Box Turtle Bulletin

That’s even more inane than “napkins can’t be paper towels”.

I’m wondering why Thomas thinks it’s okay to ruin the purity of each color by mixing them together? If you put blue and blue together the integrity of the color remains the same. Blue has always been blue since the beginning of mankind. Mixing it with other colors is a risk I’m not willing to take.

Priya Lynn

To me this just shows the contortions they must go through in order to justify discrimination to themselves.

Regan DuCasse

NOM, FRC and ALL their cohorts are people of so little intelligent creative ability and observation.
In fact, their method of observation might as well have the comprehension level of a toddler.
The don’t know men and women very well. They don’t understand that gender, whether physical or not, just isn’t that rigid or static.
The natural world, actually, has allowed that gender be something that’s adjustable from person to person.
The constant enforcement of gender by dress, and patriarchal hierarchy, does not respect individual character and ability. And it’s made it a very violent world for females and gay people. The only ones held to strange and contradictory standards for it.
The most fundamentally religious communities, have little variation or individuality a person can be identified by. They dress alike, look remarkably alike, speak the same language and do pretty much the same things and are pre programmed in what expect to do with their lives.
Anyone not living that way, is a person they see as without any control over themselves or their lives.
Hence the conflation with thing representative of being that way.

There are SHADES of red, and SHADES of blue…and even when mixed together, there are SHADES of purple.
We have day and night, but not without beautiful dawns and the charms of twilight.
Diversity, uniqueness and variation is how the world rolls.
It’s only the people of NOM and FRC who are such pants pissing, frightened people too scared to look past their own shadows or appreciate the different paths one can take to get to the same place.

Steve

The stupid…it burrrrns

Neil

It’s the standard essentialist crap that comes with an unhealthy dose of the old Church dogma, Natural Law. It’s all about the symbolic order of God’s design. According to this idea, any other way of thinking about your humanity can be dismissed. Humanity itself is reduced to the male/female sign.

This is where Peters is coming from and why a simple red/blue schematic makes sense to him. Blue/blue is wrong because it’s not red/blue. Red/blue is correct because of an a priori assumption derived from a theological assertion.

It’s actually quite clarifying of him to state his case this way. His view of marriage is fixed and independent of any recognition of real people and their real lives. We are just reds and blues to him and must follow the red/blue rule. No argument will be entered into, only iterations of metaphysical rhetoric.

TampaZeke

Dr. Seuss solved the Red Fish, Blue Fish conundrum YEARS ago! Has Peters been under a rock?

TampaZeke

And what exactly is Peters saying here. What if we were to substitute his Red and Blue example with Black and White. It sounds like he’s making an argument against the Loving vs. Virginia decision and it’s an argument that was made in the original case.

Peter’s REALLY needs to think before he speaks/Tweets/comments…

Richard Rush

“Orientation doesnt matter, sexual difference does!”

Perhaps Thomas Peters has unintentionally revealed something about himself. For healthy well adjusted people, the spark that ignites the process of building a life with another person is all about sexual orientation, not sexual difference per se. But maybe that’s not how it works for Peters.

Priya Lynn

â€œOrientation doesnt matter, sexual difference does!â€

Now that you mention it Richard, I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around what he’s thinking when he says that.

Marcus

I didn’t know devout Christians were allowed to get baked.

homer

So says the unmarried Thomas Peters.

Lucrece

He’s probably unmarried because no woman can find that degree of stupidity remotely attractive.

sue jeffers

perhaps the only fitting response to such a nonsensical statement is spaghetti apple chickenwire. harrumph!
or, if all dogs were pink, pumpkin pie.

Jim Burroay

Marcus, re: “I didnâ€™t know devout Christians were allowed to get baked.”

Since he’s Carholic, I’m not sure whether he can get baked or not, but I know he can get drunk.

â€œWherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
Thereâ€™s always laughter and good red wine.
At least Iâ€™ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!â€

â€• Hilaire Belloc

Hunter

“Orientation doesnt matter, sexual difference does!”

In other words, the people entering into the marriage don’t matter. It’s the formula that matters.

That’s really one of the stupidest — and most revealing — statements I’ve heard from NOM.

TampaZeke

Rob, you may have unintentionally discovered the REAL reason than NOM’s minions don’t like to respond to thoughtful questions. They all too often find themselves giving bizarre, nonsensical and easily dis-proven answers that, in retrospect, embarrass them and hurt their cause.

CPT_Doom

It must be so interesting to live in Peters’ universe – the one where all men are exactly the same as all other men, and all women are exactly the same as all other women and all men and women bring exactly the same skills to parenting. And of course there’s no such thing as an intersex person.

