  I should hope it should help patch their image with people disgusted (injustly, in my opinion) by them, and if they still hate them despite that, then they really are too far gone to be reasoned with.  In any case, it should still do some good, even if the kind of people it would propose to help still see them as vile. 

  • Beatrix

    Look, of course lesbians can get pregnant; of course gay couples can adopt; of course there are many gay couples with whom children would be best off.   Short of extreme fanatics, with whom no normal conservatives of whom I’m aware would identify, noone would deny this.  In fact IMHO it is federal policies on stuff like this that makes sensible descision about childcare so dificult.

    As for this “emergency medical decisions” bit, that’s why I support civil unions”. 

    As for a man having “power of life or death over his wives” -  oh, that’s a silly stereotype and anyway, it’s not true now, is it? As for this “who can get divorced” etc. stuff, well, it’s a shame marriage was destroyed in the West within the last 3-4 decades, but it was.

    I am not religious, I am as promiscuous as I like, but I can take note of trends.

  • Beatrix

    I don’t believe I did.  I don’t think anyone’s “hurting” them. 

  • Anonymous

    Well, excuse me for drawing your beliefs to their logical conclusion (which I did here in case you forgot). 

  • Anonymous

    I CANNOT BE OPENLY BISEXUAL IN MY OWN FUCKING HOUSE. THAT HURTS ME.

    I call troll.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Ditto.  I’m actually thinking Mono sockpuppet.  Mono hasn’t been getting much attention lately, their fee fees must be hurt.

  • Anonymous

    This does not appear to be the case.  As I noted, it is not only possible, but quite common, in many areas of the US to be beaten if not killed if one is suspected of being homosexual.  This is not limited to individuals, but also to couples.

  • Beatrix

    There is two thousand years of Chistian history.  There are countless works on heresy, doctrine, interpetation, you name it.  Do you think that that means anything can mean anything?  BS.  The doctrine of the Church is clear.  I’m sorry if it’s difficult – your religion.   If you don’t like it, live with your uncertainty, reform, or quit.  I’m a sodding agnostic and I understand this stuff.  What’s your problem?

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    You say…

    > ” of course lesbians can get pregnant; of course gay couples can adopt;
    of course there are many gay couples with whom children would be best
    off. [...] noone would deny this.”

    …and you say…

    > “Marriage exists for the raising of children. ”

    It seems to me, if marriage exists for the raising of children, and many gay/lesbian couples raise children and do so well, then supporting marriage for those couples ought to follow pretty easily. And yet you also claim to not understand why those couples would want to marry, and you put marriage in scare quotes when talking about those couples.

    Why isn’t it as simple, for you, as “Some gay couples want to marry in order to raise children, and since the purpose of marriage is the raising of children, we should support them in doing so?”

    (Just to avoid confusion I should say here that personally, I don’t agree that raising children is “the” purpose of marriage. I think marriage exists to create families, and not all families have children in them. But I’m asking about your beliefs here, not espousing my own.)

     

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for that post.  It reminded me of where I had heard of the user ‘Beatrix’ from before.  This explains a great deal.  I now feel free to conserve my energy and engage with someone who is actually interested in debate.

  • Beatrix

    Of course you can.  What the hell is stopping you?

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Actually I’m an atheist.  And you?  You’re an asshole.  That’s my problem.

  • Anonymous

    Romans 13 is not an endorsement of EVERY government, it merely defines the proper extent of civil government. 18th century British rule over the colonies was unbiblical and unjust. The Founders petitioned for years for their independence, and the King, in violation of English law and the Magna Carta, sent troops over to seize land and oppress the colonial citizens. They fired the first shot in every confrontation leading up to the Revolutionary War. The War was a war of defense, not rebellion. Our Founders were upstanding men before God who resorted to violence only after every other means of resort was exhausted, unlike most “freedom fighters”. 

    Your smartassery has brought an earnest answer. Now please do not continue this line of inquiry, it is off-topic for this thread.

  • Beatrix

    I am single. I could, theoreticaly, aquire a child.  I could get pregnant.   I know for a fact I would be a better parent than many couples, or “couples”, I see every day.  So what?  A single woman can’t breed, is not a marriage, is not a family.

    Again, what will you say when a man (muslim or even, say, weirdo Mormon-sect type) comes before the Spreme Court to ask why he can”t have four wives?

  • Anonymous

    Turcano was replying to me, s/h/it just forgot to click “reply”.

  • Beatrix

    I don’t know what you mean, but I have only posted as “Beatrix” on this website, the existance of which I have only been aware for maybe two weeks, and also really really sporadicallly on The Anchoress, also hosted  on Patheos.  Whatever you’re thinking of you’re mistaken.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I agree that what you as an unmarried person do in terms of raising a child is irrelevant to marriage.

    That has nothing to do with my question, though. To restate it: what is difficult to understand about why people performing a task want to make use of a tool that (according to you) is intended to perform that task? If the purpose of a hammer is to pound nails, and I am pounding nails, it makes sense that I would want a hammer. If the purpose of a marriage is to raise children, and I am raising children, it makes sense that I would want a marriage. What further explanation is needed?

    It continues to seem that, by your own assertions, you should be perfectly capable of understanding and supporting gay marriage, as a mechanism for supporting gay couples in the raising of children.

    A few other, more tangential, things:

    > “A single woman can’t breed”

    This is simply false. Single women breed all the time.

    > “, is not a marriage,”

    I agree.

    > “is not a family.”

    When my father died, what was left — my suddenly single mother and her children — was by my definition a family. If your definition of “family” doesn’t include that, then we have radically different understandings of family. If you can clarify yours, I’d be interested.

    > “what will you say when a man comes before the Spreme Court to ask why he can’t have four wives?”

    Personally? I’ll say “That’s fine with me, as long as everyone involved gets at least the same legal protections, rights and obligations that existing husbands and wives have.” I’ll also say that when a black man comes before the Supreme Court to ask why he can’t have a white wife.

    That said, it makes no more sense to claim that I and my husband want marriage equality only to support some hypothetical polygamist’s future Supreme Court case, than it makes sense to claim that a mixed-race couple in 1950 wanted marriage equality only to support our equality.

  • friendly reader

    Well, I for one actually support us considering the possibility of legalizing some forms of polygamy in some way, shape or form. Especially if, say, the plural marriages were legally made in another country, as might be the case with a Muslim man immigrating to America with more than one wife (though polygamy is extremely rare in Muslim countries). Why should we break up their families? I dunno, blame it on reading “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” at too young an age. The point is, your argument that SSM leads to polygamy does not bother me so much.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    I do not want to sound like I am victim-blaming…

    Then stop. Whenever you write something like that (“I don’t mean to sound racist or anything…” “I don’t mean to sound like a sexist pig, but…”) just stop! Because guess what? You engaged in victim-blaming.

    I’m probably reading things into your comment that aren’t there, but it feels like there’s some “all-or-nothing” thinking going on. Like this:

    If someone is holding a gun to your head, they still cannot force you to cooperate with them.  They can kill you for refusing to cooperate, sure, but they cannot make you cooperate unless you let them have the power they are trying to intimidate you into giving up to them.

    That feels like all-or-nothing thinking, that either you are a consensual partner to your victimization, or you’re a principled corpse, and there’s nothing in between. That is victim-blaming; sometimes the only choices you get to make are between ‘bad’ and ‘worse’. Being coerced, acting under duress, is nowhere near consent. Chosing to minimize pain or suffering, when avoiding it entirely is no longer an option is a rational choice. I’m sure it sounded very principled inside your head, but telling a victim “Hey, you had all the power! You decided how much you would suffer by not fighting back/yelling/resisting” is absolutley, positively victim-blaming.

    There were big outcries of “Penny Arcade supports rape culture!  The make rape a joke, the misogynistic bastards!” mainly from people who never read Penny Arcade before.  I tried to interject a bit of calm, saying tha the joke was not about rape, it was about the callousness implied in the kind of quests one finds in MMORPGs. 

    Really? That strip isn’t an example where rape is played for laughs? Because I’m pretty sure the humor comes from the line in the second panel about… rape. I’m pretty sure you could tell the same joke about callousness in MMORPGs without casually invoking violent, nonconsensual sex. And if your counter-argument is “well, yeah, but it wouldn’t be as funny”, then congratulations on missing the point.
    I would like to see all convicted rapists lined up and executed in one long night of blood to send a clear message to society at large that such behavior would be met with zero tolerance. 

    Remember what I said earlier about all-or-nothing thinking? As used to be said more often in these parts… “it’s usually more complicated than that.”

  • Tonio

    mutually raise our children as if everyone were the father

    Dumb question, and I apologize in advance for any offense – do you mean everyone in the world or everyone in your family?

    From the Deipnosophist:

    Thanks for the additional information. I had forgotten about Adonis. Some of those others are not as familiar from my reading. I had remembered Thetis but didn’t know if she would count as a goddess since she was a sea nymph and not an Olympian.

  • Anonymous

    I have the impression that she meant Alison, Bob, Chad, and Dylan raising Alison’s child by one of the other three as if all three of them were the child’s father.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    That feels like all-or-nothing thinking, that either you are a consensual partner to your victimization, or you’re a principled corpse, and there’s nothing in between. That is victim-blaming; sometimes the only choices you get to make are between ‘bad’ and ‘worse’. Being coerced, acting under duress, is nowhere near consent. Chosing to minimize pain or suffering, when avoiding it entirely is no longer an option is a rational choice. I’m sure it sounded very principled inside your head, but telling a victim “Hey, you had all the power! You decided how much you would suffer by not fighting back/yelling/resisting” is absolutley, positively victim-blaming.

    My post was already too long and I did not want to clutter it further, so I apologize if my thesis was insufficiently supported.  Here is the thing:  power is not the same thing as choice.  You can “choose” to play-along with the aggressor’s power game, choose to bide your time, and wait for an oppertunity.  It is when you fall into the trap of believing yourself to be without that choice that you surrender power, and that is what I wish to eliminate, the belief that one is powerless against another.  In the case of an abusive relationship, a victim has to believe that they have the choice to walk away, that it is an option for them.  If they believe that they have no choice but to stay in a harmful relationship then it will continue to go on and continue to hurt them.  They must be convinced that they do have that choice before anything will get better. 

    Really? That strip isn’t an example where rape is played for laughs? Because I’m pretty sure the humor comes from the line in the second panel about… rape. I’m pretty sure you could tell the same joke about callousness in MMORPGs without casually invoking violent, nonconsensual sex. And if your counter-argument is “well, yeah, but it wouldn’t be as funny”, then congratulations on missing the point.

    No, I believe that the humor is in the third panel.  The second panel is part of the setup, to depict just how horrible these slave’s existance is.  The humor is in the deconstruction of the “Save X Many Slaves” dynamic of the MMORPG quest mechanics, demonstraiting that it implies a certain amount of callousness on the part of the people who take them on.  Since a lot of Penny Arcade readers can be expected to be gamers, it is more of the “You Bastard” type of punchline. 

  • Amaryllis

    There’s no no rush of gays to the alter.

    The New York Times begs to differ.
    “If first comes love and then comes the law, the next step is finding the
    space. For thousands  of gay and lesbian couples who have been waiting
    years for the legalization of same sex-marriage in New York, the
    jockeying for dates has already begun, with many looking to tie the knot
    in the fall, if not earlier…  For hotels and other spaces that have been struggling through the
    recession, the passage of marriage equality is a business boon not to be
    missed.”

  • Tonio

    Fred has said that some arguments are too ridiculous to have been offered in good faith, and while I’ve questioned that assumption, he may have a point when it comes to anti-SSM arguments. Can opponents really believe that legalizing it will lead to marriages with animals? Or that straights will take it as their cue that they don’t need to marry to procreate? The only way either of them would make even the remotest sense is if they believe that all sexual desire is amorphous, as if gays and lesbians are just people who became too horny for their own good. I’m tempted to suggest that simply the ridiculousness of the claims isn’t enough to prove bad faith, but offhand I don’t know how one would get other evidence.

  • Anonymous

    “Again, what will you say when a man (muslim or even, say, weirdo Mormon-sect type) comes before the Spreme Court to ask why he can”t have four wives?”

    I predict that if it ever gets that far, the state will effectively argue that it has a compelling interest in keeping marriages to two partners alone without even resorting to value judgments or moral arguments- the administrative burden and the unworkability of interpreting and enforcing the necessarily more complex legal contracts for the myriad combinations of polygamous family units (which would undermine- as gender-neutral contracts do not- the simplicity and general applicability of current marriage benefits and therefore undermine the state’s non-social interest in endorsing marriage in the first place) will likely prove sufficient.

  • Beatrix

    I am not saying that there are no circumstances under which two men, or two women, could not provide an ad hoc family.  But frankly, so could two brothers, or, say, a father and a daughter, under some circumstances. 

    The race thing – the attempt to equate gay “marriage” to the civil rights movement – is awful.  Historically there has never been a bar between people of different races marrying.  It was a brief, nasty, failed attempt to enforce a caste system in America.

    50 years ago two gay men could be arrested being caught together – theoretically anywhere, certaibly anywhere in public (I’d have to check jurisdictions for the specifcs).  Look, why do you want get “married”?  What’s the point?  You can adopt but you can’t breed together.  That’s biology; give me a historical example of “gay marriage” being considered – anything.

    Suck it up.  Live in a world where you can sign a contract allowing visitation rights (in case of illness) and pension rights. 

  • Tonio

    no, the “Christian teaching on sexual morality” is not particularly clear.

    Without taking issue with that, what any religion says about sexual morality is irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be legalized. Ultimately the question is whether the government has a compelling interest to treat gay couples differently from straight ones.

  • Beatrix

    Why should we break up their families?</i?

    Because their family structure is evil.  Yes, evil.  I mean evil.

    Here's a better question:  Why should we let them into Western countries at all?  Give me one reason.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    And really the whole Safe, Sane and Consensual thing taken as a whole.

    “Sane” opens up far more questions than “Safe” does (and “Safe” has quite a few questions), much less “Consensual”.  Who defines “sane”?  I might think it’s un-sane to want to be whipped or beaten, someone else might think one of my quirks un-sane. 

    If a person decides to do something that could easily go very wrong, resulting loss of limb or life, and they know and understand the risks, should we stop them?  How do we decide where to draw the line?

    I don’t have answers to these questions (“it’s more complicated than that”), but I think it’s intriguing to see if we can at least narrow down the questions.

  • Anonymous

    Four words. Risk-Aware Consensual Kink.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    (shrug) My husband and I are married, we have legal recognition as a family in our jurisdiction, our community supports us and celebrates our marriage. I don’t *have* to suck it up.

    If you don’t understand why that’s something I might want, that’s life; your understanding isn’t required. If you answer the questions I’ve asked you, I might be willing to answer still more of yours; if not, I’m willing to end this here.

    I agree with you that a father and a daughter can be a family, as can two brothers.
     

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    Historically there has never been a bar between people of different races marrying.  It was a brief, nasty, failed attempt to enforce a caste system in America.

    Cite, please?  I believe that most societies had “misogenation” laws, not just the US (and “brief” by your lights is 190 years or 78% of our nation’s history). 

    HISTORY FAIL.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    I think that’s pretty much the same as Informed Consent.  Is there any distinction that you know of? 

    It still leaves unanswered the questions of Consent above, if not Risk-Awareness.

  • Tonio

    You can adopt but you can’t breed together.

    Others here have pointed out that the rationale would just as easily apply to straight infertile couples. I know of a few people who believe that couples of either kind don’t need to get married if they don’t plan to procreate. While I disagree with that, since there are many rights and responsibilities in legal marriage that have nothing to do with children, at least that belief isn’t about denying marriage to some couples. Since some straight couples do not or cannot procreate, and some gay couples do procreate with assistance, the only true distinction that separates all straight couples from all gay ones is the gender(s) of the spouses.

  • Beatrix

    Anyone can be a “family”, under the right circumstances.  But look, why did you two have too marry?  What were you lacking otherwise?  Why does this “legal jurisdiction” matter to you so much?

    You “might want” it – nifty. What if marriage is a social institution, primarily but not exclusiveley about child-raising? 

    Why the hell does legal recognition, which is essentialy meaningless, matter to you so much?  It wouldn’t matter to me.  Who will be forced to acknowledge you and your love who wouldn’t otherwise be? And what difference does it make?

  • Rikalous

    Historically there has never been a bar between people of different
    races marrying.  It was a brief, nasty, failed attempt to enforce a
    caste system in America.

    Except in 9th century China, and in British India, and in late medieval-early modern Spain…
    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws )

    50 years ago two gay men could be arrested being caught together – theoretically anywhere, certaibly anywhere in public

    Fifty years ago, black people in America couldn’t drink from the same fountains as white people. Our ancestors were not right about everything. We don’t need to make the same mistakes they did. We don’t need to commit injustice because it’s traditional.

    Look, why do you want get “married”? What’s the point?  You can adopt but you can’t breed together.

    Straights, even if they’re infertile or don’t want kids, marry because they love their partners and want to be a family with them. Gays want to marry because they love their partners and want to be a family with them.

    give me a historical example of “gay marriage” being considered – anything.

    A quick look over the wikipedia page on gay marriage later, and I bring you Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz, married in Spain, April 16th, 1061.

  • Anonymous

    I told myself I wasn’t going to reply to you anymore, since I can’t work how how to explain why coming out to my mother is unwise without thinking about why coming out to my mother scares me and thus working myself into a panic attack, but I can’t let this idiocy pass.

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/gay_rights_groups_same-sex_cou.html –legal recognition of civil unions is indeed “essentially meaningless” to the couples suing New Jersey for the ability to have their civil unions converted to marriages. Legal recognition of marriages is not “essentially meaningless” in any way, shape, or form. One couple, there wasn’t “adequate documentation” of their relationship, even though they had the papers saying they were civilly united, so half the couple got dropped from the other half’s health insurance. (Their kids got dropped, too.) The other couple, when half the couple got hit by a car, the hospital called his sister two states away to come make medical decisions for him rather than acknowledge his civilly united partner standing right there at the hospital.

  • Rikalous

    Here’s a better question:  Why should we let them into Western countries at all?  Give me one reason.

    Because they want to come. America in particular should welcome them, because we’re a nation of immigrants.

