homophobia

Founder of “bridge-building” Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn’t a sin

Zinnia Jones, , , 13 Comments

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Founder of “bridge-building” Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn’t a sin
{advertisement}

Founder of "bridge-building" Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn't a sin

Zinnia Jones, , , 13 Comments

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Founder of "bridge-building" Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn't a sin

What Peter LaBarbera Will Never Understand

Zinnia Jones, , 5 Comments

In a recent post on his website Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera criticizes so-called “pro-family leaders” for focusing on issues such as gay marriage while neglecting to oppose homosexuality itself. Citing the need to emphasize “WHY homosexual and transgender behaviors are always wrong”, “how homosexual sex is fraught with health risks”, “why homosexuality violates Natural Moral Law, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity”, and “the inordinate drug and porn use among homosexual men, and ‘gay-on-gay’ assaults and abuses”, he says:

Simply put, we as a movement must conquer whatever timidity, fear and political correctness we have in NOT wanting to debate the morality of homosexuality – because our fanatically-driven LGBT opponents will never relent in their audacious campaign to “sell” homosexuality to the public. Notice that while many conservatives shrink from the homosexuality debate, self-described out-and-proud “queer” activists never back-track in their misguided, indeed, pathological quest to compel society to approve of their aberrant “lifestyles.”

LaBarbera gives little thought to why this might be the case, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who isn’t consumed with self-righteous loathing for gay people. There certainly is a reason why the mainstream anti-gay movement does its best to avoid openly attacking us for being drug-addicted rapist sinners, and that’s because most people just don’t want to hear it.

Over 50% of Americans personally know someone who’s gay, and this figure holds true among liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Those who do know someone gay are more likely to support gay marriage and the legality of gay relations. Knowing gay people puts a human face on what would otherwise only be an abstract concept of what gay people, their relationships and their “lifestyles” are like. Without any actual firsthand experience, their understanding of us remains foggy and vulnerable to rumor, suspicion and distrust. Familiarity serves to ground this in reality – a reality which LaBarbera and his colleagues have dedicated themselves to fighting against.

What is it that makes these personal connections and interactions so effective at humanizing us in the eyes of the public? Many in the anti-gay movement seek to diminish our struggles in a historical sense by asserting that sexual orientation is nothing like one’s race or color. But in one crucial respect, this is absolutely true.

The fact of our sexuality does not visibly manifest itself in an easily recognizable way, with the unfortunate side effect of the superstitious marking of certain appearances or mannerisms as “gay”. While this has often resulted in plenty of anti-gay abuse being directed at young children and anyone who strays even slightly from established norms, it has also deprived people of any certainty about who among them might be gay. Our sexuality does not afford them the opportunity to recoil from our very skin the moment they lay eyes on us. It’s something they must come to learn.

In no small part because of a pervasive history of societal homophobia, many of us have been reluctant to share the truth about ourselves with anyone but those we trust the most: our good friends, neighbors, co-workers, and hopefully our families. By the time we feel comfortable enough to come out to them, this can spark an extraordinary shift in perspective, because these people have already come to know us, appreciate us, and love us for who we are – not what we are. When faced with the fact that the wholesome and upstanding person they respect and care deeply for also happens to be gay, this goes a long way toward dispelling any misconceptions, including the vulgar lies of anti-gay activists. Our own lives testify to the truth.

So how do you think our families and friends will react when Peter LaBarbera’s partners in homophobia such as pastor Patrick Wooden claim that gay men use gerbils and baseball bats sexually and “die in diapers”? What will they think about the notion that our very love should be subject to criminal sanctions and we’re going to burn in hell? How will they feel about baseless accusations that gay people are pedophiles and even orchestrated the Holocaust?

These wildly hateful confabulations may serve to rile up the anti-gay base, but this is utterly repulsive to anyone who knows us. Does LaBarbera really expect people to believe that their loved ones are actually child-molesting Nazis? If he thinks his moralistic bloviations can take precedence over our humanity, then we can only hope that even more anti-gay groups will follow his lead. He’s just given them a lesson in how to drive their movement directly into a brick wall.

What Peter LaBarbera Will Never Understand

Bristol Palin: Not a Victim, Just Acting Like One

Zinnia Jones, , 5 Comments

I hate to keep revisiting Bristol Palin’s remarks about gay marriage and same-sex parents, but she actually did take notice of my last article about this, and I feel she deserves a response. In her latest post, she claims that she was not “playing ‘the victim card'”, and was really only saying two things:

1. Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.

