Matt Barber’s Delusions

Matt Barber’s Delusions January 23, 2012

There doesn’t seem to be any limit at all to how hysterical the rhetoric of anti-gay bigots like Matt Barber can get. Did you know that the whole goal of those who favor equality for gay people is to desecrate churches? I didn’t either. Right Wing Watch reports:

I have asserted for years now that this, again, has never been about equality, never been about tolerance, you hear the term “celebrate diversity.” The political strategy here, the legal strategy is – and even with the last vestige of the embracing of sexual morality, of biblical sexual morality, the church, even the military is gone now, so now the church is essentially left as defenders of sexual morality and opposing the contamination of our culture with this sexual sin, whether it’s homosexual sin, the embrace of adultery, fornication, whatever.

This has never been about celebrating diversity or equality; it’s about, yeah, you celebrate diversity, you affirm our demonstrably destructive, spiritually, physically, emotionally, our lifestyle, under penalty of law, or else. And that goes for you too, church. You either allow us desecrate your property with our counter-biblical, sinful civil union ceremony or we will see that you are sanctioned by the United States government.

Do you know of a single person, even the most radical of gay rights activists, who think churches should be forced to perform same-sex weddings? I don’t either. Neither does Barber. But that doesn’t stop him from spouting off about it anyway. It’s like they’re allergic to the truth.

"If you call someone racist that means you got race on your brain, which makes ..."

Fox Anchor: How Can Democrats Get ..."
"Jared Kushner is STILL alive???What is this world coming to?? Argh!"

Sean Hannity: Trump Political Operative
"If decorum means not telling the truth, it’s a totally useless concept.Now you're catching on."

Fox Anchor: How Can Democrats Get ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • DaveL

    you affirm our demonstrably destructive, spiritually, physically, emotionally, our lifestyle,

    I don’t think he knows what “demonstrably” means. It’s a bit of a tip-off when he pairs it with “spiritually.”

  • rowanvt

    I do wonder if they are allergic to the truth. I guess if I can have allerjesus they might have something similar. Oh wait, I think it’s called “religion”.

  • freemage

    Wow, that’s a painful word-salad.

    The funny thing is, it won’t be the state that forces churches to recognize same-sex marriage; rather, just as they did with inter-racial marriage, those churches that are still holdouts will, over time, drop their opposition because to retain their current position will lead to demographic suicide, as gay couples opt out of their congregations. And Berber knows this, but he can’t actually say it, because that would entail admitting that the church rules are written by men and not invisible sky-fairies.

  • Michael Heath

    DaveL:

    I don’t think he knows what “demonstrably” means. It’s a bit of a tip-off when he pairs it with “spiritually.”

    You must not have heard that assertions of divine revelations in the language of dog whistle count as convincing evidence of spirituality.

  • eric

    Behind the wingnuttia is a pinch of truth, but I doubt folks like Barber would admit to this even if pressed: he’s afraid that as the culture outside the church doors change, the culture inside the church doors will change too, and more priests will choose to perform such marriage ceremonies. This is exactly what liberals hope and expect to happen based on past cultural changes relating to civil rights, but its also exactly what these bible thumpers fear.

    Pauling (I think) said that old scientists rarely accept new ideas. Instead, they die off and are slowly replaced by younger ones who do. Religious conservatives fear theology works the same way. They are, frankly, right to be a bit afraid.

  • Abby Normal

    First things first. I’m still working on forcing Catholic churches to perform marriages for divorcees. Next comes forcing certain Baptist churches to perform interracial marriages. Then various orthodox will be forced to perform mixed religious marriages. Only then will I start working on gay marriages in every house of worship.

  • Larry

    Got strawman?

    Now, granted, I haven’t seen the current version of Teh Gayz Agenda®, but I’d bet you won’t find a entry in there about forcing any church to perform a marriage ceremony under penalty of the law.

    Maybe it’s in the appendix.

  • Michael Heath

    Staver’s argument has him effectively realizing, at least unconsciously, that he loses on the equal protection clause.