    Why should we break up their families?Because their family structure is evil.  Yes, evil.  I mean evil.

    That’s a lovely assertion. Care to provide some evidence for it?

  • Beatrix

    “I believe that most societies had “misogenation” laws,”
    You may believe it, but it ain’t so.

  • Rikalous

    Anyone can be a “family”, under the right circumstances.  But look, why did you two have too marry?  What were you lacking otherwise?  Why does this “legal jurisdiction” matter to you so much?

    You “might want” it – nifty. What if marriage is a social institution, primarily but not exclusiveley about child-raising? 

    Why
    the hell does legal recognition, which is essentialy meaningless,
    matter to you so much?  It wouldn’t matter to me.  Who will be forced to
    acknowledge you and your love who wouldn’t otherwise be? And what
    difference does it make?

    If legal recognition is so meaningless, than why are you arguing against it? Surely you have better uses of your time and energy than arguing over something pointless. It would be far more efficient to just let them have their symbolic victory and go on to something important, rather than dragging on the fight.

  • Anonymous
  • Beatrix

    “Cite” what?  The absence of something?  I challenge you to “cite” any laws outside of North, Central or South America regarding Race classification or race marriage.

  • Tonio

    Ellie, those examples back up what I’ve been saying elsewhere – the civil union concept amounts to an escape clause for those bureaucrats and apparatchiks who want to deny legal rights to gay couples. Some well-meaning people see the concept as a half-step toward SSM, and I was one of them, but I realized that all the concept does is reinforce the double standard in government’s treatment of gay couples versus straight couples.

  • Anonymous

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws has a fuckton of citations from the Eastern Hemisphere.

  • Beatrix

    Hay, watchagonnado?

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    > “Anyone can be a “family”, under the right circumstances.”

    Agreed.

    > “But look, why did you two have to marry? What were you lacking otherwise? Why does this “legal jurisdiction” matter to you so much? [..] What if marriage is a social institution, primarily but not exclusively about child-raising? Why
    the hell does legal recognition, which is essentialy meaningless,
    matter to you so much? [..] Who will be forced to
    acknowledge you and your love who wouldn’t otherwise be? And what
    difference does it make?”

    As I said before, I’m done unilaterally answering questions; I’ll add those to the list of your questions I’ll consider answering if you ever answer mine. No promises, though.

    That said, I’m curious: do you genuinely not understand why couples choose to get married at all? I thought initially that it was just same-sex marriages you didn’t understand, but all of those questions could be asked just as readily of my friends in opposite-sex marriages, could have been asked just as readily of my parents.

    Do you really not understand any of them either?

    > “It wouldn’t matter to me.” 

    That’s entirely legitimate, and I endorse your choice to be indifferent to marriage. But “your choice” is a key part of that. If you change your mind tomorrow and decide to marry someone, and they choose to marry you, I endorse you having that option, just as my husband and I did.

  • Beatrix

    Legal recognition is very meaningful.  What society deems “marriage” is hardly pointless.  What makes no sense to me is the desperate yearning of gays for a word.  Why isn’t every reasonable concession enough for you?  Why must you have that word?

    Why can’t the breeders keep it?  Why is your relationship with your boyfriend/girlfriend so frackin’ important that society has to give you that one. sodding.  word.

    Really? Why?

  • Anonymous

    RACK. Clever.

  • Anonymous

    RACK. Clever.

  • Beatrix

    I’m an asshole?  That’s your problem?  I’ve heard of worse.   Consider yourself lucky.

  • Beatrix

    I’m an asshole?  That’s your problem?  I’ve heard of worse.   Consider yourself lucky.

  • Anonymous

    Your mind-boggling ignorance is something to behold, I tell you.

  • Anonymous

    Your mind-boggling ignorance is something to behold, I tell you.

  • Rikalous

    Why the hell does legal recognition, which is essentialy meaningless, matter to you so much?

    Legal recognition is very meaningful.

    Those are both direct quotes from you. I don’t know how to reconcile them.

    What makes no sense to me is the desperate yearning of gays for a word.  Why isn’t every reasonable concession enough for you?  Why must you have that word?

    Why
    can’t the breeders keep it?  Why is your relationship with your
    boyfriend/girlfriend so frackin’ important that society has to give you
    that one. sodding.  word.

    Really? Why?

    Firstly, as Tonio and EllieMurasaki have mentioned, civil unions aren’t necessarily given the full power of marriages. Secondly, as long as gay unions aren’t “marriages,” there’s an implication that gay relationships can’t be as frackin’ important as straight ones, that they aren’t meaningful enough to deserve the word. Thirdly, why does society need to keep that one. sodding. word? Why isn’t it a reasonable concession? Is there a limited supply of the word “marriage?” Or is it just generally better for society to err on the side of denying rights?

  • Tom S

    Beyond the infinitude of excellent reasons to support gay marriage in terms of removing some of the absurd discrimination that exists against gay people at the moment (and it’s worth making the point that this isn’t some magnanimous gift that we, the mighty straights, may or may not feel like giving the gays, but a right that is being arbitrarily taken away from them)- I support gay marriage because I want to ram it down the homophobes’ throats, make them formally accept gay couples as they have to accept straight ones, and cower in fear at how far society has moved away from their bigotry. Why in Christ’s name should people who are being oppressed make any concession, a single word or a single penny, to help a bunch of ignorant bigots maintain their state of bigotry?

  • Anonymous

    For anyone who thinks that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, I would like to point out that the Biblical Patriarchs managed to get to polygamy very well without ever using same-sex marriage as a stepping stone to get there.  Historically, polygynous societies have more frequently been homophobic than gay-friendly.  And I find it extremely ironic that so-called biblical literalists are the most likely to use this ridiculous argument.

    (FWIW, I do think that polyamory should be legal, but that is beside the point.)

  • Beatrix

    But that’s not really anything, is it?  To be stung by an insult you need to respect the person delivering it.  Why should I respect you?  Explain to me why I am wrong and perhaps you will earn my respect and contrition.  Otherwise I will consider you a fool.  Capiche?

  • Beatrix

    “…there’s an implication that gay relationships can’t be as frackin’ important as straight ones..”

    They aren’t.  Gay’s can’t breed.  Marriage is not, fundamentally, about “how much we love each other” (allow me to nip your riposte in the bud; yes,  a man and a woman who are too old to breed can marry, although, according to the Catholic Chuch, they only leave themselve open to reproduction, just in case)

    -Why do you need the acknowledgement?  It’s ridiculous.  Your priest will never acknowledge your “marriage” unless he’s a fool.  Grow up.  Nobody’s stopping you from living any part of your life; but marriage is fundamentally a)procreative and b)religious and you are not in a marriage.  Live with your choices.  You live in the freest society that has ever existed in the history of the human habitation of planet Earth.  Stop Whining!

  • Kish

    Every reasonable concession is certainly enough. Stop opposing the one eminently reasonable concession–marriage–and the people you’re arguing with won’t have…that particular problem with you.

    But let’s ignore your spindoctoring, your transparently laughable claims and your evasions when asked to provide any support for them. Your ubiquitous scare quotes on “marriage.” Your repeated claims that you won’t be posting here anymore. The mysterious way you seem to be both Canadian and English while having a vocabulary made up entirely of American right-wing talking points. The likelihood that every word you write is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

    Why…should…anyone…here…let…you…have…anything? Anything at all, whether you try to claim that you speak for “society” or not?

  • P J Evans

    Also Eos and Tithonus.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    > “Why isn’t every reasonable concession enough for you? Why must you have that word? Why can’t the breeders keep
    it?  Why is your relationship with your boyfriend/girlfriend so frackin’
    important that society has to give you that one. sodding.  word.”

    You’re overcomplicating something that’s actually pretty simple.

    Either people like you and me are equal parts of our shared society, or we’re unequal, or we’re not in a shared society at all. If there’s a fourth choice, I don’t see it.

    If we’re equals, then it’s not about being “given” anything. It’s about both of us contributing fully as citizens and receiving the full rights and protections of citizens, as part of our birthright as citizens.

    Of course, we’re not there as a society. Not hardly. But every choice between treating citizens equally and not treating them equally is a movement towards that goal or away from it.

    I endorse moving towards it.

    All of that said: you seem really upset, and I don’t mean to upset you. I’m happy to drop this discussion if it’s being too much for you.

  • P J Evans

    Um …
    Christianity has altered its doctrines a number of times, usually in order to make the political powers-that-be happy.
    You ought to go read about the Iconoclasts, for openers.

  • P J Evans

     Real estate law, because of community-property states, if for no other reason.

  • Beatrix

    If a man can marry a man, why can’t a man marry three women?

  • Anonymous

    Be fair. Her vocabulary includes ‘sodding’. I have never heard anyone but a British Isles native say ‘sodding’. (She’s probably using it as protective coloration in hopes we won’t spot that she’s not actually British.)

  • Rikalous

    Gay’s can’t breed.

    Artificial insemination. Surrogate mothers.

    yes,  a man and a woman who are too old to breed can marry, although,
    according to the Catholic Chuch, they only leave themselve open to
    reproduction, just in case

    Than gay couples leave themselves open to reproduction through the above methods, or whatever other ones science comes up with. That makes no less sense.

    marriage is fundamentally…religious

    Not necessarily. Agnostics and atheists get married. Marriage brings with it legal benefits, like being counted as your spouse’s next of kin, and Tonio and EllieMurasaki have already talked about how civil unions don’t always cut it, legally.

    You live in the freest society that has ever existed in the history of the human habitation of planet Earth.  Stop Whining!

    So…because society is so great…we should stop trying to improve it? Because if we do try to improve it we might…uh…I really don’t know how to finish this.

  • Beatrix

    And hon, much as I love the Mary McCarthy routine (oooh, am I allowed to get that?  Hellman, McCarthy, both yanks, oy to the vey!) – short of computering you my passports, what can a girl do?

  • Beatrix

    I speak for myself, never said otherwise.

  • P J Evans

    The best argument for polygamy that I’ve met was also in the Prop8 trial: a man can marry one woman (one man plus one woman), then he can marry another woman (also one man plus one woman), and so on. (Presumably this would work for one woman marrying several men, but I doubt that that crossed the mind of the witness. Because of course only men would be involved in multiple marriages [/s])

    I’m not sure that the witness for the defense realized what he was saying – but some of us following the live-blogging certainly did.

  • Rikalous

    If a man can marry a man, why can’t a man marry three women?

    Because 1=/=3

    (I’m kind of curious about why your post seems to be a reply to Kish not mentioning polyamory at all. Maybe it’s just Disqus being Disqus.)

  • Anonymous

    >stop opposing

    That’s your best argument? To tell your opponent that if they stopped holding an opposing viewpoint, they wouldn’t have a problem? If I’m being punched in the face, would you tell me that I wouldn’t have that problem if I stopped objecting to pain? “Homosexual” “marriage” HURTS society. Rates of illegitimacy, divorce, adultery, etc. are worse than they have been in previous decades, why should we add ANOTHER problem to the pile? “Homosexuality” has already been proven to put people at higher risk of drug use, STDs, domestic abuse, and numerous other problems, and you want to subject children to that? I just don’t even…

  • Beatrix

    Bite me, kimobsabe.

  • P J Evans

    (Warning: yelling ahead)

    You know, there have been cases of people who have civil unions with each other, living wills naming each other as executor, medical powers of attorney naming each other as authorized-person-for-medical-purposes, and because they were NOT LEGALLY MARRIED those LEGAL DOCUMENTS were ignored.
    So either take your narrow little mind elsewhere, or start following the teachings of Jesus on how to treat OTHER PEOPLE.

  • P J Evans

    She needs a copy of Loving vs Virginia (1967).

  • P J Evans

    Off the top of my head:
    South Africa. Japan.

  • P J Evans

    It’s been done.In a lot of places, and a lot of times.
    You really need to spend more time reading history. You’re woefully ignorant of everything before you were born. And some after that, too.

  • P J Evans

    Heck, EllieM, I use ‘bloody’. It comes of reading too many British mystery novels, I think.

  • Beatrix

    han gay couples leave themselves open to reproduction through the above methods, or whatever other ones science comes up with. That makes no less sense.
    Abraham and Sarah were old, and they concieved.  Now to me that’s mythology, but this is a Christian blog, at least in theory.  Nobody ever got pregnant by having semen shot up his/her anal orifice.  I say again, grow up.

    “Not necessarily. Agnostics and atheists get married.”

    Well everyone’s an agnostic now, aren’t they?  I mean, everyone you know.  But the blueprint is ancient and it is what it is.  What confirmation do you expect to get that you haven’t already got?  It’s like teenagers rebelling and then demanding that mommy and daddy pat them on the back while they rebel. 

     Next of kin stuff I completely suppport and always have, nor am I convinviced this is a problem in most jurisdictions. 

  • Rikalous

    “Homosexual” “marriage” HURTS society.

    “Homosexuality” has already been proven to put people at higher risk of
    drug use, STDs, domestic abuse, and numerous other problems, and you
    want to subject children to that?

    Citations. They are needed, badly.

    You know, I knew a guy in high school who had two moms. Born from artificial insemination. He was in AP classes, spent some time on the wrestling team, wrote and starred in a one-act play for drama class, and is currently studying Slavic Languages and Literature at no-shit Harvard. I know anecdata isn’t worth much, but then neither are Monoblade’s unsupported, overdramatic assertions.

  • Beatrix

    Off the top of my head, a White man and a Black woman seeking to have their marriage legalized.  What the hell has that got to do with gay “marriage” (BTW do you know how most Black people feel about gay “marriage”?)?

  • Beatrix

    Off the top of my head, a White man and a Black woman seeking to have their marriage legalized.  What the hell has that got to do with gay “marriage” (BTW do you know how most Black people feel about gay “marriage”?)?

  • Beatrix

    South Africa – the collapsed apartheid regime?  That doesn’t pre-date Vervoerd.  As for Japan, well, take it up with the Japanese.  They are and always have been racial supremicisists.  That’s hardly Western civilization’s fault. 

  • Anonymous

    The “it’s traditional so it’s right” argument will only hurt you. Slavery is traditional, but you’ll never see me standing up for it.

    I just can’t believe you’re genuine. You claim not to be christian, but you make arguments that could only be arrived at by biblical thinking, like that bitch who works for FOX and claims to be an atheist but supports their agenda. A christian would never deny they are such, so there is only one other possiblity: troll.

  • Anonymous

    I do not care who she is or what she’s done. Do not call her a bitch. Unless she is Canis familiaris.

  • Beatrix

    No.  Calling me “ignorant” won’t do.  You need to go at least a little bit of the way towards proving it.  One interesting link – but you don’t have it.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    @Beatrix

    If you want to found a religion which is cool with abortion and gay “marriage” etc., do it.  But it’s not Christianity, that’s just daft.

    It’s funny. I don’t see any mention of homosexuality in the creed. Or the *Gospels* for that matter.

    Aside from that:

    (a) as a self-described agnostic you’re not in the ideal place to tell Christians what whey are allowed to be about

    but most importantly

    (b) on a personal note, a couple of the people who have most profoundly revealed Christ to me are gay Christians. They have a relationship with Christ, they are pretty Christlike as far as human beings go, and through their actions they reveal Christ to others and make you want to have the faith and the divine relationship that they have. Pretty good Christians then, as far as I’m concerned.

    So basically, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I’ve done my best to avoid responding to the bigot/troll (I’m still up in the air about whether Beatrix is one or both), but my will has broken, and I will say this:

    I am a Christian, specifically a Quaker. Like most Friends, I support social justice, including marriage equality, because of my religious beliefs. Social justice and equality is kind of a thing with Quakers.

    So according to you, I should stop calling myself a Christian, because my beliefs don’t coincide with what you have defined as “Christianity.” You’re hardly the first to make such a claim – in fact, Fred talks about such people quite a bit on this very blog. His answer almost always start with “it’s more complicated than that.”

    Incidentally, I’m a heterosexual man who wants to eventually get married to a woman, and I do not intend to procreate. I want the word “marriage” to apply to that relationship for all the same reasons that many same-sex couples who also do not have and will not have children want it. So why should I get to be married but they don’t?

  • Rikalous

    Abraham and Sarah were old, and they concieved.  Now to me that’s
    mythology, but this is a Christian blog, at least in theory.  Nobody
    ever got pregnant by having semen shot up his/her anal orifice.  I say
    again, grow up.

    I don’t understand how anal impregnation is relevant to the discussion, or why I need to grow up. The point I was trying to make is that gay couples are no less likely to procreate than infertile straight couples. In fact, since some same-sex couple want to have kids using artificial insemination, and some opposite-sex couples don’t want kids, the former would be more likely to procreate. Yet the latter can marry, and the former cannot.

    But the blueprint is ancient and it is what it is.

    This ancient blueprint? http://leftchristianity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/biblical-marriage.jpg   Besides, the blueprint for the mud hut is ancient, yet we still make buildings out of brick or drywall or what-have-you.

    What confirmation do you expect to get that you haven’t already got? 
    It’s like teenagers rebelling and then demanding that mommy and daddy
    pat them on the back while they rebel.

    So wanting equal rights is like an adolescent tantrum. I suppose the Reverend Doctor King and his contemporaries should have stopped whining about sitting in the back of the bus. After all, they lived in “the freest society that has ever existed in the history of the human habitation of planet Earth.” Why should they try to improve it?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Ellie, this isn’t worth much but I just wanted to say that your family situation sucks and I’m sorry :(

  • Beatrix

    So I have to convert before I’m allowed to have an opinion?  But what if I just know more than you do, because I’m better read, my spiritual state aside?

    Most Anglicans and Catholics will admit that a very large percentage of their priests are gay.  As long as those priests are celibate it’s not problematic theologically.

    I keep saying, if you don’t like the religion, quit.  And be grateful you live in a culture where you’re allowed to.

  • Anonymous

    Look, it’s fine if you take offense and you tell me about it, just as it’s my decision whether or not to care, but you made an error:

    >Do not

    You seem to be under the impression that you have some sort of authority over me.

  • Anonymous

    It’s worth lots, Sgt. Pepper. Thanks.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Look, why do you want get “married”?  What’s the point?

    If they want to get married, that’s all the reason needed.

    Your logic says that marriage should not be allowed when one partner is known to be infertile. Certainly no old folks should get married, because they’re very unlikely to choose to raise a child in their 60s or 70s.