2. But despite their efforts at name-calling and even their threats, I won’t be deterred from speaking out.

So, let’s recap. Bristol, here’s what you did:

  • You falsely implied that President Obama only chose to support marriage equality because of his daughters’ opinions, and you ignored everything else he said on the matter.
  • You cited “thousands of years of thinking about marriage” as a reason why gay marriage is wrong.
  • You claimed that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, contrary to actual studies about same-sex parenting.
  • After people reacted to your statements, your only response was to quote a selection of rude comments and threats you’ve received, and accuse people of “hate and bullying”.
  • You then said that they had no arguments against your views.

And here’s what you did not do:

  • You did not acknowledge that you blatantly mischaracterized Obama’s support for gay marriage.
  • You did not provide any explanation for your use of tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
  • You did not offer any evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” or that same-sex parents are inferior.
  • You did not explain why that would mean they should be deprived of the right to marry.
  • Throughout all this, you gave no further defense of your position on gay marriage.

Again, while death threats are clearly intolerable and repugnant, this is unfortunately par for the course for anyone of even slight notoriety online, let alone the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Practically any discussion could be diverted from the issues at hand to how hostile some people are, and you’ve seized that opportunity shamelessly. You say, “Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.” Really, all of them? Would that happen to include yourself? I’m sure you can see how misleading it is to accuse literally everyone who supports gay rights – or just love and tolerance – of being “hateful and bullying”, and this argument certainly doesn’t make you any more right.

Do the rude comments you’ve received mean that gay marriage is actually wrong? No. Do they prove that same-sex parents are worse at raising kids? No. Do they justify your misrepresentation of Obama’s position? No. Are they grounds to dismiss any disagreement with you as mere hostility? No. You’re just using them to reorient the conversation from your position on marriage to how mean people are.

Do you really think that does justice to the question of equal rights? Gay marriage is a significant issue that affects millions of people, and you even described it as “a policy position that could affect the entire nation”. Yet you’ve shown curiously little interest in treating it as an important concern that ought to be addressed seriously. Doesn’t this deserve critical analysis and debate beyond how rude people have been to you?

While your perseverance is admirable, it would be better directed toward actually supporting your views and engaging in genuine discussion on these matters, instead of coming up with so many irrelevant distractions. I may not be the “professional pundit” you seem to think I am, but I’m willing to focus on the real issues here. Are you?

Bristol Palin: Not a Victim, Just Acting Like One

Bristol Palin the Victim? I’m Not Buying It

Zinnia Jones, , Leave a comment

It wasn’t hard to tell what direction things would take after Bristol Palin’s recent statements about President Obama and his newfound support for gay marriage. Where the Palins are involved, the sequence of events is firmly established and completely predictable: one of them will say something ridiculous, everyone else will react, and the Palins will proceed to make the entire episode about themselves and how “victimized” they are. Bristol Palin’s latest post is a textbook example of this. After being widely criticized for falsely suggesting that Obama only supports gay marriage because of his daughters, and claiming without evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, she now says that the response to her remarks has been “a lot of hate and a lot of bullying”.

Ironically, she accuses everyone of failing to make any arguments, and then proceeds to spend several paragraphs talking about how mean people have been. Maybe she would have received more serious responses if she had actually presented any arguments of her own in the first place, rather than misrepresenting what Obama said and disparaging families with gay parents for no justifiable reason. If she’s looking for a real debate on the issues, she has a strange way of showing it. Instead of providing any explanation of her earlier statements, she claims that a generic monolith named “Hollywood” is uniformly intolerant of any dissent on the issues of gay marriage or abortion, and “anyone who disagrees is stupid, hypocritical, hateful, or bigoted”.

Not once did she consider that it might actually be hateful to assume that same-sex couples must be inferior parents when all studies indicate otherwise. And she doesn’t seem to think there could be anything bigoted about expecting people to teach their children that same-sex parents don’t deserve to be married. That’s because not being hateful and bigoted just isn’t her concern here – this is all about people calling her names and making her feel bad.

In that vein, she presents a selection of comments from people wishing for her death and generally being rude. While this is obviously unacceptable, it’s definitely not a unique occurrence. We could just as well gather up all of the violent and hateful comments made about Obama and his family, same-sex parents, and the LGBT community as a whole. But it would be incredibly dishonest to focus the entire discussion on hostility, incivility and tone in order to ignore any substantial criticism of what we’ve actually said.