Snowman

What I find even more scary is that there are probably people out there who think his tweet is some kind of wise statement as opposed to something that left me (a straight guy who none the less often finds himself discussing this type of stuff) totally in head scratch mode and thinking “WTF?”

Priya Lynn

Thanks for explaining that Hunter, I can sort of grasp what he’s thinking now.

Ben in Oakland

It’s simply another rehash of “penis UND vagina Ã¼ber Allen’s.”

Ben in Oakland

Alles– damn iPad.

Hunter

Priya Lynn — that’s the beauty of it, at least from his point of view: no thinking is required.

Priya Lynn

I think I’m getting it now, its that it doesn’t matter whether anyone is gay or heterosexual the important thing is that they marry someone of the opposite sex, so a gay man marrying a heterosexual woman is two thumbs up.

chiMaxx

Rare to find such purple prose in a tweet

Eric in Oakland

If “orientation doesn’t matter”, does that mean he would be happy marrying a lesbian? And if “sexual difference” is what matters, does that mean he thinks that Intersex people should marry either gender or neither?

Why does a religious group that constantly prates about human dignity so frequently reduce humans to their sex organs? Can’t they see how demeaning and dehumanizing that is?!

Bill T.

Roses are reddish,
Violets are blueish.
If it wasn’t for Jesus,
We’d all be Jewish.

Snowman

…Or Greco-Roman Pagan.

In which case, there probably wouldn’t be as much anti-gay bullshit.

TomTallis

Peters is seemingly incapable of nuanced thought. He reasons in soundbites and slogans.

He does realize that all the kids from these 1 Red, 1 Blue marriages would be Purple. Doesn’t he?

Soon the entire population would end up Purple and any marriage would be 2 Purples. The horror!

PLAINTOM

I think he is in a purple haze.

jpeckjr

I decided he is saying that human beings are interchangeable commodities, not individuals. That is, any man and any woman can marry and this is all that matters. Individual preferences in what a person wants as a partner are immaterial as long as the gender mix is one man and one woman. As long as it’s one man and one woman, what’s love got to do with it, huh, Thomas?

Even religious marriage equality opponents don’t think lining them up and pairing them off is the way a marriage is made.

Richard Rush

Just wondering: Is Thomas Peters married? And how old is he?

Snowman

I sure wouldn’t want to be married to somebody who thinks like that. My own religious-nut ex-wife tended to believe a lot of dumb shit stereotypes…that drove me nuts.

StraightGrandmother

Richard, if I am not mistaken I think he is 30 years old and claims to have a girlfriend but no sex with her. I seem to recall listening to a video of a Ruth Institute talk he gave at a college campus. The more I watch that guy the more I am inclined to think that it is not difficult for him to refrain from sex with his GF.

Snowman

That just seems…creepy.

If someone is religious or young (or both) It’s understandable I think…but at 30? Seriously?? Only in the creepy parallell world of the religious right is this considered “good.” In the real world one does not give ‘talks’ about such things…one hopes their buddies don’t find out about the whole “not having sex” thing.

When I had a girlfriend I was *not having sex with* I was *12* and it wasn’t as if the thought hadn’t occurred to me, we just normally had other stuff on our minds, like playing Nintendo. That’s understandable for geeks or silly kids and we were both.

The more I observe all this, and listen to people like Thomas Peters talk, the more I think they do not have an adult, balanced view of sex or sexual topics.

TampaZeke

Richard, Peters isn’t married and I’m guessing, from his looks and rhetorical skills, about 12 years old.

Priya Lynn

SGM said “Richard, if I am not mistaken I think he is 30 years old and claims to have a girlfriend but no sex with her…The more I watch that guy the more I am inclined to think that it is not difficult for him to refrain from sex with his GF.”

I get it now. He’s gay and because he ignores his orientation and has a relationship with an opposite sex partner he thinks all gays and lesbians should follow his lead.

Snowman

Why would someone who is gay do that to themselves, much less (since they would have to know how painful it is)think anyone else should do it too??

I know people who do that, hell, I’ve known people IRL who were like that for a while, and it didn’t work out well for any of them, and they know it.

It seems as if convincing a person to act against their own nature is the very essence of this “strong delusion” that Fundies rant about from time to time. If the reality is that your gay accept it and move on.

It makes no sense to me that anyone would try to ask gay people not to be gay. If someone ever told me that I should not like women I’m pretty sure my response would involve profanity and possibly physically removing them from my presence, so why would telling a gay man that they should not like men be any different??

Note to NOM et al this is just basic logic here!