  • Beatrix

    Because polyandry, if that’s what you meant, has only ever been recorded in the Himalayas.  Seriously, look it up.  Basically, a woman marrying several men pretty much never happens, but a man marrying several women – not that unusual.  Actaually, it was probably the major stumblingblock for Christian missionaries in Africa and other places:   You try convincing the chief to give up all but one of his wives.

    And when we finish destroying the one-man-one-woman model of marriage, it’s not a zillion gays who’ll be desperate to tye the knot; not, polygamy is what will come rushing in.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    So I have to convert before I’m allowed to have an opinion?

    No, but if you’re not a Christian you are going to have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian than someone who is. So your thoughts on what someone can and can’t believe in order to call themselves a Christian are worth a lot less than the thoughts of someone who *is* a Christian.

    Most Anglicans and Catholics will admit that a very large percentage of their priests are gay.

    Yep.

    As long as those priests are celibate it’s not problematic theologically.

    I’m Catholic. As long as *all* of my priests are celibate there’s no problem. The celibacy rule isn’t extra important for the gay priests; it applies equally to the straight ones.

    I keep saying, if you don’t like the religion, quit.

    I do like the religion. I don’t agree with everything the institutional Church says, but my faith is not in the institutional church. Besides, you forgot the other option you gave us: reform.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Ah, the “technically could be fertile through a miracle theory”. So no one who’s had a hysterectomy may marry!

  • Tom S

    Haha, honestly, there’s not a lot of point to continue to engage with this level of discourse. It’s a really pathetic slippery slope argument based on shoddy historical understanding and an assumption that we’re all _terrified_ of polygamy- it may not be Santorum’s exact words, but it’s more or less the same reasoning, and I see no reason to engage with it any more than one would with Santorum.

  • Anonymous

    Are you placing the regeneration of a womb beyond God’s capabilities?

  • Tom S

    Are you placing a miraculous female-only birth beyond His capabilities? That one’s been attested.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    God’s capability is really a non-issue. I’m more interested in what God *does* that in what God *could in theory do*.

    But if you want to say that God could manufacture a pregnancy in the absence of a womb, then God could just as easily impregnate a gay man or woman without artificial insemination. I don’t think he’s gonna.

  • Rikalous

    Vocabulary word of the day: polyamory, meaning “participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships.”

    a man marrying several women – not that unusual.

    So by the same appeal to tradition that you kept using, doesn’t that make it a good thing?

  • Anonymous

    Biblical Patriarchs often married three or more women.  Why didn’t they also marry men?  It’s really fallacious to link same-sex marriage to polygyny when most societies that have practiced polygyny have not been accepting of homosexuality.

  • Rikalous

    most societies that have practiced polygyny have not been accepting of homosexuality.

    That seems odd to me. You’d think they’d encourage behavior that cut down on the competition for women.

  • Anonymous

    That’s what sending young men off to war is for.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Why the hell does legal recognition, which is essentialy meaningless, matter to you so much?

    Legal recognition is very meaningful.

    Those are both direct quotes from you. I don’t know how to reconcile them. 

    It’s very simple, once you understand quantum physics.  Beatrix exists inside a sealed box of intolerance, with a few fixed assumptions.  Until the box is breached by an argument collapsing the rationalization, Beatrix is in an indeterminate state, so we have no way of knowing which cockamamie argument she’s going to use to ineptly defend her central assertion that GAY MARRAIGE IZ TEH BAD.

    Beatrix is Schoedinger’s Bigot.

  • Tom S

    That actually brings up an interesting point, which relates back to my earlier argument: polygamous marriage, insofar as it comprises one man marrying a harem of women, is an extreme expression of the patriarchal norms that same-sex marriage threatens: the man as the head of the household, the women as subservient partners or possessions, and the marriage relationship primarily as the means of creating legitimate male heirs. 

    Interestingly, Beatrix’s argument is essentially that marriage that does not reinforce those same things doesn’t really count. 

  • Anonymous

    Beatrix: And when we finish destroying the one-man-one-woman model of marriage,
    it’s not a zillion gays who’ll be desperate to tye the knot; not,
    polygamy is what will come rushing in.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    I bet you a million billion trillion squillion jillion dollars that never, ever happens.

    Never mind the fact that you’ve already been provided with links to news articles showing that gay people are indeed rushing to get married right at this moment in those states that allow it.  And never mind that you haven’t provided any evidence that anyone anywhere is using gay marriage as a wedge to legalize polygamy.

    Even with all that aside, I just can’t get over the sheer randomness of this baseless assertion of yours.  Seriously, this isn’t even a slippery slope argument, this is some sort of Sonic 2-slope argument, with no attempt at a logical transition between steps (Sonic 2 zones: 1: beach, Zone 2: factory, Zone 3: ancient ruins, Zone 4: casino, Zone 5: mountains, etc).  Why would anyone in a million years see the right for men to marry men and women to marry women as a forerunner to one man marrying many woman or vice-versa?  What’s the connection here?  Hell, isn’t straight marriage a more logical first step towards the evils of polygamy?  I mean, “one man, one woman” leads to “one man, many women” in a far more straightforward way than “one woman, one woman” or “one man, one man”.  Better outlaw straight marriage before it’s too late, and the world collapses into a swirling chaos of polygamic horror.  In fact, the real first step towards polygamy is marriage itself.  Better outlaw all forms of marriage just to be on the safe side!

  • Beatrix

    I’m a bigot, probaby not a troll.

    Yes, gay “marriage” is not Christian.  Christian theology is perfectly straightforward on this point. 

    As for your intentions towards the ladies – look good for you.  Birth control is not Catholic, but then neither are you.  I must say Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity I’ve ever een able to take completely seriously, but… heck, who doesn’t like the Quakers?

    But if a marriage is not between one man and one woman is not the model then what should be, and how will it work?

  • Beatrix

    You have equal rights.  You have identical rights to any other citizen, including marriage rights.  Make a case if you can but stop comparing yourself to people who were genuinely denied real, actual civil rights.  Stop piggybacking on other people’s misery.

  • Beatrix

    Monoblade – why do you bother?  I think I might be a masochist, but tonight is probably my last foray here (I keep thinking “you should debate the other side.  Avoid the echo chamber!”)

  • Anonymous

    Beatrix: Yes, gay “marriage” is not Christian.  Christian theology is perfectly straightforward on this point.

    No, Christian theology is not perfectly straightforward on this point.  Jesus in particular didn’t say one word on the subject, and he’s sort of the authority on Christian theology.  So no, not straightforward.  You made the same bald, unsupported claim at the beginning of the argument, pretty much word-for-word too.  Are you just some bigot wind-up doll that’s cycled back to the start of your stock phrases?

  • Beatrix

    If you have to push it to that point, it follows logically in Catholic theology. 

    Hey, why do you have to be having sex with someone to marry them?  Why can’t I marry my identical twin sister?

  • Anonymous

    Leaving the whole correlation-implies-causation fallacy aside, the scare quotes on “homosexual” cracks me up.  That was a nice touch.

    And since you don’t give two shits about internal consistency, I will stop eliciting a response on why you hate America.

  • Tom S

    Oh, hey, it’s the incest line on the slippery slope! What’s the over/under on how long before we hit beastiality?

  • Beatrix

    Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just fumbling words.  By all means, fuck anybody of each and al genders, marry them, divorce them, huddle with them in a great big pile; raise children, I’m sure they’ll turn out fine.  This arrangement is great for society and I’m sure no Christian could have a problem with it.

    When will you all be celebrating the special day?

  • Beatrix

    “So by the same appeal to tradition that you kept using, doesn’t that make it a good thing?”

    No.  Slavery is traditional, as is child sacrifice and feudalism and not having enough to eat and dying in childbirth.  I never said something was good because it was traditional, I just implied it was likely to happen.  As it (polygamy) is, now, in any city with a significant Muslim poulation.

  • Tom S

    Ooh, racism, too! This is getting exciting.

  • Beatrix

    Well I’m pretty much against all of it.

  • Beatrix

    What is women dying in childbirth for?

  • Rikalous

    You have equal rights.  You have identical rights to any other citizen,
    including marriage rights.

    I’m straight. I don’t need to worry about whether I’ll get to marry the person I love. I’m not arguing for marriage equality because it’ll benefit me, I’m arguing for it because it’s the moral position. Normally, I’d point out that marriage equality gives everyone more rights, but I’m not sure you see that as a positive.

    Make a case if you can but stop comparing yourself to people who were genuinely denied real, actual civil rights.

    Marriage is a real, actual civil right. That’s why people fought to have interracial marriage legalized.

    Stop piggybacking on other people’s misery.

    Have you heard of the It Gets Better project? It was started in response to a rash of LGBT teen suicides. That sure as hell sounds like misery to me.

  • Beatrix

    It’s meaningless if you have it.  Because there’s no such thing as “gay marriage”.   Phoney legal recognition is not meaningful.  Societal acknowledgment is.

    And yes,  GAY MARRAIGE IZ TEH BAD.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    And when we finish destroying the one-man-one-woman model of marriage, it’s not a zillion gays who’ll be desperate to tye the knot; not, polygamy is what will come rushing in. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    You say that like it is a bad thing. 

  • Anonymous

    Over half of Americans support same-sex marriage.  So there.

  • Beatrix

    Maybe you’re just not very good at working things out in your head.

    Anyway, I’d take your bet, but you don’t have that kind of folding cash.  But there will be a case regarding the lagality of polygamy before the Supreme Court within 5 years.

  • Beatrix

    And gay “marriage” wil be cited as the main precedent.

  • Rikalous

    Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just
    fumbling words.  By all means, fuck anybody of each and al genders,
    marry them, divorce them, huddle with them in a great big pile; raise
    children, I’m sure they’ll turn out fine.  This arrangement is great for
    society and I’m sure no Christian could have a problem with it.

    When will you all be celebrating the special day?

    Wait, what? I think there’s been some confusion down the line. You asked why, if a man could marry a man, he couldn’t marry three. I replied:

    Because 1=/=3

    (I’m kind of curious about why your post seems to
    be a reply to Kish not mentioning polyamory at all. Maybe it’s just
    Disqus being Disqus.)

    , you thought I meant polyandry, I explained what polyamory means, and then suddenly I’m in a great big orgy. For the record, I am not poly, probably never will be, and I’m not interested in debating the ethics of polyamory with you at this time.

  • Beatrix

    He didn’t say one word about human sacrifice, either.  Theology doesn’t end with J.C.

  • Anonymous

    That would require overturning the precedent set in Reynolds v. United States.  I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it makes it that more unlikely.

  • Beatrix

    Islam is a race?  Quick, it’s almost my bedtime!

  • Rikalous

    I never said something was good because it was traditional, I just implied it was likely to happen.

    Remember when you said this?

    But the blueprint is ancient and it is what it is.

    Monoblade called you on using appeal to tradition in that post. It was one of the few times we’ve agreed.

  • Beatrix

    You sure you’ll get all the hot babes in matrimonial bondage, FS?  Good luck.

  • Beatrix

    One day, an embryo will implant in a gay man’s colon.  Thank God he’ll have the option to terminate the pregnancy if he so choses.

  • Beatrix

    Can’t speak for Monoblade.  Your two quotes of mine (I’m kinda flattered!) do not contadict each other.

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    Correct, but he did think that marriage was inferior to celibacy.

  • Rikalous

    Wait, what does the blueprint quote mean if it’s not an appeal to tradition? I thought you were saying that since marriage has been the same since ancient times (which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish) that it should never change.

  • Anonymous

    Beatrix: Maybe you’re just not very good at working things out in your head.

    Or maybe you’re just tossing our random nonsense in lieu of arguments.

    He didn’t say one word about human sacrifice, either.

    I think the practice is at least a little hard to reconcile with the Golden Rule.

    Theology doesn’t end with J.C.

    No, but Christianity kinda does.

  • Beatrix

    No, you were way off.  Good night.

  • Rikalous

    Well, when you come back I hope you’ll be willing to explain what the heck you were talking about.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    One day, an embryo will implant in a gay man’s colon.  Thank God he’ll have the option to terminate the pregnancy if he so choses.

    You don’t mind if I put that apparent eventuality at the end of my queue of future events to concern myself with?

  • Anonymous

    It’s always reassuring to me when I see the opponents of marriage equality defend their position, because I have never once seen them do it without spouting more lies than a creationist. Seriously, I have never once seen one of them manage to go more than three comments without saying something that 5 seconds of research on Google could show is false.

    This thread is the first time I’ve ever seen someone try to claim that anti-miscegenation laws only ever existed in America though. That was just plain stupid.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You sure you’ll get all the hot babes in matrimonial bondage, FS? Good luck.

    Never claimed that I would, or had any desire to.  If anything I would much rather fancy the inverse, being one partner to a woman’s multiple.  My own desires are pretty modest.  As a point of fact, I am actually sterile, so marriage for reproduction is off the table with me by default. 

    Not sure where you got the bondage part.  I am not particularly into that. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    What is women dying in childbirth for?

    IIRC, it’s because God hasn’ gotten over being mad at Eve for that whole Tree of Knowledge thing, but that’s your creation myth, not mine.

    (Well, it’s the myth you’re professing to believe in.  The actual Troll creation myth involved 48 adorable cephalopods.)

    And might I complement you on how utterly incoherent your arguments are getting?  It’s very entertaining to watch.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    It’s meaningless if you have it.  Because there’s no such thing as “gay marriage”.   Phoney legal recognition is not meaningful.  Societal acknowledgment is.

    It’s meaningful to the IRS, Child Services, the legal system, and hospitals.  Sounds pretty dang meaningful to me.  

    And despite the desperate homophobic flailings of jerks like you, it’s coming.  THE BIG GAY STORM IS COMING.  

    And yes,  GAY MARRAIGE IZ TEH BAD.

    Why?  Last I checked, nobody is proposing to make gay marriage _mandatory_.  Your heterosexuality is safe.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    It’s meaningless if you have it.  Because there’s no such thing as “gay marriage”.   Phoney legal recognition is not meaningful.  Societal acknowledgment is.

    It’s meaningful to the IRS, Child Services, the legal system, and hospitals.  Sounds pretty dang meaningful to me.  

    And despite the desperate homophobic flailings of jerks like you, it’s coming.  THE BIG GAY STORM IS COMING.  

    And yes,  GAY MARRAIGE IZ TEH BAD.

    Why?  Last I checked, nobody is proposing to make gay marriage _mandatory_.  Your heterosexuality is safe.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    One day, an embryo will implant in a gay man’s colon.  Thank God he’ll have the option to terminate the pregnancy if he so choses.

    O_O

    ….

    … Okay, I’m at a loss.  I can’t decide which is more appalling, your general-purpose bigotry, or your understanding of human reproduction, which was apparently gained from the ‘adult’ archives of fanfiction.net.

  • Tom S

    Is there a specific explanation for death in childbirth? I was under the impression that it was covered under the general umbrella of “bad things happen to good people”

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I was thinking of this bit:

     “To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

  • Matri

    I am seriously considering using the Cracked.com method of arguing these people.

  • Matri

    I am seriously considering using the Cracked.com method of arguing these people.

  • The_L

    If you want to found a religion which is cool with abortion and gay “marriage” etc., do it.  But it’s not Christianity, that’s just daft.

    So, Bea, are Episcopals not Christian? Because they’re not only cool with gay marriage (which is still a form of marriage, please stop with the scare quotes), they have female and gay clergy.

    And as for abortion and birth control–as Fred himself has pointed out (post title, I think, was “Killing in the name of”), being against either of these was strictly a “Catholic thing” until well into the mid-80′s. Mainline Protestants were either pro-choice or simply didn’t think about the issue before then.

  • Tom S

    Ah, I’ve always thought that whole story- and that part in particular- works better as a metaphor (oh, no!) for the rise of sentience. Our pain is multiplied, our fights get more vicious, we have to fight and struggle and toil for all our lives; that’s not a punishment, it’s a natural consequence of understanding what’s going on, i.e. the knowledge of Good and Evil. Animals suffer the pain of childbirth, but it’s multiplied for us because we know it’s going to happen, etc.

    The women being dominated by men part is unfortunate, but I would argue it’s descriptive and not prescriptive- the context is a list of the pains to which flesh is heir, and clearly women being ruled over by men is something that our species has to deal with a lot. As are thistles and headaches and so forth. Doesn’t make those things virtuous.

  • The_L

    According to this argument, there is absolutely no reason for infertile people, women beyond childbearing age, or committed couples with no intent to produce children to marry or remain married.

    If children were the ONLY reason for marriage, every single elderly couple ought to divorce, because they are no longer capable of begetting children.

    Most of us believe that a deep sense of commitment, coupled with romantic love between compatible personalities, is an equally good reason for marriage. Again, I would marry more than one of my boyfriends if I could. Not to make more babies (my uterus is only capable of one pregnancy at a time, after all) but because I cannot imagine going the rest of my life without having them there. In both popular culture and real life, you hear “I love you. Let’s get married!” much more often than “I feel like making babies. You’re fertile and attractive–let’s get married!”

  • The_L

    “There is two thousand years of Chistian history.  There are countless works on heresy, doctrine, interpetation, you name it.”

    Correct. But churches didn’t schism over homosexuality–the word didn’t even exist until the 19th century. Back when Christian doctrine was first codified at Nicaea, the Greek Orthodox Church split off over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND from the Son. Luther split off over indulgences and the belief in transubstantiation. Henry VIII started the Church of England over divorce. Notice the lack of gay people in any of those descriptions.

    As for heresy–the definition of heresy changes over time. In the ninth century, believing that a person was a witch was considered heresy. In the sixteenth, it was considered God’s work to hunt down and destroy witches–which implies a belief in witches to begin with. In the twentieth, a religion formed that used the word “witch” as a morally-neutral term to describe its followers. Each of these ideas and beliefs is a product of the society of the time. What is heresy in one generation may be normal and natural the next, and vice versa. The ONLY unchanging aspects of Christian doctrine are those in the Nicene Creed, and those have only been so since the 4th century and aren’t all included in Greek/Eastern Orthodox churches.

    Your ignorance of Christian history is shocking.