This is what Palin has done here, and it’s practically guaranteed that we’ll soon see a torrent of op-eds using the latest incident to make sweeping statements about how hostility and threats are never an acceptable mode of discourse, no matter the target. But this, too, only serves to make the entire event about Bristol Palin the Victim, rather than what she actually said about our relationships and our families. Palin may or may not be aware of this, but when you try to make yourself the center of attention here, you’re just running away from your own remarks. If she’d prefer to back away from her arguments – insofar as she has any – then she should issue a retraction and apologize to President Obama and the countless same-sex couples whose parenting skills she insulted.

Until then, we’re not going to forget this quite so easily. Sure, Palin can talk the talk about “hate” and “bullying”, she just won’t admit who the bullies actually are. But it really is bullying to use your platform as a national celebrity to deny the equality of our love. It’s bullying to dismiss our rights simply by uttering the word “tradition”. It’s bullying to assume that excluding us from marriage demands no more justification than merely vomiting out your opinion. And pretending to be the victim after you’ve attacked our families is unquestionably the act of a bully. Is this who you want to be, Bristol Palin?

Bristol Palin the Victim? I’m Not Buying It

Bristol Palin the Victim? I'm Not Buying It

Zinnia Jones, , Leave a comment

It wasn’t hard to tell what direction things would take after Bristol Palin’s recent statements about President Obama and his newfound support for gay marriage. Where the Palins are involved, the sequence of events is firmly established and completely predictable: one of them will say something ridiculous, everyone else will react, and the Palins will proceed to make the entire episode about themselves and how “victimized” they are. Bristol Palin’s latest post is a textbook example of this. After being widely criticized for falsely suggesting that Obama only supports gay marriage because of his daughters, and claiming without evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, she now says that the response to her remarks has been “a lot of hate and a lot of bullying”.

Ironically, she accuses everyone of failing to make any arguments, and then proceeds to spend several paragraphs talking about how mean people have been. Maybe she would have received more serious responses if she had actually presented any arguments of her own in the first place, rather than misrepresenting what Obama said and disparaging families with gay parents for no justifiable reason. If she’s looking for a real debate on the issues, she has a strange way of showing it. Instead of providing any explanation of her earlier statements, she claims that a generic monolith named “Hollywood” is uniformly intolerant of any dissent on the issues of gay marriage or abortion, and “anyone who disagrees is stupid, hypocritical, hateful, or bigoted”.

Not once did she consider that it might actually be hateful to assume that same-sex couples must be inferior parents when all studies indicate otherwise. And she doesn’t seem to think there could be anything bigoted about expecting people to teach their children that same-sex parents don’t deserve to be married. That’s because not being hateful and bigoted just isn’t her concern here – this is all about people calling her names and making her feel bad.

In that vein, she presents a selection of comments from people wishing for her death and generally being rude. While this is obviously unacceptable, it’s definitely not a unique occurrence. We could just as well gather up all of the violent and hateful comments made about Obama and his family, same-sex parents, and the LGBT community as a whole. But it would be incredibly dishonest to focus the entire discussion on hostility, incivility and tone in order to ignore any substantial criticism of what we’ve actually said.

This is what Palin has done here, and it’s practically guaranteed that we’ll soon see a torrent of op-eds using the latest incident to make sweeping statements about how hostility and threats are never an acceptable mode of discourse, no matter the target. But this, too, only serves to make the entire event about Bristol Palin the Victim, rather than what she actually said about our relationships and our families. Palin may or may not be aware of this, but when you try to make yourself the center of attention here, you’re just running away from your own remarks. If she’d prefer to back away from her arguments – insofar as she has any – then she should issue a retraction and apologize to President Obama and the countless same-sex couples whose parenting skills she insulted.

Until then, we’re not going to forget this quite so easily. Sure, Palin can talk the talk about “hate” and “bullying”, she just won’t admit who the bullies actually are. But it really is bullying to use your platform as a national celebrity to deny the equality of our love. It’s bullying to dismiss our rights simply by uttering the word “tradition”. It’s bullying to assume that excluding us from marriage demands no more justification than merely vomiting out your opinion. And pretending to be the victim after you’ve attacked our families is unquestionably the act of a bully. Is this who you want to be, Bristol Palin?