  • jnorris

    I have never seen a copy of the The Gay Agenda, but every nut in the Religious Reich and every Evangelical Christian has a copy. Its funny how they are always so up-to-the-minute about the latest in Ghayness.

  • timberwoof

    you celebrate diversity, you affirm our demonstrably destructive, spiritually, physically, emotionally, our lifestyle, under penalty of law, or else.

    I’ve found that any time some wingnut makes a statement about what he thinks the Gay Agenda wants, it’s safe to assume that he is projecting his own plans, in reverse, onto the Gay Agenda. For example, the whole recruiting thing: Christianity is not genetic, and in fact Christians must recruit—so they accuse us of it. So I will take at face value what he’s saying here. He wants me to celebrate hisdiversity, spiritiuality, and lifestyle, or else.

    he’s afraid that as the culture outside the church doors change, the culture inside the church doors will change too, and more priests will choose to perform such marriage ceremonies. This is exactly what liberals hope and expect to happen based on past cultural changes relating to civil rights, but its also exactly what these bible thumpers fear.

    He’s afraid of it because he wants the MCC and Dignity and a bunch of other gay church groups to change their tune and stop performing gay marriage ceremonies.

    I’m not sure if you are stating on your own behalf or on Barber’s “what liberals hope”, but that’s bullshit. There are plenty of liberal religious organizations that already minister to gays (and other excluded groups, such as deaf people); they don’t need the fundamentalists to open their church doors. I think the fundamentalists recognize this and thus pretend that they are the only Christian churches, that the liberal Christian churches that welcome gays don’t exist.

    In New York they managed to get the elephant’s nose in the door: that new gay marriage law permits religious organizations to not marry gay couples. The reasoning was precisely Barber’s, that gay radicals would “force” such churches to wed them. People are all hot and bothered about making more laws … except when it suits them.

  • slc1

    Re eric @ #5

    Actually, I seem to recall that it was science historian Thomas Kuhn who said something along those lines in his book on paradigm shifts.

  • the church is essentially left as defenders of sexual morality

    That it should come to this! Parents, lock up your little boys!

  • hunter

    slc @ #11:

    If I remember correctly, it was Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    As for Barber, I’m not sure whether he’s a liar or delusional — it’s probably a combination.

  • eric

    Timberwoof: There are plenty of liberal religious organizations that already minister to gays (and other excluded groups, such as deaf people); they don’t need the fundamentalists to open their church doors.

    Fair enough. What I was saying is, its my opinion that the folks who support gay marriage hope that the folks who don’t will change their minds. If not this generation, then the next. And not out of some machieavellian plan to control all churches, but because they think supporting gay rights is just and moral and they want their neighbors to see it as just and moral.

  • Erp

    Activists are trying to get their own churches to have same-sex marriage (successfully in some denominations). However they are using the procedures within each church to do so not civil law.

  • d cwilson

    First things first. I’m still working on forcing Catholic churches to perform marriages for divorcees.

    Well, they already performed Newt’s third marriage, so congratulations, you can now move on to agenda item #2.

  • slc1

    Re d cwilson @ #16

    Oh, but they granted Gingrich an annulment of his first two marriages, meaning that, as far as the Raping Children Church is concerned, neither of those marriages actually happened.

  • Abby Normal

    d cwilson, only by pretending the first two marriages don’t count and therefore he was never really divorced. Getting the Catholic Church to recognize those first two marriages is part of the immigrant agenda, not mine.

  • d cwilson

    On a serious note, my brother-in-law had a to get an annulment for his first marriage before the RCC would perform his second one. It took years and cost him thousands of dollars. But he was raised a catholic.

    I wonder if, as a new convert, they gave Newt a two-for-one deal.

  • peterh

    It just can’t get any stupider than . . . Just a minute . . . .

    /goes for more popcorn

  • Hold on. The military were defenders of sexual morality? (“Mister President, the sodomites have mobilized along our border!” “General, fuel the bombers and take us to Defcon 2.”)

  • noastronomer

    “so now the church is essentially left as defenders of sexual morality…”

    I laughed.