  • The_L

    Beatriz, this is my last reply to you, because you are clearly either 14 years old, horribly sheltered, or deliberately acting in bad faith (i.e. “trolling”):

    1 A single woman can most definitely breed. The existence of single mothers proves this.

    2. Who made you the official arbiter on what does or does not constitute a family? I suppose next, you’ll tell me that my beloved dog is not part of my family, for reasons that are wholly your own and have nothing to do with my almost-maternal feelings toward the animal.

    3. I have absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy, so long as it is allowed to go both ways–allowing a man to have multiple wives without also allowing a woman to have multiple husbands (or any other gender combination you can name) is a gender-based power play. But–and I want to make this perfectly clear–THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY OF POLYGAMY HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Again, this is a pretty good sign that you are trolling.

  • The_L

    No, the humor in That Penny Arcade Strip comes from the hero ignoring all aspects of the slave’s plight and saying, “Look, the quest only said to save FIVE slaves, and that’s all I care about.” The point of the strip–as is obvious to anyone who has played MMO’s (or similar single-player RPGs such as Fable)–is that the “hero” character looks like a complete misanthrope from a real-life perspective, yet we have no problem with “you only have to rescue X of the suffering people and extras don’t count” in an RPG.

    Removing the rape from the slave’s speech bubble and replacing it with any other form of brutal torture does not change the strip. Replacing it with “we have to engage in PILLOW FIGHTS” or similar just makes the slave sound like a whiner. Thus, the strip must be portraying rape as a Very Bad Thing, a form of torture.

    Penny Arcade was not in any way trying to make rape look like a Good Thing–if they felt it were even something to be condoned, the strip would backfire horribly. The artists started out in the right–IMO, it is their handling of the resultant s**tstorm that was insensitive and unjustified.

  • The_L

    @Tonio: every adult male in the family would be considered the “father,” and our wills would be drawn up to reflect this.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    This thread is the first time I’ve ever seen someone try to claim that anti-miscegenation laws only ever existed in America though

    Don’t you know everything of significance only ever existed in North America?

  • Anonymous

    Actually, I disagree that Gabe and Tycho’s response was unjustified.  Insensitive?  Maybe.  But no comedian worth their salt kowtows to the Tyranny of the Most Easily Offended, especially when the outrage misses the point entirely.  And since the outrage is unjustified, they are well within their rights in pointing that out (even if it is through a fake apology).

  • The_L

    Darn, I accidentally hit “like” instead of “reply.”

    Mono:  Because you have made an assertion (“SSM hurts society”), you must now, by the rules of debate, back up that assertion with evidence.  To make things easier on you, I will inform you that Denmark and Sweden have had legal SSM since the mid-1980′s.  That’s plenty of time for any unpleasant effects of gay marriage to manifest.  And I do believe that divorce rates PLUMMETED in both countries after SSM was legalized.

    Also, according to the CDC, HIV infection rates are unusually high in the rural American South–a place in which homosexuality, suspected or actual, singles you out for social stigmatization, if not actual violence.  Again, if homosexuality in and of itself were the cause of higher HIV infection rates, we would expect higher infection rates in urban areas, where being LGBT bears less of a stigma.  In addition, while HIV infection rates are slightly higher for male-male sexual intercourse than for male-female sexual intercourse (by fewer than ten percentage points), the rate of HIV infection in lesbians is so low that the CDC does not even bother to list lesbian sex as a possible transmission vector.

    By the way, you know what causes high rates of STD transmission?  Widespread promiscuity, coupled with a lack of decent sex education.  Guess what?  If gay people are getting married, that will encourage monogamy among the gay community, thus reducing gay promiscuity.  Once this happens, one should expect infection rates for a variety of STDs to be more or less uniform among sexual orientations, depending on the specific means by which that STD is transferred (again, lesbians don’t generally get HIV because of the mechanism by which that particular disease is transferred).

    Also, who on EARTH is talking about children getting gay-married?  I certainly didn’t say that.  If you mean, “children shouldn’t have gay parents because they have these problems”: Gay couples with domestic abuse/drug use problems would be just as unable to adopt as straight couples with those problems.  Gay couples without these problems (and surely even you can agree that such couples do exist) should likewise have exactly the same right to adopt as do equally-qualified straight couples.  This is what we in the United States call “equality.”  Fascinating concept, isn’t it?

  • Matri

    yet we have no problem with “you only have to rescue X of the suffering people and extras don’t count” in an RPG.

    It’s because of the nature of MMOs. In order to cater to a potentially limitless number of new players, there will be an endless supply of these victims. Attempting to rescue “all” of them is a Sisyphean task that is all but impossible.

    Newer games are better about this, though, by requiring a minimum but granting bigger & better rewards for rescuing more though there will be a cap.

    It’s an unfortunate implication, but attempting to rescue an infinite number of digital slaves infinitely created on a system capable of an infinite number of digital slaves…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    You know same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since, what, 2005? Earlier, I think, by province. I have yet to hear about any outcry for polygamous marriages there. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and they haven’t slipped down the polygamous marriage slope yet either. Ditto for the Netherlands (legal since 2001) and Belgium (legal since 2003).

  • Donalbain

    Considering that Beatrix is pretending to be an agnostic, she is going on about what the Catholic Church thinks rather a lot.

  • The_L

    Why doesn’t He do it, then, if He places such a high value on childbirth?  Could it be that the Gods choose to work through other means, such as adoption, AI, and surrogacy, rather than breaking the laws of biology and physics in order to regrow an entire complex system of organs?  Hmmm.

  • Tom S

    To be fair, she doesn’t actually seem to _know_ anything about the Catholics, so if she is one she didn’t spend a lot of time in CCD

  • The_L

    Clearly mpreg is part of some god’s plan.  Or something.  Or Beatrix has realized that she’s lost the argument, doesn’t want to admit it, and is simply tossing out whatever nonsense pops into her head.

  • Anonymous

    That actually sounds about right.  Consider the number of Easter-Christmas attendees at any church, then consider that those families generally don’t invest in supplementary religious instruction, and you’ve got a lot of people in every denomination who haven’t the foggiest what their own denomination is all about.

    By the by, I’ve finally given in and joined Disqus!  Hi all!

  • Mike Taylor

    I would definitely pay money to have the complete Left Behind analysis on my Kindle.

  • Donalbain

    Getting a Left Behind book is not possible. There is far too much quoted text involved, and there is no way in Hell that the authors will give permission.

  • Anonymous

    I believe the rule is that if the quoted material is less than ten percent of the material as a whole, it’s fair use and the authors’ permission need not be asked. The question then is, are the parts of LB and TF that Fred has quoted less than ten percent of LB and TF? And I’m fairly certain they are.

  • Anonymous

    There’s no need to marry your sister. She’s already your family. Your girlfriend isn’t your family until you marry her.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Right, but that was irrelevant to the topic I was actually responding to, which was Beatrix’s complete and utter lack of understanding why someone would want to be both Gay and Christian or how that could ever possibly be reconciled.  It wasn’t a question of legality.

  • Tonio

    apparently gained from the ‘adult’ archives of fanfiction.net.

    Well, there is Arnold Schwartzenegger movie Junior, except that the protagonist wasn’t even gay. But the idea sounds too much like a sexist story from one of EC’s 1950s science fiction magazines – a woman is elected president and gradually the nation’s gender roles reverse, ultimately leading to men instead of women bearing children. (That company had a strange contradiction in stances on social issues – Mad often criticized racism but praised sexism and homophobia.)

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    These are the answers I use*; obviously such can be very complex, but I think on a practical level there are some things that do make sense and in being there prevent far, far more injustice than they can cause.

    Sanity in this context is, as I understand it “Capable of giving informed consent”.

    That is, someone who is rationally capable of making decisions on their own behalf, who understands what they are doing, the consequences etc…  The idea being that if there is any doubt as to whether the person is in fact capable of giving consent – one should stop right there.  This is almost like sanity in the legal sense not the colloquial sense.

    To answer the second part of Safe – the idea is all possible safety measures are taken so that the likelihood of serious or permanent injury are minimized.  It’s little different imo to any other to say – risky sports, like skydiving.

    As to where to draw the line – there’s two ways to answer that question:

    The philosophical answer, which depends a lot on personal beliefs in freedom and autonomy.

    And the practical answer, which is something more akin to this:

    It depends.  If the activity is *designed* to cause serious and/or permanent injury, then it’s probably should not go through.  While it’s certainly fine to question how far one should be able to go with their own body, as a practical matter it is probably for the best not to allow things to progress to that level due to the rather sizable risk that someone doing such is not in fact entirely capable of understanding what they are doing.  They may be totally capable of understanding it, but the lines become blurred rather badly and one has to make a call one way or the other.

    If the activity is merely capable of causing injury, but is not definitely going to do so, then the question is:  How safe can it be made?  I look at this much like extreme sports.  One generally takes the precautions necessary to enjoy oneself while simultaneously not coming out much worse for wear.  Accidents happen of course, but the safety effort must be made and be genuine.

    Consent is of course just that, consent to be involved in an activity with the ability to give that consent:  Being over the age of majority,  sane as per the definition above, aware of the risks involved; and also both aware of and capable of quitting at any point.  Likewise no coercion of any kind may be used.

    I realize this is not truly capable of hitting every single possible case; but we’re imperfect, we can’t read minds, and I firmly believe on some level we are all responsible for each other’s wellbeing.  Since we can’t read minds, we have to do the best we can with what we have.

    *TRIGGER WARNING – ROT13:
    Na rknzcyr V’q tvir vf bar gung ernyyl unccrarq abg gung ybat ntb.  N zna tnir pbafrag gb or xvyyrq naq rngra ol nabgure zna.  Ng guvf cbvag V guvax bar vf noyr gb fgneg dhrfgvbavat gur qrpvfvba znxvat pncnpvgl bs gur vaqvivqhny va dhrfgvba.

    Well quite a bit before that point I’d assume, but you get the point.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Sadly not uncommon among otherwise progressive men.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Considering that Beatrix is pretending to be an agnostic, she is going on about what the Catholic Church thinks rather a lot.

    [umbrage] Are you saying that agnostics are not ALLOWED to have an opinion??!! [/umbrage]

  • Anonymous

     But why are you against polygyny when it’s so prominent in the Bible?  You’re the one claiming that others shouldn’t call themselves Christians because you claim they are ignoring the Bible, but you’re doing the exact same thing without even attempting to explain why it’s ok for you to do something but not for others to do.  You’re a perfect hypocrite.  There’s no biblical basis for disallowing polygyny and yet you’re still against it.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Another option would be to drop the quotes directly, and instead footnote the lines listed.

    Ex:  Tribulation Force, pg 56, lines 13-19.

    Granted it would require someone to have a copy, but that’s what used book stores are for.  Or maybe your local library, depending.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Some newer games also use instancing heavily, so you ONLY see the slaves you are rescuing.  For example, in Star Trek Online, there’s a mission called “Mine Enemy*” – as a tactical officer you have to rescue 3 bullied citizens from their tormentors.

    You will only ever see these bullied citizens in that mission, and can thus rescue them all whenever you play that mission, you never have to worry about a bajillion others being around and being incapable of doing anything about them.

    That said some people hate instancing, so the status quo on that probably will never change completely.

    *This is a pun.  The mission takes place in part inside a magnesite mine.  The devs love their puns.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Explain “dickwolves” then.  Because that’s also part of the joke and quite frankly using rape in comedic material is just trashy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Yes, gay “marriage” is not Christian.  Christian theology is perfectly straightforward on this point.

    Then I guess the Religious Society of Friends must have a very poor understanding of Christian theology. It’s probably because we commit the heresy of periodically revising Faith and Practice.

    As for your intentions towards the ladies – look good for you.  Birth
    control is not Catholic, but then neither are you.  I must say
    Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity I’ve ever een able to
    take completely seriously, but… heck, who doesn’t like the Quakers?

    Lots of people, actually. We have a history of supporting marginalized groups in their attempts to destroy traditions that are the bedrock of society – things like slavery, the disenfranchisement of minorities, segregation, marriage inequality…

    But if a marriage is not between one man and one woman is not the model then what should be, and how will it work?

    Two or more people committed to forming a family unit as part of their community.

  • Tonio

    You’re the one claiming that others shouldn’t call themselves Christians because you claim they are ignoring the Bible

    There’s a minority of atheists who make such arguments, and they appear to assume that Christian doctrine is based on Biblical literalism. That shows a lack of knowledge about the variations in doctrine, and I don’t claim to know all those variations myself. Still, even though I don’t support the argument, I can understand the assumption behind it. The Bible is incredibly widely printed, with the Gideons and others giving it away for free, and by comparison information about the various denomination’s teachings is harder to come by – one generally has to seek it out. (My first exposure to anything resembling Catholic teachings was the George Carlin album Class Clown.) It’s not much different from having a lengthy written shopping list versus trying to keep the list in one’s head – one might be likely to give precedence to the written list rather than rely on memory alone. I mean not for the believers who belong to the churches, but the outsiders.

  • http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

    Considering that Beatrix is pretending to be an agnostic, she is going on about what the Catholic Church thinks rather a lot.
    It’s ok – she also claims to be British-Canadian. Monoblade claims to have attended a UU congregation AND to have lived in an anarchist commune. They both have significant others in Canada and/or Michigan, Beatrix has the original KITT in her garage; Monoblade has the Batmobile, and they both know [insert famous singer] and totally get to go backstage, like, whenever. We are blessed to have such luminaries in our midst, truly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Marriage is a real, actual civil right. That’s why people fought to have interracial marriage legalized.

    IIRC, that is specifically the reasoning behind the ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    It’s worth noting that in the specific quest the Penny Arcade comic references, you literally can’t rescue more than five slaves. Once you’ve freed five, you can no longer interact with their shackles to free them. It was a perfect example of an MMORPG not simply encourage callous behavior, but enforcing it.

  • Tonio

    It’s important to emphasize that the reasoning overturned in Loving was explicitly theocratic. That was the claim that the Christian god intended for the races to be separate, since he put them on separate continents. While the Court was right to reject this as a basis for keeping interracial marriage illegal, there’s a broader assumption involved – that what is, is how things are supposed to be. Or that change or difference is inherently bad or wrong. Or this could all be a rationalization for enforcing white privilege. Or it could be both a bedrock assumption and a rationalization.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, that post was meant to specifically reply to Beatrix’s comment in response to mine (Discus is not user-friendly).  She is claiming that gay marriage isn’t biblical, while also claiming that polygyny is not biblical, even though it clearly is.  I’m not saying that Christians have to believe X,Y, and Z.  I’m only trying to point out her hypocrisy for doing so when she is clearly arguing for her own preference without biblical support.

  • Mackrimin

    Aren’t you ignoring the most obvious explanation here?

    Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

    Now, which modern-day group does this describe all too well? And what would such a group, if they were not willing to change – and who ever is? – yet were desperate to convince themselves they’re not in God’s shit-list, would do? Why, they would pretend that the whole Sodom thing was about something else altogether. What’s this? Sodomites tried to gang-rape two _men_? That’s it, Sodom’s sin was actually homosexuality! The above passage clearly means that, when taken literally! I can’t hear you, conscience, I’m too busy railing against those darn Sodomites!

    Perhaps I’m getting too cynical with age, but this seems an all too likely explanation to me.

  • Anonymous

    And since we’re on the topic of rape jokes, I’ll share my view.  Most men aren’t rapists.  However, actual rapists think that most men are rapists but just better at getting away with it.  Rape jokes normalize their behavior and make them feel like they are justified in raping.  That’s why they are worse in some ways than jokes about murder or other crimes.  So next time you make light of rape, just remember that you might be reinforcing a rapist’s misconception that rape is normal behavior.

  • Tonio

    I’m not saying that Christians have to believe X,Y, and Z.  I’m only
    trying to point out her hypocrisy for doing so when she is clearly
    arguing for her own preference without biblical support.

    I understood and I agree with your assessment of the hypocrisy. It amounts to telling people that they’re wrong about their own religion. My post was intended in support of yours, to say that I’ve encountered the hypocrisy before.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, ok. As an atheist I just didn’t want to come off as being the exactly what I was criticizing.

  • Nightsky

    Their power depends upon the perception of barbarians at the gate, on
    the perception that some menacing Other is on the verge of destroying
    all that their followers hold dear.

    Oh, MY yes. You can see another shining example of this principle in action when you look at the NRA. My dad–who has an advanced degree in the hard sciences and is one of the smartest and kindest people I know–has a serious blind spot when it comes to them. I’ll come home for a visit and see the NRA mailings, and they’re all about how the liberals in power ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY RIGHT NOW OMG OMG OMG. Never mind that the left has essentially conceded the gun wars; in NRA-land, an evil amalgam of Obama and Pelosi is already on its way to your house to take your guns and replace all your steak with tofu.

    If it’s not that, it’s the popular “this particular variety of ammo becomes illegal next year! Better stock up now!” pitch. That this particular argument has an obvious benefit to the sellers of ammo seems not to have occurred to NRA members, who fall for it every time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    That confused me, too, the first time through, but I got it on the second pass: there is no quotation from Chesterton’s writing.  Instead, Fred was saying that the quotation from the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians is a clear and simple expression of the overarching theme of of Chesterton’s Father Brown mysteries.

  • Tonio

    Why do you suppose your dad has that blind spot? Among the people I know, almost all who believe the NRA fearmongering are “grumps,” wrapped up in resentment and entitlement, genuinely incurious, and fealful of social change in general. Although they espouse racist opinions, those are merely part of an overall pernicious worldview. But your father doesn’t sound like that.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    If it’s not that, it’s the popular “this particular variety of ammo becomes illegal next year! Better stock up now!” pitch.

    A friend whose opinion I respect a lot is pretty certain the NRA has ceased to be more than vestigially a handgun-OWNER’s advocacy group, and is pretty much a gun-MANUFACTURERs’ marketing arm at this point.  I can believe it.

  • Anonymous

    Good grief, yes.  After Obama was elected, you couldn’t go to any store in Nevada and expect to find any 7.62mm, 5.56mm,* or even 9mm ammunition.  Every right-wing authoritarian follower was absolutely convinced that Obama was going to ram through some sort of Executive Order banning the cool guns.**

    * – Oxford comma: I still haz it!
    ** – When I lived in Nevada, I OWNED some ‘cool guns,’ and my beef with the entire thing was not only the lack of ammunition, but the fact that the manufacturers and retailers were price-gouging: Prices for 7.62mm went up about 150% at the worst of it.  And yet the fools with ‘Blackwater Fan’ sweatshirts and ‘INFIDEL’*** t-shirts weren’t complaining about that.  Witlings.
    *** – Now I kinda want a ‘HERETIC’ tee.  Except some gamers might think I was a fan of the mid-90′s DOOM clone.