Bristol Palin the Victim? I'm Not Buying It

Why Bristol Palin is Wrong on Marriage

Zinnia Jones, , 2 Comments

Perhaps the most irritating thing about the Palin family is their followers: the fanbase of sycophants who endlessly praise their “bravery” whenever one of them is rightfully criticized for being ignorant, prejudiced and wrong. They serve to refocus the media’s narrative onto the Palins themselves and the controversy surrounding their personal lives, with copious opportunities to portray them as the victims of liberal “attacks” when anyone disagrees with them.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Bristol Palin’s vacuous critique of President Obama for supporting marriage equality, which apparently warrants attention simply because she is Bristol Palin. Now that she’s set the standard for intellectual depth, we’ll be forced to endure endless coverage of Twitter replies from celebrities and unoriginal jokes about her own family structure.

But if Palin really wants to talk about marriage, then let’s talk about marriage. She opens with the observation that conservative Christian women running for office are sometimes asked if they would be subservient to their husbands, whereas liberal women usually aren’t. (You might be wondering what this has to do with same-sex marriage, but we’re getting there.)

While it’s absolutely inappropriate to question someone’s ability to lead just because they’re a woman, there’s a reason why conservative women in particular face such inquiries: Republicans are more likely to take the Bible literally, and it has plenty to say about women’s obligation to be silent, obey their husbands, and never hold authority over men. If nothing else, this offers them an opportunity to reject these parts of the Bible and repudiate outdated beliefs about women’s roles.

So how does this relate to Obama? Palin clumsily parallels this with his statement that Sasha and Malia have friends with same-sex parents, and they see no reason for their friends’ parents to be treated differently. She proceeds to make this the centerpiece of her argument, seemingly under the impression that Obama’s daughters’ attitudes are the centerpiece of his. (Had she read a few sentences earlier in the very paragraph she quoted, she could just as well have chastised him for being influenced by college Republicans.)

As Palin sees it, the president “made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters”. Such a claim is so ignorant of context it can only be a deliberate misrepresentation. Never mind that Obama also mentioned his personal support for equal rights, his experiences with gay staff in the White House, and his insistence that all servicemembers should be treated fairly. Palin would rather portray his principled stand as a capitulation to the whims of teenagers.

That alone is dishonest enough, but then things take a turn for the truly ugly. Realizing her argument can’t rest solely on a brazen distortion we all know to be false, she suggests that Obama should “explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.”

Hiding behind “thousands of years” is certainly easy, but let’s not forget that disregarding tradition is the longest tradition of all. For all of the undeserved deification of the past, as though it could somehow hold the answers to every issue we’ll ever face, we’ve often managed to admit that tradition has actually been wrong. No longer do we resist the idea of treating women equally in marriage, or allowing people of different races to marry – and this progress has been made at the expense of tradition.

Our society’s conventions are surely not eternal; they once had to be justified like any other idea. If there are good reasons for a tradition, these reasons can stand on their own merits, with no need to appeal to longevity. Using the past to veto the future is often the hallmark of those who just don’t have a better argument.

However, Palin’s contention that the children of same-sex parents are worse off than those with a mother and father is a decidedly empirical matter. This is an active area of research, and the results are not in her favor. Though the sample sizes have often been small, existing studies show no significant differences in the children of same-sex couples. They’re just as healthy, psychologically well-adjusted and academically successful. (The study most commonly cited by anti-gay conservatives to show that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” didn’t even include any same-sex parents.) The evidence-free expectation that gay couples must be inferior parents has no possible basis outside of simple prejudice.

But this argument isn’t just incorrect – it’s also completely irrelevant. Even if it were demonstrated that same-sex parents tend to be worse for children than opposite-sex parents, this still shouldn’t matter, because proficiency at raising children has never been used to define who has the right to get married. The institution of marriage isn’t limited to whichever demographic groups have shown optimal parenting ability.

Children of families in poverty are more likely to have adverse outcomes, but there’s no income qualification for marriage. Even prisoners and convicted child molesters retain their right to marry – as long as it’s to someone of the opposite sex. This is a standard that no one else is subject to, and Palin’s demand that same-sex couples alone must meet this requirement is purely an artifact of homophobia.

Most disturbing of all are the implications of her attitudes: she’s actually blaming the president for not seeing happy, loving, normal same-sex parents as unqualified deviants who are irreparably harming their children. And she expects him to teach his own daughters to view these innocent people with doubt, suspicion and fear – the same distrust and disrespect Palin has often faced as an unwed teen mother.