    On annulment vs divorce: the BBC web site had an article late last year about whether the Philippines would allow divorce in the country. Since it’s predominantly catholic, there’s no legal apparatus in the country to actually get a divorce.

    However large numbers of Filipinos *do* get annulments. Which cost a fair amount of money and therefore disadvantages the poor. Like Newt several interviewees were on their third or fourth annulment.

    The part I thought most hilarious was that when asked if the Philippines should allow divorce the majority response was ‘we can get an annulment when we want so why would we need divorce?’.

    Mike.

  • scienceavenger

    Barber blathers thusly: I have asserted for years now…

    Yes, yes you have. What you haven’t done is give us any reason to believe those assertions bear any resemblence to reality.

  • abb3w

    @5, eric:

    Pauling (I think) said that old scientists rarely accept new ideas. Instead, they die off and are slowly replaced by younger ones who do.

    @11, slc1:

    Actually, I seem to recall that it was science historian Thomas Kuhn who said something along those lines in his book on paradigm shifts.

    @13, hunter

    If I remember correctly, it was Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    Max Planck got there first.

    Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

    Often more briefly paraphrased “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

  • John Hinkle

    This has never been about celebrating diversity or equality; it’s about, yeah, you celebrate diversity…

    Um, what?

    I wonder if there are long term mental health consequences from reading this stuff day in and day out.

  • Chris from Europe

    I think it’s about the specific case of the New Jersey church that got a tax credit for opening property to the public.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#Civil_union_controversy

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/13/404274/new-jersey-judge-rules-against-discriminating-methodist-pavilion/

    That’s the take of Fox Nation (didn’t read it, the title was enough):

    http://nation.foxnews.com/christian-faith/2012/01/13/judge-says-following-christian-faith-wrong

  • Chris from Europe

    Oh no, I forgot about moderation and put three links in my comment. To make it short: He is talking about the Ocean Grove case.

  • Chiroptera

    Chris from Europe, #26:

    Remind me again about Ocean Grove. Was that the one where the Gay Agenda forced a church to not accept public funds and tax exemptions for a “public” venue for weddings unless they allowed gay civil union ceremonies on the site?

  • Chris from Europe

    @Chiroptera

    Yes, exactly. There was a court ruling this month that the church lost.

  • Max Planck got there first.

    Often more briefly paraphrased “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

    I know it’s off-topic, but this sort of thing drives me nuts. It may be fashionable, but it’s plainly untrue. Older scientists, like older people in general, are less open to new and weird ideas, but they’re not completely closed to them either. Practically every great scientific advancement of the last century was adopted at a rate far too fast to be explained purely, or even mostly, through generational turn-over. Even great 19th century discoveries, such as Darwinian evolution, did not require a great die-off before they were widely accepted.

  • Chris from Europe

    Okay, I repost the link, since I don’t want to wait for moderation:

    ThinkProgress: New Jersey judge rules against methodist pavilion

  • Aquaria

    you affirm our demonstrably destructive, spiritually, physically, emotionally, our lifestyle

    Is your church still there, Matt?

    Have troops, (or hell, police) busted down the door and told you how to worship in it?

    Have troops (or police) busted down your door and told you that you couldn’t pray in your own home?

    Have your fantasy books been banned by the government?

    No

    No

    No

    No.

    Then your fucking freedom of religion is still fucking intact, you fucking moron, and gay marriage hasn’t changed that, even in the states where it’s legal.

    I don’t know what I hate more: The lying or the stupidity.

  • briandavis

    @21 Modusoperandi:

    “Mister President, the sodomites have mobilized along our border!”

    They were spotted on gaydar.

  • Tony

    jnorris:

    Its funny how they are always so up-to-the-minute about the latest in Ghayness.

    -They brush up on the latest from ‘The Gay Agenda’ when they take vacations with their male escorts…there are certain positions in the bedroom that make for easy reading.

  • dingojack

    Tony –

    Do they pick it up from the ‘gay lobby’, or have it sent up to their suite?

    😉 Dingo