  • Tonio

    Ceased? I’ve suspected for 20 years that the NRA is basically the manufacturers’ political action committee using owners as fig leaves. I’ve seen the group take position after position on gun control that effectively undercut the owners while protecting profits. And I’ve seen literature from the group that implies that the UN’s stance on gun control will lead to one-world government, although it wasn’t stated explicitly.

  • Anonymous

    There is a not-insignificant portion of the NRA’s membership who are recognizing this.  Alternatives include the Gun Owners of America, and the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

  • Nightsky

    Do you know, I have no idea.  While he’s not particularly progressive, he’s not all that conservative, either… it may be inertia, frankly. He’s been a lifetime member since the early Sixties; possibly they were less obnoxious then.

  • Anonymous

    So you only take issue with the the rape? Not the violence and slavery? These, too, are very real, terrible things that happen to real people. Kind of a narrow view if you ask me.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    The reason for making the rapists a kind of werewolf in which every one of their limbs is a phallus (according to Word of God) was to make something so over-the-top that no one would think they were being serious.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Good grief, yes. After Obama was elected, you couldn’t go to any store in Nevada and expect to find any 7.62mm, 5.56mm, or even 9mm ammunition. Every right-wing authoritarian follower was absolutely convinced that Obama was going to ram through some sort of Executive Order banning the cool guns.

    I suspect that the ammunition manufacturers are thrilled every time a Democrat president assumes office, because they get to play the “gun control, ohnoes!” card to boost demand and make a killing on sales. 

    When did Obama ever even mention gun control when he was campaigning anyway? 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    That said some people hate instancing, so the status quo on that probably will never change completely.

    It is not just instancing that can be used to address this.  World of Warcraft itself pushed the idea of phasing into the market, and it could also use that.  With proper phasing, people who have not completed the quest see the slaves, and those on the quest have the oppertunity to rescue every slave in the place.  People who would have completed the quest already see no slaves, and thus do not need to rescue anyone. 

    But WoW did not do that in this case.  Maybe they thought it was not worth the effort?  In any case, it produces situations like the one above. 

  • Tonio

    When did Obama ever even mention gun control when he was campaigning anyway?

    The only time I recall was that “clinging to guns or religion” quote. For anyone who listened to the entire clip or read the whole transcript, it was obvious that Obama was saying that some people cling to those things out of fear. But no, it had to be straw-manned into an uppity black man holding “ordinary” white people in elitist contempt.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s not delude ourselves, we ALL know who he was talking about.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    That was the only thing I could think of too.  I know people were offended by it (the implication that their interest in guns or religion was due to desperation and fear,) so it was a bit of an admitted gaffe on his part.  But to say that he will impliment gun control based on that required a leap of logic I can only begin to trace. 

    For that matter, I remembered some McCain supporters yelling that people would loose their feedoms to Obama, and I have no idea on what basis they were making that claim.  Hell, I have no idea on what basis some people still make that claim.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I think that’d get kind of weird for RP purposes though – imagine if you’re just tagging along to help some friends when you’ve already done the quest?  It could be kind of jarring.

    I really like instancing myself though anyway; so I admit I’m a twinge biased.  (I’m also weird in that I play MMOs primarily solo though >.> so.. yeah.)

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    What was he talking about?  Let’s hear it.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    For that matter, I remembered some McCain supporters yelling that people would loose their feedoms to Obama, and I have no idea on what basis they were making that claim.  Hell, I have no idea on what basis some people still make that claim.

    Oh, you didn’t know?  Obama, with the help of the EVIL TERRORIST-LIVING LIBRUL TRAITORS!!@!1!!two! is going to destroy the Constitution, outlaw Christianity, steal everyone’s guns, nationalize ALL businesses, and turn America into a hideous CommuNazi Athiest Sharia gulag where gay marriage and abortion will be MANDATORY fnord.

  • Tonio

    Yeah, his wording was clumsy and could have used more thought. But I still say that the people who were offended wanted to be so. These are generally the same people who alternate between calling Obama a “Muslim” and a “socialist” as euphemisms for his ethnicity.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I think that’d get kind of weird for RP purposes though – imagine if you’re just tagging along to help some friends when you’ve already done the quest? It could be kind of jarring.I really like instancing myself though anyway; so I admit I’m a twinge biased. (I’m also weird in that I play MMOs primarily solo though >.> so.. yeah.)

    True, and Icecrown Glacier was a particularly bad use of phasing, with multiple group quests that were all in different phases with each other (so unless your party members were also at the same place on the quest chain, they could not help you.) 

    If Blizzard could somehow come up with an improved phasing model, that might help things.  For example, if one person in the group has the quest, everyone in the group can see the mobs in the associated phase.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Oh, I agree.  The very people he was refering to are those in the “IndigNation” as Fred has put it.  They get off on being offended by things. 

    I also want to point out for the sake of newcomers to the blog, that such indignation addicts are not necessarily limited by political lines. 

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Fundamental difference:

    Rape is sadly commonplace.  The last statistic I heard being as many as 1 in 6 women.  Note that as I recall that was going off reporting rates – which are far from 100%.  Men (usually as children, but not always) are also victims, and are even more likely to remain silent due to the cultural stigma.

    On top of all that, rape victims are often not believed; meaning that justice is extremely difficult to come by even if they do report it.

    Given that, in any group, it’s entirely probable that at least one person in the room has been victimized, and it’s not unreasonable to assume their attacker may very well have gone free.

    Slavery is admittedly a terrible thing – however the type of “chain you up and whip you till you do your job” slavery depicted in the comic is very uncommon in the modern world.  Indentured servitude is far more common, and while undeniably horrible – it’s not quite as personally violating.

    Additionally the comic does not make light of the slavery aspect.  Adding something inherently goofy, like the word ‘dickwolves’ means, intentionally or not, they aren’t taking rape seriously.

    And yes I recognize this is a bit of a double standard – there are a lot of things people hold double standards for.  Killing an enemy in wartime is (usually) not scene as the same as murder for example, and most would consider stealing bread to live to be a lesser crime than stealing diamonds to be wealthy.

    It’s even codified into law – where petty theft is different from grand theft, where killing someone who is trying to kill you is different from killing someone in cold blood, which is different from doing so by negligence.

    As to violence itself… humans are violent.  Nature is violent.  The threat of violence actually underpins everything that keeps our society together*.  For instance – you steal something from your neighbor, the police get involved – you either go with them or you resist arrest and they do whatever they have to do to get you to come with them, up to and including tasers and batons.

    This isn’t to say violence is a good thing – but it’s absolutely pervasive.  See explanation of double standard above for the rest.

    *I want to add that this is not nearly as bad as it sounds.  It’s merely a way of saying “If you do something bad, then the state will seek reprisal on my behalf.” Which is far better than the way it was before things like governments and courts, where a murder could provoke a generations long blood feud.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    That could work.

    I haven’t played WoW since a year after it came out.  The end game drove me absolutely batshit (as well as the friends I played with at the time.)  We quit and kind of vowed “Nothing like that ever again.”  So mostly I play more casual stuff where the endgame is something like “Roll an alt” <.< (I'm an altaholic anyway, so that's OK.)

  • Tonio

    Yes, good point that indignation addiction knows no ideology. Many of my posts in these threads deal with the specific types of indignation driven by white resentment or male resentment. But any type of cause has its subset of activists who seem to enjoy being offended, and I suspect it’s a personality type. Erica the wiccan in the second Blair Witch movie was a fictional example taken to an extreme.

  • Anonymous

    And “The state will seek reprisal on my behalf”, with its checks, balances, requirements for a trial and presentation of evidence, is better than each county having their own unaccountable Vehm taking suspected criminals and hanging them at crossroads.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Precisely.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     So mostly I play more casual stuff where the endgame is something like “Roll an alt” <.< (I'm an altaholic anyway, so that's OK.)

    Have you tried City of Heroes yet?   It’s great for altoholics, aside from being a massive time-sink.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    COH was my main MMO for a looooooooooong time.  I still love it; but it’s to the point where I can’t stand to play it because I’ve spent so much time in-game that the very combat system bores me.  I just know it too well basically.

    I also did 3 architect missions,

    Above Mars Part 1 – The Wellington*
    A Super Team is Born**
    A Warrior’s Friend***

    <.<;  But yeah, now I play STO and CO;  and am waiting for TOR (like everyone else lol) and Neverwinter.

    *I got military sci fi in your superhero game! <.< … I'm dead serious, it's straight up military science fiction; I did it to show what you could do with the architect system and a little imagination.  It's not perfect (and if it's still up at all, it's probably broken due to patches since I've been away for ages); but it was fairly popular at one point.  Never did do the sequel I planned… so much for Part 1.

    **Power Rangers parody.  It's not super-funny or anything, but it might make folks at least a little nostalgic.  Whole thing is centered around helping some rather incompetent new heroes out with their first big case.

    ***Has nothing to do with the Warriors enemy group.  It's actually based around Battle Maiden, Valkyrie, and War Earth as I envisioned it.  It was written pre-Going Rogue though, so it's possible/probable it's out of continuity now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    Consent is of course just that, consent to be involved in an activity with the ability to give that consent:  Being over the age of majority

    What of an individual who has been granted manumission (I think that’s the right word) from their parents?  I’m not sure of their legal status: if they can make contracts, for example.  If they can, would “age of majority” apply to them?  Anyone who would be attracted to them would **probably** be a pedophile, I think.   It’s a tricky issue.

    re ROT-13:  Obgu vaqvivqhnyf, V jbhyq fnl!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    I notice that when I called Beatrix on her “brief” period of US history (only 3/4th of it!), she moved on to other topics and didn’t mention it again.  Fun times.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Warning – potentially squicky subject matter herein.

    Well I think it’s worth remembering a few different things here:

    Someone who has been emancipated I believe can work and enter legal contracts; however if I recall right it also has to be granted by the courts, so someone over a certain age would be likely to get it (15? 16? Guessing?) but someone under that age might get referred to Child Services instead.  This is a guess mind you, I don’t know absolutely for sure but I seem to recall that being how it works.

    Someone in that position is… in a tricky spot.

    I think it’s one of those areas that would be legal, but would probably be heavily frowned on and heavily scrutinized.  Obviously there’s also the legal Age of Consent to consider, which is often under the age of majority.*

    I personally use age of majority rather than consent because at least by that point, much of your brain’s decision making faculties are hooked up and you are generally able to be genuinely responsible for your actions – not merely legally responsible.  (Sadly the two are not always the same thing.)

    The second thing is that there’s a difference between pedophilia, ephebophilia, and just plain normal human attraction.

    The former two are attractions to specific age groups (the former being pre-pubescent, the latter adolescent), while normal human attraction doesn’t really look at age at all, just generally attractive things about people.  (The former two are disorders as I understand them.)

    This is one of those areas people do not like to talk about at all.  Culturally we (rightly) consider it inappropriate for someone under
    the age of 18 to have relations with someone over that age.**  The reason
    for this is of course that the older person has far, far more power over
    the younger person, and coercion is a huge factor at that point. 
    There’s also the fact that not all the brain’s decision making faculties
    are in place yet, which brings up yet other problems.

    I bring this up because it’s entirely possible to be attracted to
    someone under 18 on a purely physical level and yet not actually be a
    ‘pedo’ in the colloquial sense. The key thing of course being that a
    normal person is unwilling to act on that attraction because they know
    full well it’s wrong, and why it’s wrong.

    That said, the purely instinctual part of the brain recognizes  adolescents as old enough to be potential mates.  Obviously this isn’t something anyone should act on; but it’s one of those things left over from times when living to 30 was pretty impressive.  It’s not much different I think than the instinct to punch someone when they make you angry – it’s pretty easy to put out of your head because it would be wrong.  It doesn’t mean it’s not there, but reason rules it easily enough for most people.

    This is also partly why some people don’t understand why teenagers tend to get up to things their parents would rather them not do – the decision making stuff isn’t hooked up, but the reproductive stuff is.  And this is of course why good sex education is so friggin important >..<)

    *A lot of people assume 18 = everywhere.  This is not true, though it is in California and some other states.  According to Wikipedia, 16 is the most common at 31 states.  Note there is a federal law specifically criminalizing illegal sexual activity with a minor, and the age as defined there is of course 18.   However this only applies to something that's already illegal.

    I know that sounds incredibly weird, but it makes sense if you consider that it allows them to get the violator on federal charges as well as state charges.  At least that's how I'm interpreting it – a lot of this I just looked up on Wikipedia so I don't want to say this is definitive or anything.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I haven’t played WoW since a year after it came out. The end game drove me absolutely batshit (as well as the friends I played with at the time.) We quit and kind of vowed “Nothing like that ever again.” So mostly I play more casual stuff where the endgame is something like “Roll an alt” <.< (I'm an altaholic anyway, so that's OK.)

    The endgame is a little better now than it was when the game came out.  It is much more approachable, with the removal of “keying” for an instance (or at most only needing one raid member to be keyed,) and many instances and token currencies added to allow someone a smoother progression to get geared up for the big stuff.  The raids themselves have been switched to a fairly standardized size, allowing them to be completed either by a size ten or size twenty group, with mob difficulty and amount of loot dropped scaled appropriately.  This, in many ways, makes a lot of raids admittedly easier, but most of the raid bosses also have optional hard modes which raids can opt to try, increasing the difficulty of the encounter, but also increasing the value of the loot dropped. 

    Of course, a lot of the old game raiders complain about these changes “ruining” the game, since now almost everyone gets a chance to raid, instead of just a small minority of the player base.  Much like white resentment, they believe that the equalizing of access to this content somehow reduces their own self-importance. 

    Come to think of it, an in-depth sociological study of this kind of thing in game and its parallels in the real would would be facinating.  They already did something similar with the “Corrupted Blood incident“. 

  • https://profiles.google.com/ravanan101 Ravanan

    The former two are attractions to specific age groups (the former being
    pre-pubescent, the latter adolescent), while normal human attraction
    doesn’t really look at age at all, just generally attractive things
    about people.

    What you’re saying is a little vague, but it’s sounds like what you’re
    saying is that they are specifically the fetishization of
    pre-adolescence and adolescence, respectively, as opposed to sexual
    attraction to, as you say of normal sexual attraction, certain
    characteristics. Pedophilia and ephebophilia medically include both
    those who fetishize those states, and those who are sexually attracted
    to characteristics more normally associated with individuals in those
    groups.

    Such attraction is much more widespread than we normally acknowledge (look up neoteny).

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Well for me, the problem was raids existing.  I hate raiding.  I like standard size instances, but the way the game was set up, you had to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re run the same instance for a random shot at maybe getting the right loot.

    And then if you actually managed to get everything, it was off to another dungeon to do the same; until you either get bored or run out of dungeons. We ran out of dungeons, realized we’d have to raid, and none of us wanted to give up the 5-person group dynamic we’d had since FFXI. (And yes I’m aware of the irony of complaining of boredom after coming to WoW from FFXI… believe me, it was an improvement for awhile!)

    For me… I play games often as much for story as anything, and for my character’s place in that story.  That’s another reason I play Cryptic games mainly – they allow insane levels of customization, so I can be who I want to be a lot more closely than in more traditional MMOs.  >.> Like I said, I’m weird. <.<

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Well mostly, my understanding is a bit limited >.> so it’s not so much a question of being vague but rather having a very vague understanding of it myself to be honest.  I kind of lumped fetishization and attraction to features into one thing, didn’t realize they could be considered as separate things at all (@_@) I’m learning, whee!

  • Anonymous

    All those hardcore old-game raiders complain, but they are not the ones controlling the purse-strings.  Blizzard did a study of its playerbase.  Only a tiny minority actually took part in those huge Molten Core/Onyxia raids.  Of the huge majority, only some showed an interest in participating in those raids.  Most people just wanted to play, get together with some friends, maybe do a many-player instance now and then.  The huge hundred-person guilds were the exception, not the rule.  Hardcore raiders were the minority, and not cost-effective to cater to as Blizzard once had, considering the huge maps, unique bosses, and the orange loot that all had to be developed from scratch.  (To say nothing of how the drama surrounding such guilds invariably turned off more than a few potential gamers.)  Blizz saw the writing in the ledger and decided to focus more on smaller raids/instances oriented towards more casual players, and a few ten/twenty-person instances for some group activities.

    Ultimately, an MMO is a theme park, and the massive activities that require a great deal of developer time that only a fraction of a percent of the playerbase will actively pursue, are not cost effective.

  • Anonymous

    Hee… I also was an FFXI refugee to WoW!  It was like night and day, but unfortunately the people I came into WoW with wanted to go to a PvP server, and I think that soured me off of PvP for, well, ever.

    Regarding customization… I still contend that Cryptic/Paragon could release COH’s character creator as a separate offline product and they would make a mint off of that.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Absolutely.  CO even moreso; albeit the art style turns some people off.  The costume creator is ridonkulous, particularly the slider controls   You can make a stick figure.  Seriously.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Absolutely.  CO even moreso; albeit the art style turns some people off.  The costume creator is ridonkulous, particularly the slider controls   You can make a stick figure.  Seriously.

  • Amaryllis

    Tangential and brief, because I’m in a hurry to get the new LB post, which is probably more fun.

    Birth control isn’t Catholic
    Try googling “Catholics for Free Choice.” Study after study confirms that American Catholic women use birth control at the same rates as American women in general. The Pope may disapprove, but this is one of those areas where many Catholics, after serious moral reflection, disagree and still feel able to call themselves Catholic.

    As for defining who’s entitled to call themselves Christian, the ever-wise hapax posted this over on Slacktiverse a few weeks ago:

    One thing
    that studying the history of Christianity has taught me is that trying
    to come up with a good objective litmus test for “who is a Christian”?
    is like trying to catch sunshine in a bottle; every time you think
    you’ve isolated it, you end up peering into an empty  beaker while
    ignoring the radiance all around you.