Our families deserve better than this. I believe our children do best in a world where my partner and I aren’t seen as a threat to them just because we love each other. I believe they should get to grow up in a country where the other kids don’t think they’ve been damaged by having two caring and devoted parents. And I believe they deserve to say with pride that their moms are happily married.

Why Bristol Palin is Wrong on Marriage

Dan Savage is right about the Bible

Zinnia Jones, , , 51 Comments

A couple weeks ago, Dan Savage was the keynote speaker at the National High School Journalism Convention, where he discussed social media, anti-gay bullying, and his It Gets Better Project. While addressing the role of religion in homophobia, he said:

We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.

He went on to explain how the Bible contains specific instructions about keeping people as slaves, and not once does it prohibit the practice of slavery. While he was speaking, a number of students got up and walked out, to which he responded:

It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-ass some people react when you push back.

Two weeks later, this has now become the latest manufactured controversy of the Christian right. Breitbart.com devoted their entire front page to stories about Dan Savage, accusing him of “bullying high school kids” with a “profane Bible rant”. The gay conservative group GOProud claimed that Savage was “attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks” and demanded that he apologize. Michelle Malkin accused “the activist left” of “anti-Christian bigotry” for having Savage speak to student journalists, and the president of the Family Research Council called him a “disciple of division and intolerance”. Todd Starnes of Fox News has written a handful of melodramatic stories about the Christian students who were present at the speech. Starnes describes their decision to leave as follows:

Some will say what happened next took courage – but [student Jake] Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t that just so brave?

Of course, this reflexive outrage at any criticism of the Bible is really nothing new. This January, the National Organization for Marriage demanded that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie withdraw his nomination of a judge who had criticized arguments against gay marriage that appeal to tradition and pointed out that slavery was also a tradition endorsed by the Bible. Clearly, this is something that many right-wing Christians just don’t want people to talk about.

But let’s get one thing straight: The Bible is unequivocal in its support for slavery. This isn’t a situation where there are a variety of conflicting verses that can be interpreted as for or against slavery. In every instance that slavery is mentioned in the Bible, it is never condemned. Instead, the authors of the Bible only address how slaves should be acquired, how they should be treated, and how they should obey their masters. And despite every apologetic argument about how the context of this enslavement of human beings was different from the more modern forms of slavery, the Bible consistently and indisputably endorses the buying and selling of people as the property of other people. If this is wrong, then the Bible is wrong – and if we can choose to disregard the Bible when it comes to slavery, we can likewise disregard it on the topic of sexual morality.

So regardless of Dan Savage’s tone or how terribly offended some Christians were, his underlying point is completely valid. And its impact was only amplified by the incredible sight of devout Christians literally fleeing from the truth about their Bible and their own moral hypocrisy. In doing so, they made his point even better than he did. After all, if you’re so pious that you won’t tolerate anyone speaking ill of your Bible, then how can you be so completely unprepared to face the reality of what it actually says? What the hell kind of Christian are you?

And if this was your reaction as a student of journalism, then what the hell kind of journalist are you? Make no mistake, this was an event where attendance was voluntary. It was not a mandatory school assembly and they were not a captive audience. And while they certainly had no obligation to stay there and listen to him, I have to wonder whether they really understand what journalism is about. Journalists may often have to talk to people with whom they disagree. They’ll find themselves covering events that they find objectionable. Yet these aspiring journalists decided there was no need to listen to Dan Savage as soon as he said something that offended them.

Now, I’m no journalist, but when the Westboro Baptist Church came to my neighborhood, I didn’t run away from them. I walked right up to them and asked for an interview! I consider the human equality of gay people to be fundamentally truthful, but that didn’t stop me. And many Christians consider their alleged “word of God” to be fundamentally truthful as well, yet these journalism students were unwilling even to be in the presence of someone who criticized their beliefs.

Considering what Savage actually said, it’s remarkable that conservatives would call his comments “outrageous”, “bigoted”, “hostile”, and “bullying”. Do they not agree that slavery is bullshit? Because if you think supporting slavery is bullshit, then the Bible’s position on slavery is also bullshit. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. If these particular Christians haven’t yet found a comforting explanation for the slavery, stonings, and other unpleasantness in the Bible, then they should either cut those parts out of the book, or stop being offended when we quote what it says. Why should there be anything offensive about saying that a text which endorses slavery is not the best source of moral guidance? And why should such a book be immune from criticism merely because some people believe in it strongly?

