Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Linda Harvey Fears Tolerance

Timothy Kincaid

November 6th, 2009

linda_harveyWhen it comes time for the annual Day of Silence, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey will be once again be calling for children to stay home from school. And Christian media will present her as a mild smiling pro-family advocate.

But don’t be deceived. Linda Harvey is one of the most strident opponents to equality, decency, and civil rights that our community faces.

Some of those who oppose equality do so out of a sense of religious obligation, yet also feel some remorse and can be persuaded to find some measure of accommodation for the difficulties that the put us through. Polls show that many conservative Christians who do not favor marriage equality will still find hospital visitation or inheritance issues to be matters of compassion and mercy. They oppose employment discrimination and favor open military service.

But not Linda.

In an article for WorldNetDaily, Harvey rages about a tactic employed by the organizers of the anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. She is furious that an ad was run which expressed a message of tolerance.

Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.

Tolerant? Is Linda among those who wish to be tolerant? No, she most certainly is not! And as for “civil rights”, she thinks you should have none.

Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position.

Linda goes on to delight in the lies that the campaign told about schoolchildren and the threat that gay people are to them. And she lists the sad tired (distorted and false) tales of the woe in Massachusetts and California. And then her venom spews:

But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents
worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.

The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.

But amidst Linda’s hateful rantings (and yes, they are hateful), she sees something that we have long noted. The position of much of our opposition in inherently contradictory.

One cannot both tolerate and accept gay people and simultaneously exclude and segregate them. One cannot value the worth of the gay person and also relegate him to second class citizenship. If you “respect and accept” gay people as children of God worthy of His love, then you can’t call for sanctions, penalties, and punishments for the existence of those children.

And I believe that in time, perhaps a very short time, this delusion of “I love you but I want to treat you badly” will fall under its own weight. Ultimately, those who seek our civil exclusion will have to choose to either truly accept us as an equal member of the family of man, or stop pretending that they feel for us anything but contempt.

And I suspect that Linda sees the writing on the wall. I think she fears that she will in time be among but a small minority who selects the latter choice.



November 6th, 2009 | LINK

Jim Burroway was right. “Some folks are NEVER satisfied.”

November 7th, 2009 | LINK

The worst thing about christian discrimination and animus against gay people is that it’s all based on thier wrong teaching about homosexuality. They don’t even know what their own Bible says. The only homogenital act ever mentioned is receptive male intercourse– and that’s only a violation of the Jewish religious identity code– something Jews weren’t supposed to do because Gentiles did it. It isn’t a sin, but the breaking of a cultural taboo.

Then again, christians have used the Bible to support slavery, the oppression of women, and worse. This isn’t new behavior for them.

Too bad the anti-gay “ministries” have to mislead and lie to keep those contributions rolling in. And I make a prediction: when the day finally comes that GLBTT people achieve full equality and the “culture war” against us is dead in the water, those same ministries will pick up a different cause to send-me-your-best-gift-today rail against.

They have no other reason for existence.

Given the sickness and poverty and divorce and crime and war all over this nation and world, you’d think they’d have better things to do with their time.

Keith A Brower
November 7th, 2009 | LINK

“Given the sickness and poverty and divorce and crime and war all over this nation and world, you’d think they’d have better things to do with their time.” …and money.

The money they spend stripping our rights and blocking equality could be spent on real problems. Actually, if there wasn’t this battle, both sides could be working together, spending less money, getting more accomplished, fighting real threats to our country and our citizens. …then the world!

Regan DuCasse
November 7th, 2009 | LINK

I’m constantly trying to explain to the most committed believer that there are things, even if fairly modern, that people of faith are taught to abhor and reject: but live with them anyway with the obvious of matters of law, especially in our country.

1. The freedom to choose one’s faith or no faith at all.

2. The choice of these actions I will list are repugnant to a faith, but ultimately are beneficial to society and have been, even if at first once thought of or still carry some risk.

3. That these beliefs and those things that are rejected STILL coexist in a free society.

These are:

1. Autopsy

2. Contraception and contraceptive sex.

3. Organ and blood and tissue donation

4. Dancing

We can argue that homosexuality is an acceptable sexual orientation for many reasons, most of all because there ARE no risks that a few of the others have carried, and it’s a factor in human sexuality that predates any of the organized religions.
We can argue that contraceptive sex carries none of the risk factors or expense of child bearing.

We can argue that other members of society engage in those activities without systemic bigotry and discrimination because of it.
And those activities are all a choice, but sometimes required as a matter of the health and well being of individuals.

Our society accepts a LOT of things that are completely at odds with ‘nature’s course’ in context to religious belief, but as we have allowed ourselves to know: believers can’t force someone else from engaging in it freely as it harms no one else to do so.

I challenge each and every religious person to tell me what I have said isn’t true and that they don’t contradict themselves, especially on the factor of COEXISTENCE of these activities, REGARDLESS of belief.

As you all might imagine, that’s when the opposition will pretend I never said it and it wasn’t the truth.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.