    Marriage is a real, actual civil right. That’s why people fought to have interracial marriage legalized.

    IIRC, that is specifically the reasoning behind the ruling in Loving v. Virginia.
    Anybody remeber when we were discussing the Letter from Jourdon Anderson to his former master? When he mentions his wife, Mandy, he throws in a sly little parenthetical: “the folks here call her Mrs. Anderson.” That is, not only do they give a black woman the dignity of a title, they give a black couple the dignity of a recognized marriage– a right to which they were not entitled under slavery.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    Makes total sense.  I like the idea of a separate “age of majority” and “age of consent” — as long as both are set as realistically as possible.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Well for me, the problem was raids existing. I hate raiding. I like standard size instances, but the way the game was set up, you had to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re run the same instance for a random shot at maybe getting the right loot.

    This also is not as bad as it once was.  Remember that token currency I mentioned?  Every boss you defeat in a dungeon gets you tokens.  You can then trade in a certain amount of these tokens for your choice of loot when you get back to town.  Raids themselves have higher level tokens which can be traded in for higher quality loot.  So even if you do not get the specific loot pieces you were after, you still get something to ensure you can make some progression.  This has lead to a lot of people volunteering for raids (that they are not already scheduled to participate in on a guild level) to join PUGs.  Even if they have all the gear they want from the raid, the fact that they get tokens from it keeps them coming back. 

    There are even a few raids now which change hands of which faction can use them depending on some major world PvP events which take place every few hours.  These raids are intentionally short and allow the raid to be selective about which parts it does.  Since no one knows ahead of time when the raid will be available for their faction, the groups are almost always PUG heavy.  It is a great way to nab some quick gear and tokens between more “serious” raids. 

    For me… I play games often as much for story as anything, and for my character’s place in that story. That’s another reason I play Cryptic games mainly – they allow insane levels of customization, so I can be who I want to be a lot more closely than in more traditional MMOs. >.> Like I said, I’m weird. <.<

    As do I.  In fact, I played WoW to begin with only because I was a fan of the Warcraft RTS series before that (and when I tell people that I played games Warcraft II and Warcraft III, they act surprised with “I didn’t know they made a sequel to WoW”.)  But anyway, that is actually a big part of my motivation to want to be part of raids.  Not so much just to raid, but because you get to participate in big events that push the story forward.  For example, Karazhan in Burning Crusade was a raid that I loved, because it ties heavily to the story of Medivh going back to the original game.  Or the raid on Icecrown Citadel, because it ties back to the end of Warcraft III.

    “Father!  Is it… over?“

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    One of the things I like about WoW is that it offers a lot of different options depending on what you want out of the game. You can focus on solo quests (the game now makes a lot of use of “phasing” where your actions effect the world you see and interact with, although I would like Blizzard to take it further). You can PVP to your heart’s content or ignore it completely (the latter obviously requires that you NOT choose a PVP server).

    As new endgame content is introduced, the earlier endgame content is deliberately made more accessible to less hardcore players. For example, the newest expansion’s endgame raid content (dungeons for 10-25 players) is available in normal modes (very tough, you need to have spent effort gearing your characters to pull off) and Heroic modes (basically existing for those who have replayed the normal raids to the point they consider them easy).

    With the release of the latest patch, 4.2, a new endgame raid was introduced for the people who had been running the existing raids – and the normal version of the existing raids were lowered in difficulty. The players who had invested hours into those raids weren’t losing anything – they had access to new, tougher content and the Heroic raids were just as challenging – but the now “outdated” normal raids had been made accessible to the less hardcore players who had not previously been able to play them. (My guild, for example.)

    Current WoW is very, very different from vanilla, and I like it quite a bit.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Ultimately, an MMO is a theme park, and the massive activities that require a great deal of developer time that only a fraction of a percent of the playerbase will actively pursue, are not cost effective.

    Oh, believe me, I am aware of the difficulties and considerations from the development and financing side of things.  I am a member of the IGDA, after all.  :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I haven’t tried any of the superhero games for the simple reason that I want to create superhero comics, and I want to retain ownership of anything I develop.

    I’m a huge Warhammer fan, and got into Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning from the launch date, but dropped it after a few months. There wasn’t much to do in solo play, and while they had lots of good mechanics to enable group play, they required a player base that wasn’t spread out over too many servers. I understand that the game has far fewer servers now, but that’s less because they tried to ensure well-populated servers than because they bled players.

    My friends and I are looking forward to Star Wars: The Old Republic, and it will be a new experience to play alongside real-life friends. I’m also excited but uncertain about Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millennium. It pretty much depends on if Eldar are playable or not.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Replying to myself because there is something that I wanted to add: 

    Why so many people seem to assume that the default desire of anyone interested in a relationship involving more than two partners is that it will be one man with multiple women?  If anything, I tend to think that there is more advantage for a given woman if the inverse is true, and she is the one with multiple partners.  Or perhaps a relationship with more than one set of partners.  There are lots of advantages with, say, shared household maintenance and child-care responsibilities.  A two partner nuclear family might be simplier*, but also has fewer options for load balancing. 

    * I hesitate to use terms like “difficult” and “easy” in this context because multiple partners does bring complications that are not present with smaller relationship structures.  It is a matter of different people with different levels of tolerances and expectation, so it cannot be said that any one relationship structure is demonstratably “better” than another.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I’m also excited but uncertain about Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millennium. It pretty much depends on if Eldar are playable or not.

    I am still struggling to figure out how they will balance those races. 

    Or how they will deal with the mono-gendered issue. 

  • Tonio

    Good question. I’m tempted to say that’s simply some men’s fantasy involving power as well as sex. There are plenty of instances where societies have had polygyny but not polyandry. In college I actually posed the question you asked, and one female classmate joked that women wouldn’t want polyandry because one man’s bullshit was more than enough. And I’ve heard a few men insist that polygyny would turn into catfighting among the wives. I’m not sure why the latter sounds sexist to me but the former doesn’t.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Good question. I’m tempted to say that’s simply some men’s fantasy involving power as well as sex. There are plenty of instances where societies have had polygyny but not polyandry. In college I actually posed the question you asked, and one female classmate joked that women wouldn’t want polyandry because one man’s bullshit was more than enough. And I’ve heard a few men insist that polygyny would turn into catfighting among the wives. I’m not sure why the latter sounds sexist to me but the former doesn’t.

    The “power fantasy” is the part that I do not really get.  I do not understand why having power over other people (and making sure other people know you have that power) appeals to anyone as an end unto itself.  Sure, having power is nice as a means to accomplish something, but beyond that, why seek it?  And why feel the need to rub it into others’ faces? 

    I will admit, I do feel some resentmant toward people who feel the need to flaunt power, and have some desire to take them down a peg or two to remind them that they do not, in fact, have the power that they think that they do.  Heck, this goes alongside my desire to beat the crap out of people who try to “force” others to give them power. 

    As far as relationship dynamics go, I would like to think of myself as being very attentive to a partner’s needs.  My concern over having multiple partners who are exclusive to me is that I would get really burned out, trying to divide that attention in so many directions and balance so many different needs at once.  I doubt that I would have the energy to keep up with it all.  I know my own needs are fairly modest, but I cannot necessarily count on that being true of every partner. 

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Ownership wise – it’s complicated, but since I want to create comics as well* I actually had a little bit of a panic attack regarding the issue on the forums at one point, and was pretty much told that it was fine.  The key things as I recall were:

    The ownership thing applies to the character (as in the data itself), not the IP  you’re using (your own) – This is to prevent gold selling.  It also helps give them an out if you say… created our superhero comic after creating the character in CO… then sued CO for being able to create your character in CO.

    Basically it’s to prevent asshattery.

    It’s not that theoretically it couldn’t be a problem, but the much more likely occurance is that on seeing a comic character who matches on on the server, they’d simply generic** the one on the server.

    Totally understand not wanting to risk it though.

    *Manga however, rather than super hero comics.

    **Leftover term from COH.  Basically if you cloned a copyrighted character, you’d lose your costumes (you’d go back to the default), and you’d be renamed GenericHero32362 or whatever.

  • Tonio

    Good points about power. One theme in the second Godfather movie is that Michael Corleone essentially sacrifices his soul to hold onto his power. I think of it as destroying his family to preserve his Family.

    My concern over having multiple partners who are exclusive to me is that
    I would get really burned out, trying to divide that attention in so
    many directions and balance so many different needs at once.

    Have polygynous marriages ever been about human relationships? Everything I’ve read about them suggests that they’re about women as property. Having a large number of wives seemed to connote status, and they provided the man with not just sex but also sons to carry on his power. I would like to think that it’s possible to have egalitarian one-with-many polygamous relationships of both types, but if one wants egalitarianism in the relationship, I don’t see why it should include only one member of a gender.

  • Tonio

    Good points about power. One theme in the second Godfather movie is that Michael Corleone essentially sacrifices his soul to hold onto his power. I think of it as destroying his family to preserve his Family.

    My concern over having multiple partners who are exclusive to me is that
    I would get really burned out, trying to divide that attention in so
    many directions and balance so many different needs at once.

    Have polygynous marriages ever been about human relationships? Everything I’ve read about them suggests that they’re about women as property. Having a large number of wives seemed to connote status, and they provided the man with not just sex but also sons to carry on his power. I would like to think that it’s possible to have egalitarian one-with-many polygamous relationships of both types, but if one wants egalitarianism in the relationship, I don’t see why it should include only one member of a gender.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I think there are as many reasons for it as there are people to be honest.  People are complicated, desire is complicated, love and attraction are complicated…  I think there are a lot of folks who couldn’t even tell you why they feel a given way.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I think it’s because we live in a weird transition period between the total sexism of the past and a hopefully future period of equality.

    So you end up with some unusual situations where a double standard ends up making a degree of twisted sense.  Look at clothing for instance;  a woman wearing a man’s clothes is sexy – a man wearing a woman’s clothes is funny*.

    There’s still a lot of the patriarchal male privileged power structure, and with it the emphasis on masculinity being good, femininity being bad… only you get oddities like [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealWomenNeverWearDresses]this.[/url]

    The way I’d essentially describe it is as a slow stretch in culture.  We see a slow expansion of acceptable roles for both women and men.  It is however *slow* and we’re a long way off from equality-land.

    So you end up, in your example, with a situation where when a man says it, he’s still speaking from a position of societal privilege – while the woman isn’t.

    Does that make sense? >.< It's an easy concept to have in my head, it's much more difficult for me to put it on paper.

    *Well except for a rather small minority, who do in fact find men in dresses hawt.  At least some men some of the time.

  • Anonymous

    Hm. You may have just sold me on polyandry. One of the biggest issues that prevents me from really being comfortable with a monogamous relationship is the fact that, quite often, I would be almost entirely incapable of providing the attention that my partner would expect and/or need. If I could be confident that I could take whatever time I need to be alone, without my partner’s needs being neglected as a result… Huh. Sounds ideal.

    That said, getting a strong heteronormative vibe from this conversation about polyamory. Possibly something to be aware of.

  • Tonio

    So you end up, in your example, with a situation where when a man says
    it, he’s still speaking from a position of societal privilege – while
    the woman isn’t.

    That’s what I already suspected, but it was good to hear it from someone else. Thanks.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I suspect they’ll do what WAR did, and go with generally accepted fluff.  The simple reason being that female gamers aren’t as numerous as male gamers (yet), and male gamers who will stick up for female gamers are considered to either be A) gay* B)white knighting** – and thus aren’t taken seriously.  So while it will probably cost them some subscriptions, doing the more egalitarian thing would probably cost them more, and cause an even bigger, more epicer shitstorm.  (One that I feel needs to happen, but which is probably 15 years + away at best.)

    As to balancing the races – I actually see that as fairly simple… IF they do it the way I think the ought to*** -

    Basically the idea is this:  Instead of creating a single character, you create your avatar (the sergeant or unit equivelant), and then as you level you are given extra points to spend on squad members and upgrades.  The solution being that by the level cap, a Marine has a combat squad of 5 very powerful characters, but a Guard character has like, 20; and everyone else falls somewhere between.  (I imagine if they actually did it that way, it’d be cut down quite a bit… like, 1 Marine, 5 Guard, that kind of thing.)

    I doubt they’ll do it that way though *sigh* /dreams on.

    … man I have spent a lot of time on Slacktivist today >.> you peoples are interesting darnit!

    *Which shouldn’t matter, but you know how some geeks are.  Okay a lot of geeks.

    **Ie: Trying to be chivalrous to get female attention.  Sadly this happens relatively often so telling when someone is standing up just because and when they’re doing it to get attention can be difficult. Blergh.

    ***Because I know *everything*.  (sarcastic as  hell ><)

  • Tonio

    Valid point about heteronormativity. I didn’t intend to slight the concept of same-sex polyamory. I was talking about patriarchy and how it has influenced or would influence the types of opposite-sex polyamorous relationships that would exist in a society. By definition, patriarchy wouldn’t be a factor within same-sex relationships, although it could obviously influence whether societies accepted those relationships.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I’m chatty as heck today, so it’s good that it’s at least going to something vaguely useful lol ><

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Basically the idea is this: Instead of creating a single character, you create your avatar (the sergeant or unit equivelant), and then as you level you are given extra points to spend on squad members and upgrades. The solution being that by the level cap, a Marine has a combat squad of 5 very powerful characters, but a Guard character has like, 20; and everyone else falls somewhere between. (I imagine if they actually did it that way, it’d be cut down quite a bit… like, 1 Marine, 5 Guard, that kind of thing.)

    That was my idea too.  Make the character (functionally) more about a “squad” than an individual.  This also allows a great deal of customization in the kit you can bring with you.  For the most part, squadmates provide extra firepower, and you can replenish casualties when back in town (or restore them by bringing medicae equipment along at the cost of some slots.)  But you could also replace some of their basic firepower with different types of weaponry and equipment to combat different kinds of threats, with higher level squads authorized to carry more special equipment onto the battlefield, etc. 

    I can see a lot of good instance-type scenarios taking place, with several squads working together to accomplish a big mission.  That would also leave some room for specialization.  Say, some squads have the heavy weapons for anti-armor work, or cutting down lots of enemy infantry.  Other squads are equipped with ligher gear to flank around the battlefield and hit objectives.  Still others have basic weaponry and strong armor to keep the enemy’s attention, and some have close-combat gear to rush in and tie up heavily armed enemies in melee. 

    To say nothing of the PvP battlefields, which I can see playing out like a 40K table-top game, with each player controlling a different squad. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Yeah, the way WAR handled gender was weird.

    Making the Witch Elf class “Witch Elf/Assassin” should have been a big deal, a Dark Elf Assassin would play exactly the same as the Witch Elf class they designed – all they would need is a different set of gear graphics, which different genders need anyway. They’d still be lightly armored elves popping out of stealth to stab you a lot before slitting your throat.

    Chosen and Marauders made no sense as male-only, the fluff does establish they exist. Supposedly the devs just couldn’t imagine a woman as a hulking scary servant of Chaos.

    The male Dark Elf Sorcerers and female Warrior Priests of Sigmar were fine by me (and I LOVE that your female Warrior Priest can have a shaven head a nasty facial scars), as both had some fluff explaining them.

    I support limiting Dwarf Slayers to males, though. WH Dwarf society seems to have very strict gender roles, and the Slayers have always been a part of the dwarven cult of masculinity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Going the “squad leader” route could be interesting, but I’d prefer to see it as an ability unique to specific classes instead of a basic part of the game. Make “Imperial Guard Sergeant” effectively a “minion-using class” with abilities related to equipping and commanding your squad, while the superhuman killing machines like Space Marines and Eldar Aspect Warriors operate on their own.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    This is pretty much *exactly* what I want.  Good gravy, lets hope eh?

    I mean, I think I would do raids if you set them up like a battlefield and had everyone in control of a squad or vehicle.  … dammit; now I’m going to get all excited and be let down (;_;) Oh well, it’s fun to dream.  (And I can at least fake it in STO to a point.)

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Well the thing is, for dwarves, having any female characters was kind of ‘odd’* – so at that point it’s like “Why stop here?”  It just didn’t make sense to me.

    And yeah, female priests of Sigmar were badass (‘x’) That class was sooooo ridiculously powerful too.  My main was a Swordmaster though… so many people seemed to think it was a weak class, and for that they paid dearly, muwahahaha!  (And then they buffed us…)

    *sigh*  Only ended up quitting due to running out of stuff to do.  Keep thinking about going back but I worry I’ll get back and then the game will close up shop on me like Tabula Rasa did. ( _ _) and then I would cry.  Well not really but it would be very disappointing.

    *I preferred it of course, but strictly by the fluff it’s a bit unusual.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I mean, I think I would do raids if you set them up like a battlefield and had everyone in control of a squad or vehicle.  … dammit; now I’m going to get all excited and be let down (;_;) Oh well, it’s fun to dream.  (And I can at least fake it in STO to a point.)

    An MMORTS?

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Not precisely.  I don’t want command of an entire army, or even a largish portion of one* – I just want control of a single squad.  Think of it kind of like every WWII movie ever – all around you have have the army… but the focus is entirely on this relatively handful of people and what they do.  >.> Now make it interactive and make every other group in the army other players.

    (^_^)  Explosions, yay!

    *There is an MMORTS coming in End of Nations.  I’m very interested now that they’ve mentioned they will actually have some infantry (originally it was all vehicles, which is meh to me.  I’m a grunt darnit.  Unless I’m a pilot. >.>)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I support limiting Dwarf Slayers to males, though. WH Dwarf society seems to have very strict gender roles, and the Slayers have always been a part of the dwarven cult of masculinity.

    Wait, did they actually add playable Dwarf Slayers to the game?  Because I remember chatting with one of WAR’s developers at a conference sometime well before release.  He was telling me that they were not planning to make Slayers playable because some of the behavior expected out of players would conflict with the lore.  Having a Slayer hanging around town going “LFG 4 PvP” for an hour would not jive well with the expectation that a Slayer is a death-seeking berserker who goes out and slays rather than hangs around town. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Well, in the meantime, if you are interested in an action title, the upcoming (aptly named) “Space Marine” might give some satisfaction.  It is looking pretty good so far, and developer Relic has a lot of experience that shows they know the setting well (being the group behind Dawn of War.)