Ben In Oakland

Snowman, it really isn’t about us, it’s about them. Once you understand that, their crazy burning stupid makes sense in a crazy burning stupid kind of a way.

Regan DuCasse

I’ve said this before, but it’s a similar observation made to the way blacks and women are treated too.
For the most part like children.
In the case of gay people, even more like children. And gay people, when it comes to a sex life, the expectation, closer to that of a child.
Children aren’t supposed to have sex, or form romantic bonds or raise children. Or financially support themselves or challenge adults.
Children aren’t to dare get angry at adults, or physically threaten them. And children, aren’t supposed to throw dirty looks or talk back.
Anti gay people tend to talk to gay adults as if they are children, and when gay adults respond like adults…the anti gay call it “throwing tantrums like a two year old”.
It’s bad enough gay people have to argue STILL they don’t choose to be gay. The anti gay demand and expect that it’s THEIR opinion that matters more than that of the gay person.
This kind of treatment and behavior is abuse in and of itself. Blacks experienced with Jim Crow, women having been around abusive men, know what I’m talking about.
This is why I empathize so intensely with gay and transgender people. I know I’m not gay and this is why I don’t have to be.
But I can be just as pissed, frustrated and want to DO SOMETHING so badly.
Bigots don’t understand me, and I don’t care. It’s not that I picked my battle. It sure picked me.
But I was down for whatever and damn ready for it.

Richard Rush

Snowman,

“Why would someone who is gay do that to themselves . . .”

While I’m certainly not certain that Peters is a homosexual, I can speculate:

First, his parents probably abused him as a child with extreme religious indoctrination. Note: Peter has two graduate degrees in theology.

Second, he probably never really grew up in some ways, and is still a compulsive daddy-pleaser as in, “Daddy!, daddy!, tell me!, tell me!, what can I do to please you today?” After all, his Dad has status in that he is one of only twelve people on earth currently with the rarified designation by the Vatican as Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura.

Third, with so much baggage, his life is not about his private desires or inclinations. It’s about following rules to please his dad (and his god).

“. . . much less (since they would have to know how painful it is)think anyone else should do it too??”

One answer may be a life of following rules, and acquiescing to authority figures to receive their approval – so he assumes everyone should live the same way. Or maybe it’s as simple as the old cliche, misery loves company.

Hyhybt

Seems simple enough to me: marriage is only valid when the couple are of opposing political parties.

Snowman

Personally, I can’t make up my mind whether Thomas Peters is deeply mentally disturbed or maybe just likes to say dumb shit.

Certainly, if he really believes what he’s saying he has the kind of warped views regarding gender, marriage, and sex that mean chances are very good that he’s going to be single for a very long time.

Certainly, in doing a little bit of research on the guy I can’t help but notice he says a lot of very creepy things.

Women do tend to notice that.

Richard Rush

Many people would consider Thomas Peters to be highly educated* with two graduate theology degrees, and thus have many exciting opportunities for professional endeavors (opportunities likely to be enhanced further by his father’s status and connections as a Vatican Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura). But yet, he seems to have found his calling (and fame)as a professional homo-squasher. That just seems weird for a true heterosexual.

*I’m not so sure that degrees in theology necessarily qualify as educated.

Steve

Degrees in theology aren’t useful for much in the professional world.

Snowman

Almost all of the preachers that I’ve ever known who had actual degrees in theology including a couple chaplains when I was in the military (and one retired Episcopal Bishop who had also been a teacher) either had degrees in something else too or they had some kind of a trade background. The only exceptions have been Catholic priests, who are basically taken care of by the Church anyway.

But then I guess I would have to say that from what I know of them, real theology degrees are hard to get. They are usually Masters level and you have to be both smart and want it or feel some sort of a calling because in a mainstream Christian church (as opposed to a Fundamentalist or Pentecostal church…where lots of Preachers don’t have degrees anyway) the preacher often has to also work a real job because they don’t make bank preaching the Gospel.

Snowman

That said, I’m still not sure what Thomas Peters malfunction is. One has to wonder what such a person as him would even be capable of doing aside from being some kind of a professional nut job.

I’ve owned a business (I did landscaping & lawn care) and I would never hire a guy who talked like that.

Richard Rush

Recent Tweet:

Thomas Peters â€@AmericanPapist 23 Mar

thinking up fun chants for the #MarriageMarch — our team has already come up with quite a few! Got any fun suggestions?

I was always taught that persecution was an endeavor driven by lofty “principles,” but now we learn that it’s fun, too. So, Brian, Thomas, and Maggie et al aren’t just earning big bucks by following their “principles,” their jobs are fun.

John Ozed