January 8th, 2014
[Trigger warning for racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and homophobia.]
Everything we do as gay people is aggression. You know that, obviously. It was in the pamphlet, right?
Recently I stumbled across an articulate, horrifying, “traditionalist” Catholic blog called The Thinking Housewife, the sort of place where people worry a lot about white gentile oppression; where readers debate whether black women are significantly less attractive than white women or only slightly so; where it’s “an absolute deal breaker” if a white woman, no matter how attractive, has a black ex-boyfriend; where Francis‘ scaling back of papal ostentation is a moral crime; where a fella can toss out references to “Jew-mongers” without the PC police getting all up in his business.
What makes this blog so horrifying isn’t just the content, or the fact that it’s widely-read, but that it’s actually pretty well-written. My warm, comforting stereotype is that these must be ignorant fools who resort to ALL CAPS and crazy, Punctuation!!! but that’s not the case here at all.
In a recent post, Laura (the Thinker Herself) asks readers for advice on Charles’ social dilemma. As he describes it:
My wife and I are members of an informal social group of about 15 couples in our late 50’s and early 60’s who meet monthly in a member’s home for purposes of enjoying good wine (65 million Frenchmen can’t be all wrong!) and discussing topics of mutual interest. The membership consists of well educated and successful upper middle class white couples who could be characterized (with one exception) as basically apolitical suburbanites who always vote Republican, probably by default and without giving much thought to it. Nice people, nice homes, nice manners, nice clothes, otherwise preoccupied and utterly clueless – you know the type.
The exceptional couple are trendy left-liberal childless professionals who occasionally get in your face about some silly left wing issue of one kind or another…
At the last gathering of our group, I happened to overhear the left-wing couple mention to another member that they intend to propose for membership an openly homosexual couple who were recently “married” and with whom they are friends. I know this homosexual couple very casually and they are successful, educated and socially presentable people – we are not talking about grungy, emaciated, tattooed and pierced social freaks here. Nevertheless, the thought of a homosexual couple joining our small and highly congenial group simply turns my stomach.
I strongly suspect that most of our members would prefer not to have to face this issue and, if they were to give much thought to it, would be mildly opposed. I am also quite certain that almost every one of them will be unwilling to express any opposition toward or to vote against this membership proposal for fear of being thought to be mean spirited, prejudiced, small-minded, backward and/or homophobic. Thus, if the membership proposal is made by the lefty couple, it will be a “done deal,” no matter what I do.
I know that Western Civilization is already well advanced along the road to Hell and I realize that, as a practical matter, there is probably not much that I can do change things. Still, I could not live with myself if I were to allow this membership proposal to proceed without comment or opposition. There are two problems with this from my standpoint. First, three or four other couples who are members of our group are close friends with whom my wife and I frequently socialize independently of the group. I am very concerned that by opposing the admission of the homosexual couple, I will offend my friends and adversely affect my relationship with them. Second, if this were to occur, I can also be certain that I will severely adversely affect my relationship with my wife – who will condemn my decision to speak against the membership proposal as a pointless, ineffectual, arrogant, selfish, and self-indulgent act that may needlessly injure or sacrifice one or more of our valued friendships. This seems to me to be unfair, but at some level, it is possible that she may be correct in this assessment.
As you can see here, the lefty couple is likely to put me in a very difficult position…
And not just the lefty couple! Let’s not forget to blame the gays for wanting to socialize. As one commenter writes:
Homosexuals are fanatical and relentless. Injecting a couple like that is clearly aimed to take the group deep into the abyss. The leftist couple is an enemy force.
Lefties and homosexuals are always forcing the issue. Of course this isn’t fortuitous. The lefty couple and the homosexual couple have an ulterior motive here; this is an act of aggression.
To which Laura replies:
Of course. Nothing can remain untouched. Everything is a stage for activism. And, yes, it is an act of aggression.
Apparently not even Charles is blameless. He’s being quite the wuss with his wife:
I think the Bible is clear that he, as the head of his household, must take the lead in matters like these.
Let’s recall what sparked this Great Moral Crisis: A successful and educated gay couple wants to socialize casually with some moderate, apolitical suburbanites. I’ve been mocking Charles for his fear, but really I shouldn’t, because he’s right. This came to me when I read another Thinking Housewife post:
I met a very dark but wholly European-featured Hispanic young lady (whose elegance and heritage proved to me she was brought up in a middle-class or wealthy family and attended American Catholic schools, although she never said it, and I don’t pry).
Of course the author didn’t “pry.” Prying might reveal that a woman can be elegant and dark and not raised in a well-to-do Catholic environment. Ignorance is bigotry’s greatest ally, and truth is its most aggressive enemy. That’s the key message to send Laura and Charles and the rest: Spending time with gay people is pro-gay only if it reveals we’re the not moral criminals you’re painting us to be. Mixing gays with straights is an aggressive assault on your values only if those values are wrong!
And, yes, your values are wrong. Inviting the gay couple to join you will have precisely the effect you fear most: It will turn your friends against your beliefs. Accordingly, every good thing gay people do is aggression against you, because it’s gay people who are doing it.
I’ve seen this same phenomenon in more mainstream source, the Christian Post, which has highlighted yet another celebrity who is trying to “silence” and “squelch” the views of good Christian people by launching this vicious Facebook attack on people of faith:
At this moment I am at peace and filled with joy and gratitude.
I am grateful to God, my doctors and nurses for my restored good health.
I am grateful for my sister, Sally-Ann, for being my [blood marrow] donor and giving me the gift of life.
I am grateful for my entire family, my long time girlfriend, Amber, and friends as we prepare to celebrate a glorious new year together.
I am grateful for the many prayers and well wishes for my recovery. I return every one of them to you 100 fold.
And why is this really just a subversive, aggressive attack on Christian freedom of speech? Because its author, Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts, is a woman.
The Reverend Mark Creech makes his case:
Consider. Phil Robertson is from the South. Robin Roberts is from the South. Phil Robertson is a beloved television personality. Robin Roberts is a beloved television personality. Phil Robertson attended a university in Louisiana. Robin Roberts went to a university in Louisiana. Phil Robertson is a person of devout Christian faith. Robin Roberts is someone who professes to be a person of devout Christian faith.
Coincidence? Hardly! Contrived? More than likely. Especially since Robert’s “coming out” takes place in conjunction with Robertson’s reinstatement.
Unable to shut down the voice of one who opposes the homosexual lifestyle from a biblical perspective, gay activists and their media supporters must counter with the voice of someone they believe might eclipse it. Twice now, Roberts is at the heart of an effort to squelch the clear and loud sound of opposition.
The point here is not that Roberts doesn’t have the right. It’s just that the public should see this for what it is – a war against any mention of the biblical position against homosexuality.
The desperate search for parallels in that first paragraph is hilarious. I imagine Creech frantically working his Google machine: Are they both left-handed? Organ donors? Singers in the shower?
Even so, Creech almost gets it right. Roberts’ honest acknowledgement of her partner’s love and support is not a war against mentioning any perceived biblical position against homosexuality, but it is an aggressive and true refutation of that position. He has every right to feel threatened. If only he’d admit the true source of that threat.
It’s time for proponents of the anti-gay agenda simply to give up, admit defeat, be honest with themselves and change their own minds. They’re already admitting that direct contact with gay people is a threat to their beliefs. They’re already admitting that openness and truth are a danger to their cause. Once you’ve come that far, folks, it’s only the tiniest and most honest of steps to admitting you’re just plain wrong.
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.