  • Rikalous

    Going the “squad leader” route could be interesting, but I’d prefer to
    see it as an ability unique to specific classes instead of a basic part
    of the game. Make “Imperial Guard Sergeant” effectively a “minion-using
    class” with abilities related to equipping and commanding your squad,
    while the superhuman killing machines like Space Marines and Eldar
    Aspect Warriors operate on their own.

    Seconded. One of the Guard’s distinctive points is that it’s a bunch of guys equipped with flashlights and t-shirts overwhelming more powerful foes through sheer force of numbers. If every character is a squad, some of that distinctiveness gets lost. If Orkz, or Emperor protect us, Tyranids are playable, they might also have minion-using classes , but not the other factions.

  • Rikalous

    Or how they will deal with the mono-gendered issue.

    Maybe by emphasizing how badass Sisters of Battle are, and promoting them as distaff counterparts to Space Marines?

  • Anonymous

    Are you japanese?

    If not, you do not make manga. You make comics with a manga-inspired style.

    And yes, I do like anime and manga. I am not hiding that fact any longer.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    On the bright side, Dwarf (foo) Slayers would be PERFECT for NPC allies.  In most games, the AI already has the “rush in like an idiot and get killed instantly” thing down pat.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Why were you pretending to hide it in the first place, Metronome?

  • Anonymous

    Don’t care.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    They did, about the same time as the Choppa, both were post-release additions.  They’re both Medium DPS – middle of the road armor, AoE heavy DPS, at least as I recall them.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I completely understand why you want to make that distinction.  I mean, I’m a sub-only fan myself* – so believe me, I understand this.  I’m not going to try to change your mind on the subject even – but I do want to explain my logic here so you can at least see where I’m coming from.

    I think there’s a difference between:

    Japanese Manga/Anime, Western Manga/Anime, and Manga/Anime-inspired Western comics.  The difference being chiefly this:

    Blade Bunny I would classify as Western manga – it’s written and drawn by westerners; but visually and stylistically it’s pretty tough to tell it apart from a page-flipped translated manga.  The chief difference being there’s less issue with the occasional awkward translation.**

    Teen Titans on the other hand I would classify in the latter category.  Visually it’s still most definitely a western cartoon, it just has a lot of anime influence in it.  There’s no way you could put it up next to a traditionally drawn anime, like Evangelion, and be remotely confused.

    Now obviously right now my artistic skills are not nearly up to snuff*** – but my goal is to get to the point where I can produce something like Blade Bunny in terms of graphical quality.  That may change as I learn as an artist, but right now that’s my goal.

    That said – I certainly won’t argue your preference in terminology; I know it’s pretty common in the fandom, I just see the dividing line as a twinge different than where it was made.

    *shrug*

    *Nothing against western VAs, most do a fantastic job with what they’re given; but it’s difficult to be both accurate to the spirit of the original script *and* avoid really awkward pauses due to the animation timing.  Which… bothers me.

    **Or like Claymore… which is like 90% awkward translation ><

    ***I keep working at it, and I'm getting better; but I'm quite aware I have a long way to go.  New Wacom tablet has been helping a lot though.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    This is what I’m kind of imagining will actually happen.  My primary gripe with that being that Sisters* are a lot less flavorable than Marines.  Marines, like Guard, accept a tooooon of possible cultural influences.  In player armies I’ve seen Imperial Chinese marines, Incan marines, Zulu marines… you get the idea.

    You  never get away with that for Sisters.  You can create your own Order** of course, but you’ve only got so much room to maneuver within the Ecclesiarchal culture.  End result is, you’re going to end up with (visually) primarily color swaps and a few emblem additions on top of the Fleur.  … and usually that’s about it.

    I mean fiction-wise you can do some neat stuff; but it’s a far less customizable group on the whole.

    Still I suppose in an MMO it’s at least more tolerable than on the tabletop.  And all is forgiven if they give me an Eviscerator.

    *As awesome as they are – Like I said, the Ordo Hereticus and SOBs are tied for my favorite army with  Marines.

    **I had the Order of the Lioness – Silver, White and Gold colors.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    This is what I’m kind of imagining will actually happen.  My primary gripe with that being that Sisters* are a lot less flavorable than Marines.  Marines, like Guard, accept a tooooon of possible cultural influences.  In player armies I’ve seen Imperial Chinese marines, Incan marines, Zulu marines… you get the idea.

    You  never get away with that for Sisters.  You can create your own Order** of course, but you’ve only got so much room to maneuver within the Ecclesiarchal culture.  End result is, you’re going to end up with (visually) primarily color swaps and a few emblem additions on top of the Fleur.  … and usually that’s about it.

    I mean fiction-wise you can do some neat stuff; but it’s a far less customizable group on the whole.

    Still I suppose in an MMO it’s at least more tolerable than on the tabletop.  And all is forgiven if they give me an Eviscerator.

    *As awesome as they are – Like I said, the Ordo Hereticus and SOBs are tied for my favorite army with  Marines.

    **I had the Order of the Lioness – Silver, White and Gold colors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    They did indeed add playable Slayers. The player behavior/character behavior thing I don;t really see as an issue, because they already have non-Elves wandering around Ulthuan, Dark Elves and Orcs cheerfully fighting alongside each other, etc.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Still I suppose in an MMO it’s at least more tolerable than on the tabletop. And all is forgiven if they give me an Eviscerator.

    The thing about the context of an MMO though is that you cannot really get away with all the Special Snowflake kind of thing you can on a tabletop.  Limitations on in-game resources, balance and presentation issues (player characters that do not look like they “belong” clash with the aestetic and affect others’ experiences,) and limited developer interest, personel, and time, all contribute to narrow down the focus of what a player can do.  I would be unsurprised if all the playable marines in the game were part of the same chapter.  It certainly makes quest-giving a lot more reasonable than if there were a bunch of novice marines from different chapters running around the same chapel barracks. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    FYI, “manga” is just Japanese for “Comics”.  So all comics are manga.  

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    True.  I think they’ve only shown Black Templars so far, haven’t they?  (It’s been awhile since I watched the videos so maybe I’m wrong there.)

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Well to be fair to Monoblade on this… in Japan that’s how it’s used, but we often use the loanwords differently in the US.  So here manga tends to have a specific connotation; just like how Anime in Japan means “animation” at large, while Anime here in the US generally means specifically Japanese style animation.  (And tends to lead to some assumptions about setting and storytelling as well as visuals.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    This was true for the Corinthians, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the first-century church, and it is true for the Americans, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the 21st-century church.

    Don’t know if you’re still reading the comments on this one, Fred, but I think you’ve just titled your book: “The Epistles of Fred to the Americans.”  Looking forward to buying copies for myself and various friends and relatives.

  • Dan Audy

    An interesting thought I had today that gave me some hope:

    Today we are fighting for recognition for same-sex marriages being as legitimate as hetero marriages because we already won the war on whether homosexuality was a disease or that homosexuals were subhuman.  While there will always be virulently aggressive homophobes, they will soon be religated to the same places as the KKK.  Even now the leaders of groups that are opposed to same-sex marriage are publicly careful to avoid denying homosexuals personhood lest they get backlash from the public and many of their own followers – a behaviour that was commonplace even 20 years ago.  Certainly, I expect that nasty homophobes are going to be with us for a long time just as bigots are but I find it reassuring that within my lifetime I’ve seen heteronormative exclusionists forced to soften their rhetoric because, even within their own community, their lies have been revealed as more and more people come to know real homosexuals rather than stereotyped stories.

  • http://guy-who-reads.blogspot.com/ Mike Timonin

    Dan, that’s a very reassuring way of looking at the situation, thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    True. I think they’ve only shown Black Templars so far, haven’t they? (It’s been awhile since I watched the videos so maybe I’m wrong there.)

    Been a while for me too, but when I think about it, the Black Templars might work really well from a gameplay standpoint.  They are not as limited as Codex chapters in terms of the size of their standing forces, so it would not be so unusual if their player base seemed unusually large.  Further, their novices are not seperated into seperate scout companies like other chapters, but are mentored directly by line battle-brothers and fight alongside them, so a low-level player can jump right into the action rather than just sneak about, observe, and leave the fighting to more veteran marines.  As well, Black Templar squads are formed ad-hoc as need arises, with squad mates forming together out of friendships and past experience fighting together, rather than being fixed organizations with central leaders, so it fits well in a looking-for-group context. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659001961 Brad Ellison

    And yes, I do like anime and manga. I am not hiding that fact any longer.

    My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Indeed indeed.  And frankly the Black Templars are just ten kinds of awesome anyway.  They also probably have some of the best <a href="url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlingOfWar]Bling of War in the setting.  Given 40k that’s saying something.

    Additionally – I love melee.  That’s one of the (many) reasons 40k is so attractive to me in comparison to more hard sci-fi settings, because there are melee units and, despite the firearm heavy battlefield… they actually get to do things.  Potentially a LOT of things.*

    Really hoping that will be a viable playstyle for at least a couple classes per side.

    *Fun army I started to build:  Blood Angels (successor chapter specifically) list with nothing but assault marines and 2 Land Speeder Tornadoes, if I remember correctly.  Led by a jetpack Chaplain to lead the Death Company.  I have zero idea if it would have actually worked on the tabletop – model count was pretty darn low overall; but I admit I just love the images it put in my head.  “Death From Above” indeed.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Fun army I started to build: Blood Angels (successor chapter specifically) list with nothing but assault marines and 2 Land Speeder Tornadoes, if I remember correctly. Led by a jetpack Chaplain to lead the Death Company. I have zero idea if it would have actually worked on the tabletop – model count was pretty darn low overall; but I admit I just love the images it put in my head. “Death From Above” indeed.

    That would have worked.  To quote Gav Thorpe when he wrote (an older edition of) the Blood Angels codex, “The Blood Angels have one strategy and one strategy only, and they are very, very good at it, and that’s ‘Charge!’”

    That is also pretty consistant with their fluff.  The fact that any one of them can be taken over by the black rage at any time while in battle tends to slant them toward using very aggressive tactics.  That way, if one of them does go berserk, they do not have to alter their plans.  If, say, they were holding a tight battle line and one of them was overcome by bloodlust and charged into the enemy, the line would fall appart.  They tend to rely heavily on momentum and never giving the enemy time to regroup or get entrenched.

  • Aussie

    You might also mention the role of the media in defining the primary focus of American Christianity, even within the church. Everyone who’s part of a minority group feels stereotyped in some way because of whoever in that group happens to be making the news. As a result it’s so easy to reinforce the idea that Christians = homophobic that it’s almost cliche now. Look at the amount of exposure Westboro Baptist gets – not one of America’s biggest churches or by any definition a mouthpiece for evangelicals but they’re always good for a quote. As long as the media employs such simplistic narratives they control the national conversation and shape the Evangelical stereotype – same as they do for Muslims, immigrants, single parents, lawyers, and yes, homosexuals.

    Another reason may be that groups tend to be defined by their most obvious point of difference, even if this is only peripheral to who they are, eg Muslim women with head covering. An opinion on gay marriage isn’t the centre of American Christianity but since most people agree with their opinions on gossip, poverty, love etc you’d have to agree it’s their most obvious point of distinction.

    Also there’s a cognitive dissonance that happens when you try to think on different scales. Ask about their last trip to a GP or their high school experience and most people will have something positive to say, but ask them what they think of the medical or education system as a whole and they’ll tell you the whole thing’s a disaster. Maybe the same thing happens with the Christians and the church as a whole – it’s definitely a lot easier to write patronizingly about hateful, ignorant or gullible people in megachurches than get to know a few personally…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    The all-assault Blood Angels army can work quite well. This is primarily because their assault squads are Troops choices that ARE scoring units. One of the dangers in building a BA army is taking too few scoring units, which is a severe disadvantage 2/3s of the time in standard scenarios.

    Layperson’s translation: Warhammer 40,000 has common victory conditions that a poorly-designed army may find itself unable to fulfill now matter how much butt it kicks. The Blood Angels options are such that one can accidentally build such an army more easily than with other factions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    One of the realizations that helped me get over the seemingly-overpowered 5th Edition Blood Angels army list is that they are actually harder to play than other Space Marine armies. An army based entirely around powerful units like the Death Company, Veteran Assault Squads, 300-point characters, Deep-Striking Land Raiders, and 6 Fast Predators will actually lose a lot in anything but an Annihilation mission. And an army whose chance of winning is dependent on the scenario being played is a terribly-built army.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not gonna track down Beatrix’s comment where she said something about gay folks not rushing to the altar, but http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/nyregion/judges-signing-up-for-sunday-duty-at-gay-weddings.html?_r=3 –New York judges are sure as hell expecting a rush to the altar.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Yeah, I forget exactly how many I had, but I want to say it was something like 2 full 10-marine squads, and a 5-marine combat squad, a 5-marine vet squad, the death company, and the land speeders.  The 2 big squads were of course broken down into combat squads.  (It’s been awhile so I may be way off)

    I also kinda went a little overboard with the power weapons as I recall >.<;

  • http://www.facebook.com/fr.petebarnabite Peter Calabrese

    It is not fear that we would be forced to “perform them”.  Rather it is the emerging reality that those who do not celebrate such marriages as good are now placed into the realm of bigotry or even as deniers of civil rights.  Marriages have not even started yet in NY state and two government clerks have had to leave their jobs because the much touted conscience clauses apply only churches as such not to individuals.  The problem is not that we are being asked not to persecute homosexuals the problem is we are now being forced to acclaim it as a “good”. 
    While tax exemption is certainly a privilege that the state can offer or remove it is very clear that in this environment those who “deny the civil rights of someone” will hardly, in the future, qualify as a charitable organization any more than the KKK could qualify as a charitable organization.  And while the taking away of that exemption would not technically be a violation of civil rights it would certainly be an agressive move against orthodox Christians and part of the marginalization of them from public life.
    The refrain that ecclesiastical communities won’t be forced to perform them is far too narrow.   People have sued to have them recognized when performed elsewhere – take for example adoption work done by Catholic Charities (stopped in many places) and “recognizing families” regarding admissions to Catholic schools – see controversy with differing responses by the archbishops in Boston and Denver.
    Already in Utah the anti-polygamy law is being challenged.  On what basis wil the government deny someone the “right” to have multiple spouses” or even animals for spouses once the objective definition has been lost.  The result of the same sex marriage attitude is that marriage is no longer defined by nature but by the individual who “wants” to marry whomever an eventually whatever. 
    Actually orthodox Christians have been very prescient in their analysis of the effects of legalizing of same sex “marriage”.  It is not so much “fear” as logic.

  • Anonymous

    Well, yeah, part of the government clerks’ jobs were to provide marriage licenses without considering to whom the licenses were being provided beyond the basic ‘are they consenting’, ‘are they already married to other people’, and ‘are they closely related’. Don’t want to do your job? Find a new job. Same goes for the pharmacy employees who won’t dispense contraception.

    Catholic Charities’ stopping adoptions because of the fear that they’d have to let kids be adopted by same-sex couples just proves that Catholic Charities is run by assholes.

    Polyamorous marriage will probably sink on the grounds that it’s too complicated. Bestial marriage, in the unlikely event that it ever hits the court system or the ballot box, will definitely sink on the grounds that animals can neither sign contracts nor consent to sex.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    even animals for spouses once the objective definition has been lost.

    I cannot believe it took 11 entire pages for someone to trot that one out. Is this a sign of improvement?

  • Beatrix

    Uh, thanks, I guess. And here I thought Monoblade and I might have something in common.

  • Anonymous

    ??

  • Beatrix

    God, I dunno.  Can’t figure this comments system out at all.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    That is actually something of a disadvantage to my Tau force.  I only have a pair of scoring units, and a lot of non-scoring units to do the heavy fighting.  It can work, but the challenge is ensuring that at the end of them game, I have two objectives under my control and the enemy has one or none.  For this my force is pretty well equipped, as my non-scoring units are fairly powerful and highly mobile, which means I can concentrate a lot of force to wipe the enemy out, but I can also spread that force to deny the enemy objectives.  Even a non-scoring unit can still keep the enemy from taking an objective if it can hold it.  My scoring units, on the other hand, can use their transport skimmers to rush to nab objectives when it becomes clear what objectives the enemy will be unable to take.  Thanks to their ability to regroup when below half-strength, they can keep holding it even if the enemy inflicts severe casualties.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I had a lot of trouble managing scoring units with the Eldar until I tried using large squads of jetbikes. The ability to turbo-boost 24″ in the last turn to nab an objective (and if your opponent has the final turn, a 3+ invulnerable save due to turbo-boosting) is incredibly useful.

  • Beatrix

    So I’m a troll if I’m lying about being a Christian, but  “A christian would never deny they are such”, so… I’m not lying about (not) being a Christian, because if I was I… wouldn’t be a Chirstian?

    Agnostic.  Get some more blades.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    *facepalm*

    Mein gott in Himmel.

    I’m going to break this down veeeeery sloooowly okay?  Try to keep up.

    You don’t have to like it, you just have to accept we live in a country where there is a seperation of Church and State.

    Your church is over here -|- <– Can do whatever it wants*

    The government is over here =G=  <– Has to create laws to run a country with a substantial portion of people who are not like you.

    This means that if the country is 99% Christian, and 1% other, that 1% other still gets to have freedom from what you want to enforce on them.  And you know what?  It works in reverse too! 

    Now, here's the thing:

    If you work in government, then guess what?  You *don't* work for the Church.  Working in government means, whether you like them or not, you have to serve *all* the people in the country.  Don't like that requirement?  Then don't take the job.  It comes with the territory, you either accept the responsibility that you may have to do things you disagree with; or you accept that you can't do those things and you don't take the job or quit as it becomes necessary.*

    This applies likewise to dealing with government money – because that's taxpayer money at-large; and at least some of those taxpayers are gay, and a lot more of them are perfectly fine with gay people.

    Or, let me put this in extremely simple terms:

    Ours is supposed to be a government Of, By, and For the people.  We LGBT folks?  We're also the people.  We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears. (Or maybe we do… rawr.)  That's America, love it or leave it.**

    In other words:  You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to accept them*** – but that's on you.  If you want to call my friends dogfuckers and child molesters, you can do that.  I'm going to call you an asshole for it, but you can do it.

    As to bigotry… have you tried not being a bigot?  I mean it's probably just a phase, you'll grow out of, right?