Just because something is part of your religion, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong. And slavery is wrong, even if it’s in the Bible. No matter how much these people whine and scream and cry about it, the all-knowing, eternal God of the Bible apparently saw fit to instruct us on who we can buy and sell, whether we can keep their spouse and children as slaves, and how badly we’re allowed to beat them. Complain all you want! It’s still in there. If you have to grapple with the unpleasant realization that even you yourself have ignored the Bible’s antiquated teachings, then great! But that’s your problem – not our fault. You might walk out on us, but good luck walking out of your own mind.

Dan Savage is right about the Bible

A challenge to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

Zinnia Jones, , , Leave a comment

The organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays is one of the more bizarre and contradictory elements of the anti-gay Christian right. Intended as a counterpart to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, PFOX claims to conduct “public education and outreach to further individual self-determination and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.” They also say that they’re “supporting parents in loving their homosexual children unconditionally.”

In keeping with these principles, PFOX has shown their friendship and respect toward gays by publishing flyers stating that “The homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks”, that “Declaring and validating a student’s same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful”, that “For many youth, homosexual attraction develops due to negative or traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse”, and that Maryland’s Marriage Protection Act is needed “to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” PFOX has repeatedly distributed these flyers at public high schools.

They’ve also cited various articles saying that gay people have a “reduced life expectancy” of “45 vs. 75 years” compared to straight people, that “as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs”, that “A genuine, conspicuous display of Christian love quickly and decisively eclipses the counterfeit love found in homosexuality”, that “America’s black gay and lesbian community needs to come home to God”, and even “I’ll donate $100 to their favorite charity if anyone can show me a scientific study that proves condoms prevent the transmission of HIV.”

In response to this year’s Day of Silence in protest of anti-gay bullying, PFOX is asking students to circulate another one of their flyers, which ironically states that “PFOX supports tolerance for all.” Rhetorically asking, “Why is discrimination against ex-gays wrong?”, they claim that “formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they exist.” These allegations of discrimination are a recurring theme for PFOX, and they’ve often fought for the inclusion of ex-gays in sexual orientation non-discrimination policies. Yet even as they trumpet their alleged victory in a Washington, D.C. court ruling that found ex-gays to be a protected class under the D.C. Human Rights Act, they frequently inveigh against laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In one flyer, they claim that “sexual orientation laws and policies discriminate against ex-gays”, and later say that “To give sexual orientation protection to one group while excluding another is outright discrimination.” But the protected class of sexual orientation already encompasses everyone, because everyone has a sexual orientation, whether they’re gay, straight, bisexual or otherwise. If “ex-gays” actually are heterosexual, they’re still covered by this.

Elsewhere, PFOX has republished newsletters from the anti-gay group MassResistance which describe the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as “the homosexualization of the Armed Forces”. They also quoted a column from Ann Coulter where she argued that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should remain in place because Private Bradley Manning was gay. The policy of requiring only gay servicemembers to remain closeted is practically the textbook definition of “giving sexual orientation protection to one group while excluding another”, which PFOX has said is “outright discrimination”. Is that what they call “tolerance for all”?

PFOX has also consistently opposed the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, suggesting that it would “hurt children” and complaining that it “includes transvestites, but not ex-gays” and would “force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to adopt a secular-humanist viewpoint, ignoring all matters surrounding sexual morality”. They especially focus on invalidating transgender identities, falsely claiming that the medically accepted standards of care for transitioning are ineffective and that psychotherapy alone is sufficient to treat gender identity disorder. As an “ex-gay” organization, you might think they would fully support transgender people, given that plenty of them could be considered “ex-gay”. If someone who’s attracted to men was assigned male at birth, and later transitioned, she would have previously been considered gay – but not anymore. Are they not ex-gay enough for PFOX? These might be the only actual ex-gay people they’ll ever find – their same-sex attractions really have become opposite-sex attractions! Yet PFOX seems to have very little respect for their “individual self-determination”.

So here’s my challenge to PFOX: If you’re so concerned about discrimination against ex-gays, will you support sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, public accommodations, and military service? If you’re truly ex-gay, and even if you’re not, these laws would still apply to you. So will you stand up for these crucial protections for ex-gays, including transgender ex-gays? Or is it unacceptable to you that this would also protect current-gays? If you’re serious about “individual self-determination and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation”, then this is what your stance requires: ensuring that equal participation in society is possible for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. That is what you’re looking for – isn’t it?

A challenge to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

NOM finally responds with predictable, disingenuous gay-blaming

Zinnia Jones, , , Leave a comment

In the days following the release of confidential strategy documents from the National Organization for Marriage, the silence from NOM has been deafening. Thus far, their only response to the revelation of their explicit ‘gays against blacks’ proposals and Latino identity engineering tactics has been a few paragraphs buried in their weekly newsletter, and a softball interview with Maggie Gallagher on MSNBC. Most tellingly, everything they’ve said in their defense is completely in accordance with the talking points outlined in their documents.

NOM president Brian Brown says:

Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here’s something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle – and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen.

He continues, saying:

To Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry I would say: This is your movement. You are its leaders. Only you can hope to change the vicious attacks being made on Black and Hispanic Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter!) who don’t agree with you on gay marriage.

This is a textbook example of NOM’s plan to “find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right”, and “provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.” So while he may claim it was “inapt” to say that “the strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks”, that’s exactly what he’s doing right now by accusing marriage equality advocates of attacking black and Latino people!

On MSNBC, Maggie Gallagher added: “I don’t like the language because I think it makes us sound way too big for our britches”, and “it makes me seem much more – or NOM seem much more powerful than it is. It’s insulting to suggest that these African American or Latino leaders are standing up because NOM is manipulating them.” But Maggie Gallagher was chairman of the board at NOM when all of these documents were circulated to the board of directors. If she doesn’t like the language, why did she allow this to be published as an official document “prepared by the National Organization for Marriage”?

And if she and Brian Brown think it’s so impossible that NOM could influence black and Latino people to oppose gay marriage, why did NOM budget $1.1 million for targeted radio and TV ads to black neighborhoods, $50,000 for African-American “next generation leaders conferences”, $70,000 for their “black bloggers project”, $180,000 for an African-American outreach coordinator and spokesman, another $180,000 for a Hispanic outreach coordinator, $100,000 for radio and TV ad production under their “Latino project”, $1 million for Spanish radio and TV ads, $100,000 for YouTube productions and viral marketing outreach, $70,000 for PR outreach to Hispanic publications, $100,000 for Hispanic “next generation leaders conferences”, $200,000 for direct mail and email, and another $200,000 on robocalling to Latino zip codes? That’s over $3 million NOM spent on selling their anti-gay message specifically to black and Latino people, and now they tell us they couldn’t possibly make blacks and Latinos do anything. As Joe Biden Sr. said, “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

As if that wasn’t enough, Brian Brown had the gall to say: “Rich white guys like Mayor Bloomberg, Tim Gill and Howard Schultz are determined to push gay marriage on us ‘whether we like or not!'” This, coming from a white guy whose multi-million dollar organization privately admits to using black and Latino people as human shields to deflect criticism of the anti-gay movement. A man who intentionally exploits a history of violent racial strife to make people too uncomfortable to call out homophobia is really trying to claim that “rich white guys” are “determined to push gay marriage on us”. This is just one more shameless, disgusting step in their continued attempts to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks”.

And to top it all off, Maggie Gallagher made this asinine offering on MSNBC:

…if we could get together with the gay community and take the idea that it’s bigoted or discriminatory to stand up for marriage off the table, for black people or for white people, we’d be happy to do it.

Yes, Maggie, I’m sure you would be very happy if we believed there was nothing bigoted or discriminatory about calling gay relationships unworthy of marriage. That would just make your job so much easier! It’s no surprise when political figures are out of touch with the public, but it’s really impressive when they manage to be so out of touch with human decency itself.

And throughout their mendacious orgy of denials, excuses and victim-blaming, the most notable thing is what they haven’t said. Not once has anyone from NOM renounced their strategy of turning blacks and gays against each other and making “Latino identity” inherently homophobic. No, their only defense is that they weren’t able to make it happen. It’s not that they didn’t want to, it’s not that they weren’t trying – they just couldn’t get it done. If they honestly wanted to repudiate this, all they would have to say is: “We do not want to drive a wedge between gays and blacks.” But they haven’t. We’re still waiting – and I suspect we’ll be waiting a long time.

NOM finally responds with predictable, disingenuous gay-blaming