    *For the record, I have no problem with people quitting over this.  That's their right.  However don't you dare tell me they were forced out;  the option to resign was just that.  An option.

    **I've always wanted to say that. *shrug*  I've gotten it plenty of times, I'm allowed to turn it back at least once.

    ***Or us bi folks.  *sigh*  We never liked you anyway. *Hmph!*

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Hehehe, definitely sounds like a good plan.  Devilfish ftw >.>

    I never really got to play (well, one game); but my plan, such as it was, was basically to try to get to the most favorable terrain on the board with my assault marines, using my superior speed and manueverability, meanwhile the Land Speeders would be either A) holding back behind the marines, with the intent being to sweep around should there be something I can’t dislodge or can’t withstand a charge from…

    or B)  Sweep around the flank and go for the rear of enemy vehicles where appropriate.  My  landspeeders were the closest I had to dedicated AT.  Yes, Landspeeders. >..< and I got pwnt since I built him a very standard "lots of basic infantry" Necron army.

    We'll be back can kiss my ceramite plated rump.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I remember on Warseer a lot of people alternately praising or condemning that tactic lol

    I think the Eldar army I had planned* was basically lots and lots of Striking Scorpions and Rangers.  Stealth was one of the halmarks of the army as I remember.  (I could be remembering wrong, but that’s what the old melon is telling me it was.)

    Also a few guardians.  Well and one Wraithlord.  I saw a “sniper” conversion for a Brightlance wraithlord, and I knew I wanted one.  It was the perfect capstone to an army with a lot of rangers.  Even though it’s about as stealthy as a brightly painted dinosaur statue doing the cha-cha in rush our traffic. >.>  But it’s very pretty looking so it’s OK.

    Now I forget what all I had… *hrm… do I want to dig for that list…*

    *For the record, I wrote up a *ton* of fluff back in the day.  I didn’t get many models painted or games played in comparison to the shear amount of fluff and list-making I did.

    My craftworld probably had the most detailed backstory of anything I wrote; so I won’t go into the long of it here.  The short version was it was on of the last to leave before the Fall, so it got caught on the very, very leading edge of the warp storms heralding Slaanesh’s birth.  They were also shot through with people who were just as sadistically twisted as those who’d become the Dark Eldar… but were smart enough to see the writing on the all and get out while the getting was good.

    Long story short:  Civil war on a badly damaged craftworld, a period of mourning, and then the craftworld ‘forgets’.  Willingly trying to forget the past and simply continuing on as they are.  Which in the 40k universe works about as well as you’d expect.

    I’d have to dig up the actual fluff to explain it all though.  I’ve forgotten why I had so many Guardians now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Guardians, unfortunately, continue to be completely worthless. Which is a terrible pity because the models look cool and I have a ton of them.

    I’m much more partial to Howling Banshees than Striking Scorpions, in part because of the preponderance of power-armored armies out there.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Yeah, but Banshees can’t infiltrate >_>; which was one of the big things as I remember.

  • Caravelle

    Already in Utah the anti-polygamy law is being challenged.  On what
    basis wil the government deny someone the “right” to have multiple
    spouses” or even animals for spouses once the objective definition has
    been lost.

    Ah, the cats and dogs argument. I’ve got an objection to that I never see anyone bring up for some reason.

    Why do people want to marry each other ? It’s a legal relationship that entails certain rights and responsibilities to one another. People who can’t marry might want to so they can have access to that legal relationship and the resulting rights and responsibilities; it’s the only way they really can get them. Some people talk about cobbling together contract-based frameworks that do the same thing, but even if it works it’s so much more complicated and doesn’t come with the same social understanding of said rights and responsibilities.

    So how about giving people an animals those same rights and responsibilities ?

    Well, thing is… there already exists a legal relationship that gives a human all the rights and responsibilities it might ever want on an animal. It’s called “ownership”. Now granted it’s much more of a rough deal on the animal (echoes of what marriage used to be for women here) but animals aren’t lobbying for the right to marry humans. And for the human, ownership is all that marriage is and much, much more. They still don’t have the right to abuse or rape their animals but marriage wouldn’t give them the right to do that to their spouse either, and if they actually do it the ownership paradigm protects them much better than the marriage paradigm would.

    So basically, human-animal marriage will become an issue the day animals get human rights.

    Same goes with the ridiculous reductio ad absurdum that is self-marriage.

    Same does NOT go with polyamorous relationships. And I think the argument that same-sex marriage makes polyamorous marriage a more likely possibility is true, but “more likely” hardly means “inevitable”; polyamorous marriage has many issues that don’t exist with same-sex marriage.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    This might be off topic, but did anyone read the article the Harvard Crimson did on a secret court the school held in 1920 to root out suspected gay students?

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/11/21/the-secret-court-of-1920-at/

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    To be honest, my force actually has its Devilfish as my primary anti-armor platform.  While that is hardly overwhelming, it is not as absurd as it sounds.  Each Devilfish mounts a pair of seeker missiles* (S8, ignores LOS, unlimited range, hits on a marked target on a 2+) and each fire warrior squad is accompanied by a pair of marker drones.  That means that I get four high strength anti-armor shots per game, so I need to make them count.  Alternatively, if I expect to go up against an armor-heavy force, I can swap some of my crisis suits’ kits for anti-armor tactics.  It will be risky, likely costly, but if I can use the terrain to get in position, those vehicles are screwed.  Jetpacking, 4+ invlunerable saving, all melta squads FTW! 

    Funny thing about 40K is that often lots of basic infantry is one of the more effective strategies, in virtually any army.  People tend to go for the biggest and most impressive units in any army, sinking lots of points into them (if for no other reason because it means they have to buy and paint fewer models, and we know how expensive and time consuming that can be) which leaves a lot of armies understrength in terms of numbers.  The ironic part is that basic infantry is almost always the best value for points, even if it the least impressive on paper.  Boring But Practical.

    * Incidentally, I am proud of the modding I did with my seeker missiles. Each missile fits into a custom formed grove in the sides of each Devilfish, and is held against the hull by magnets embedded in vehicle and in the missiles themselves. When a missile is launched, I can just remove it from the vehicle to keep track of how many I have remaining, and it all is WYSIWYG compliant (including other pieces of equipment which are also removable and changable via magnets.)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Ah yes, the famous Alaitoc ranger army of John Shaffer.  I remember seeing pictures of its debute years ago.  It eventually got featured in the 5th Edition core rulebook as an example of a highly customized army.  The half-crouched Wraithlord with the brightlance held in its hands is actually pretty justified, if the soul that animates it is that of a ranger.  It is simply immitating the stance and fighting style it felt most comfortable with in life.  That is something I always loved about Wraithlords, there are so many oppertunities to communicate life and personality through its pose alone.  Of course, back in my day, we had to saw apart puter joints and join everything with a pin vice and steel wire.  Heck, I still do that for my plastic models, but it used to be a lot harder back then.

    Actually, posing is one of the things I really love to do, and is one of the few ways to really customize a “clean” army (things like Orks and Chaos get a bit of a pass on sloppy-looking conversions, since it is still easy to keep those looking thematically linked to their fiction.)  Check out this crisis suit I put together, for example.  I wanted to communicate grace and agility, despite the bulky suit, so I made it landing from a jump.  Though it also looks kind of like it is dancing ballet or about to snap-kick something in the face, but that is still graceful so mission accomplished none-the-less.  :)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I remember when second edition Guardians were awesome.  They had so many different options, and their shuriken catapults were one of the single best basic weapons out there.  Third edition hit them with a serious nerf bat, and their range got halved.  Fourth edition reintroduced decently ranged shuriken catapults, but only Dire Avengers get those. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Jetpacking, 4+ invlunerable saving, all melta squads FTW!

    All-melta squads (in my case, Fire Dragons) seem to be even better for their psychological effect than their actual anti-armor ability. My opponents will use their tanks extremely conservatively, and spend a great deal of time worrying about whether the tanks are in range of my transport move+melta range. All of which goes to make my mobility advantage even greater.

    The ironic part is that basic infantry is almost always the best value for points, even if it the least impressive on paper.  Boring But Practical.

    Yup. I’m continually amazed by Ork players who will dump massive amounts of points into Nobz that have been kitted out to abuse the wound allocation rules, when for the same points as ten such Nobz they could have bought 60 Boyz.

    Eldar are in the unfortunate position of having one basic infantry squad that is completely worthless (Guardians), which I was distressed to learn through many games after painting over thirty of them. But Guardian Jetbike Squads, Rangers, and Dire Avengers make up for that.

    * Incidentally, I am proud of the modding I did with my seeker missiles.
    Each missile fits into a custom formed grove in the sides of each
    Devilfish, and is held against the hull by magnets embedded in vehicle
    and in the missiles themselves. When a missile is launched, I can just
    remove it from the vehicle to keep track of how many I have remaining,
    and it all is WYSIWYG compliant (including other pieces of equipment
    which are also removable and changable via magnets.

    Magnets are pretty much the Best Thing Ever for miniature wargames. I’ve started using them on most of my vehicle weapons for easy weapon swaps to give me more army-building options. For Warhammer Fantasy, magnetized movement trays speed up gameplay immensely.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Of course, back in my day, we had to saw apart puter joints and join
    everything with a pin vice and steel wire.  Heck, I still do that for my
    plastic models, but it used to be a lot harder back then.

    I have an old metal Wraithlord that I’m still rather proud of, even though I never got him painted. Through much sawing and pinning, I had him stepping on a Dark Eldar warrior, who was hopelessly firing his splinter pistol up at the Wraithlord.

    Check out this crisis suit I put together, for example.

    Very nice! I love plastic kits so much for the posing options they give you. My Tau-playing friend really, really wants to see plastic Broadsides, so that he’ll have a posing option other than “please don’t fall over.”

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    All-melta squads (in my case, Fire Dragons) seem to be even better for their psychological effect than their actual anti-armor ability. My opponents will use their tanks extremely conservatively, and spend a great deal of time worrying about whether the tanks are in range of my transport move+melta range. All of which goes to make my mobility advantage even greater.

    Yeah, I expect them to fulfill more of an armor-surpression role, rather than an offensive role.  Bad idea for Tau to close with the enemy, especially if they move it forward slowly and flank it with infantry.  I expect enemies to try to charge it with assault troops, counting on my squad’s limited firing range to minimize casualties.  On the other hand, I have three crisis suits total, so I can back up the anti-armor squad with some anti-infantry equipped suits.  I find plasma guns and missile pods ruin a space marine squad’s day. 

    Yup. I’m continually amazed by Ork players who will dump massive amounts of points into Nobz that have been kitted out to abuse the wound allocation rules, when for the same points as ten such Nobz they could have bought 60 Boyz.

    Oh god, the infamous Nob Biker multi-wound abuse strategy?  Cheapest thing ever, but  falls apart in the face of anything which can dish out multiple hits with enough strength to cause instant death.  No matter how well kitted out those Nobz are, the instant-death threshold still applies versus their base toughness, not the modified value.  The Leman Russ Punisher (a variation only added in the most recent Imperial Guard codex) is great for this.  Its primary weapon is like a giant assault cannon which is itself made up of other assault cannons, or it at least fires as many rounds.  It manages to out-dakka the Orks, and that is really saying something. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I have an old metal Wraithlord that I’m still rather proud of, even though I never got him painted. Through much sawing and pinning, I had him stepping on a Dark Eldar warrior, who was hopelessly firing his splinter pistol up at the Wraithlord.

    Sweet.  I got started with Eldar in second edition, so there were no Dark Eldar for my wraitlord to stomp when I built it. 

    Very nice! I love plastic kits so much for the posing options they give you. My Tau-playing friend really, really wants to see plastic Broadsides, so that he’ll have a posing option other than “please don’t fall over.”

    Actually, that particular crisis suit does not have as wide a range of posing as I have given it.  The elbows do not pose, and neither do the knees.  For mine, I had to actually break apart the elbows and one knee, then reattach them in a different pose, using steel wire in the joints for strength.  After that, I build the exterior surface back out with modeling epoxy and carve it back into shape.  You have to be really careful when breaking the joints to avoid excessive damage, and carving all the fine details back into it is difficult, but the results are well worth it.  Oh, and I had to add another wire going into the foot and all the way up the leg to the knee to get it to stand on tip-toe like that.  The wire actually extends down into the base and wraps around the underside to give it proper balance.

    You might want to point your friend to Forge World’s line of XV-88-2 Broadside suits.  All resin, and they swap the position of the primary and secondary weapons to lower the center of weight.  Plus they are custom models, rather than just crisis suits with extra bits, so they have things like capacitor banks instead of a jetpack (making them more resemble their fluff than the Citadel version.)  But of course, this being Forge World, they are a little pricy.  That said, it is still cheaper than most stuff Forge World offers, and the Citadel ones are not necessarily much less expensive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Dire Avengers have almost completely displaced them in function since
    then. A big part of the reason why I stopped playing Eldar when third
    edition came around was because of the nerf, I could not restructure my
    existing army to be nearly as useful as it used to be, and would have
    had to buy entirely new sets of models just to have a decent force. A
    cynical mind might be inclined to think that Games Workshop made those
    changes just to push new models…

    One might, except that 3rd edition also saw the release of the beautiful plastic Guardian kit. They were actually really great under 3rd if one used the Ulthwe lists from the Craftworld Eldar or Eye of Terror supplements.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I’ve suggested the Forge World kits to my friend, but he dislikes their more rounded design.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I’ve suggested the Forge World kits to my friend, but he dislikes their more rounded design.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    In that case, he is just going to have to stick to converting his existing models.  I do still recommend shifting the railguns to the hands and putting the missiles/plasma guns on the shoulders.  The lower center of mass will do a lot to help.  Might also be a good idea to take some small pieces of lead, cut them into little strips with a hacksaw, and attach them to the bottom of the base via green stuff.  That should lower the center of mass even further.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    In that case, he is just going to have to stick to converting his existing models.  I do still recommend shifting the railguns to the hands and putting the missiles/plasma guns on the shoulders.  The lower center of mass will do a lot to help.  Might also be a good idea to take some small pieces of lead, cut them into little strips with a hacksaw, and attach them to the bottom of the base via green stuff.  That should lower the center of mass even further.

  • Tonio

    Perhaps the Utah challenge to the anti-polygamy law is merely a stunt by SSM opponents…

    While I agree with your basic argument, the problem is that you’re confronting the authoritarian presumption that people will have sex with anyone or anything if society didn’t disapprove of it. Legalization of SSM doesn’t equate to government taking a position that either homosexuality or SSM are good things, and that’s what Peter doesn’t seem to understand.
    be

    Marriages have not even started yet in NY state and two government
    clerks have had to leave their jobs because the much touted conscience
    clauses apply only churches as such not to individuals.  The problem is
    not that we are being asked not to persecute homosexuals the problem is
    we are now being forced to acclaim it as a “good”.

    That’s a gross distortion of the concept of conscience. Those clerks may have a point if they were asked to actually have spouses of the same gender. Or if the act of facilitating licenses for gay couples caused, I don’t know, explosions that killed or wounded people. But they’re simply providing a service, and as such they’re not morally tainted by doing so. Their consciences apply only to their own behavior and not the behavior of others, assuming that neither behavior harms others. The stance of those clerks is no different than a vegetarian server in a restaurant refusing to wait on meat-eaters even if those diners are ordering salads.

  • Evilkate

    I’ve read you for quite a while, but never commented – mainly due to the busy busy life thing. My girlfriend – now fiancee – introduced me to the old site and I followed you from there to here.

    ————

    That brief introduction done with, I think the thoughts presented in your post resolve in a positive direction but … miss another possibility, one settled beneath your concluding explanation.

    Privilege.

    Yes, they seek power … and some of them likely, as happens, for the sake of power itself. But not all, not even a majority to my mind.

    Power usually, contrary to the myths surrounding it, has something behind it, something beyond its attainment. Some impetus. There is a goal, a reason power is sought, especially power that expresses itself in the form of a broad social movement. One of the strongest motives is the perception (real to the viewer) of something lost.

    I do not believe it to be simple coincidence, that the geographic heart of rightward evangelism rose in the ‘American South’ and is still strong there, even though it has spread to much of the Midwest and, to a lesser degree, other corners of America.

    The Civil War, that most ironically named war. Yes, it might seem a stretch but bear with me – that war left deep psychological wounds in many of those on the ‘losing side’ (quotes because I’m not actually sure that anyone wins such a war). A feeling of loss that has been, over time, handed down across generations. Many of those handed this inheritance, even lost the notion of ‘what the loss’ was about in the beginning – just holding on to the knowing, deep down, that they have lost something important, and are continually threatened with further loss.

    The reality of this doesn’t matter: to those feeling it, all that matters is the fact that their privilege is constantly under assault. Of course, they don’t express it in these terms. Few whose privilege is threatened do. However, they ‘know it’ – in the deep, base-of-your-bones sense of knowing.

    While it has changed over the years, that fundamentalist expression of evangelism originated mostly among white men. It has managed to spread somewhat beyond that demographic since, due to the loss of the original ‘impetus’ over the decades and years.

    Then along came the 60′s – and civil rights and hippies and queers and counter-culture in all it’s forms. And, again, that sense of loss rose sharply, that privilege under assault again. Except, this time, it was chaotic and confusing and … overwhelming. How curious that the religious right as a political expression strengthen in the decades following.

    It is important here to note how much of Christiantity fought with the civil rights movement. But not all. Here was a pivotal moment – the point of divergence made large.

    MLK did not live to see everything he fought for realised. Even now, there is a way to go. The movement however, had large victories – and this was yet another assault on the privilege of those against it all, another loss, another stab deep to the bone. One more loss of the intangible assets of privilege.

    Everything from that era became suspect. All civil rights that were fought for – those of the ‘coloured’ and the ‘queer’ and anything else that moved.

    So, we come to te 70′s and 80′s and two distinct struggles for power. One, by those whose privilege had been assaulted and, the other, by those whose lack of privilege had not yet been addressed, the queers, fighting for the same rights that those ‘uppity coloured folk’ had already won.

    That these movements gathered in the same space, entangled them from the start. The very evolution of each was affected by the other.

    Which dovetails with your conclusions well I think. Please forgive me for any presumption there :)

    Kate