Hysterical Hatred of Heterosexual Christians

I happened upon the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking on a story from a newsfeed service. I was quickly reminded that religious hatred is not confined to Europe. In fact, I don’t think I’ve read anything so openly vitriolic and down-right nasty over here. Mark Morford – I was tempted to call him Mark Moron, but I didn’t want to stoop to his level of ad hominem – is commenting on what he calls “strange, alarmist, deeply homophobic ads” produced by the National Organization for Marriage that are running on television stations in five states. But don’t worry, he assures us, the gay marriage agenda is still on the move.

God, by the way, is a redneck. The logic is flawless. Rednecks like God. God went and set up marriage as a procreative relationship between a man and a woman. Ergo, God is a redneck. What’s more these rednecks are desperate. That is the only reason they would be producing such ads. They know the march of gay love is spreading across the land and these “terrified citizens with souls the size of marbles” can’t stop it. Now here’s my favourite bit:

Distraught Christians say we cannot possibly disobey the mangled, misinterpreted Bible when it comes to hetero marriage because, well, that’s how we’ve done it for centuries and it’s been such a tremendous success, with almost no unhappiness, divorce, abuse, oppression, depression, suicide, hypocrisy, or general misery that it’s obvious we shouldn’t mess with it.

That’s right. Christians are responsible for all the bad stuff that’s happened and continues to exist because for centuries they’ve mangled the Bible and gone all hetero. All we need to do is all love it up gay-style and the world will be a better place. Isn’t it obvious? What’s worse, they use bad actors. (Perhaps this is because all the good actors are either gay or pushing the gay rights agenda.)

Morford claims the ads are “clutching at straws, scraping bottom, leaning on the most absurd, least tenable arguments imaginable”, so he doesn’t provide a link to the legal background behind each statement in the ads. But then I’m sure he thinks it more than justified that a doctor was successfully sued for referring a same-sex couple to a different physician for artificial insemination, or that a New Jersey church lost its tax exemption because they wouldn’t allow their property to be used for civil union ceremonies, or that Massachusetts requires young elementrary school pupils be actively indoctrinated with idea that marriage and gay pseudo-marriage is the same. Yep, absurd untenable arguments that come from the redneck, heartland states of California, New Jersey, and Taxachusetts.

Morford can only compare these ads to two things. The first are hysterical ads being produced by oil companies promoting “rabid oil fetishism and addiction”. Since he doesn’t provide a link, I can’t comment on these ads and their fetishism. The only other comparison Morford has to those radically heterosexual ads  is the “hysterics of Fox News’ fringe nutball militia”, by which he means the “nauseating and preposterous” Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and Michael Savage.

For Morford, those who oppose gay marriage, produce oil, or dare to be conservative and on television are all hysterical. Seems to me the one leaning on absurd, entenable arguments and raving with hysteria is Mark Morford.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Hysterical Hatred of Heterosexual Christians”

  1. HalfGay Says:

    Actually, I don’t think it is a hatred of Christians but a request for Christians to stop hating the gay community. For better or for worse, Christians have inserted themselves in politics and civil rights in the name of God for a long time. When one inserts God into an argument it tends to take the legitimacy out of that persons position. It is a much different argument when a person takes a position from logic versus emotional attachments.

    As far as the Fox Crew…most people are aware that their rants are for ratings and do not represent who they have ever been outside of the spotlight. It is the sole reason why one cannot take them seriously.

  2. sol Says:

    Apart from a few people like Fred Phelps, I don’t know of anyone who hates the gay community (inasmuch as one can have a community based upon sexual preference). Disagreeing with a political agenda as immoral does not constitute hate. It is a completely false dichotomy to say “either you agree with me or you hate me”.

    Christians, who, for better or worse, make up the majority population of the United States, cannot help but be involved in politics. You are right that some of them, like Martin Luther King, involved themselves specifically in the civil rights movement.

    You have offered no support for your statement that when one inserts God into an argument it removes the legitimacy of their position. This is because you have based it upon a false assumption that such an argument cannot be based in logic (as if logic is somehow inherently atheistic) and is simply based upon an emotional attachment. This is in and of itself not a logical argument. One might just as easily argue that your view is based on an emotional detachment from God.

    It could be argued that no one can insert God into any argument, because given his omnipresence, He is already in the argument and sustains it and without Him no argument is possible. It is merely the lack of perception of Him by some individuals that causes them to attempt an argument, or even a worldview, without Him.

    As for FoxNews, more people watch it than any other news channel. I’m not aware of any of the people on Fox who believe something different than what they say on air, your generic ad hominem attack on them notwithstanding.

  3. matt Says:

    Sol, your reply to Halfgay was beyond half great. Halfgay has no retort. And by his nomenclature he proves his identify of gayness as truly a choice. I am enjoying your site; except the Pro-Palin parts.

  4. sol Says:

    Thank you for your remarks, even if you aren’t the most avid supporter of the incumbent Governor of Alaska.

  5. HalfGay Says:

    Actually – I offered no retort because Sol failed to address the main point of my argument – hatred. And, if Matt had actually visited my website he would have understood what “halfgay” means – again a failure to read but quick to make assumptions without perspective. Which Sol did as well by assuming that I have no faith. I may or may not subscribe to your faith by why would that matter to you anyways? You worry about your relationship with God and how you are serving your faith and I will worry about mine. Neither of us were placed on this earth to save the other or anyone else for that matter.

    Hate is what Christian’s have espoused when it comes to the gay community. Christian’s consistently use God as their reason to deny civil rights to Gay people. This was also their argument to deny rights for interracial marriages, minorities and women. It is not a place of love and understanding, which last time I checked was what Christ stood for, when you deny someone their rights and then claim it is a moral issue. Sure, it is fine to ask people to pay the same taxes as you but when it comes to affording them the same rights to tax breaks someone that is when God comes into say no no no.

    When you enter God into your argument you are taking the legitimacy out of your argument because you are arguing from a grey area and not from an objective point of view. You are no longer dealing with facts. One cannot argue with God because that is trying to argue with someone’s faith which is both offensive and irrelevant to an argument (unless you are arguing over the existence of God and then I would have to point you to St. Anselm). Example: Denying the right for Chinese immigrant men to bring their family with them is a civil rights issue. OR – We can deny the right for Chinese immigrant men to bring women and children with them because God says it is immoral and God says only Caucasian men have inalienable rights. This was an actual argument when Chinese immigrants were coming to the US to help build the American railroads.

    I am not saying not be involved in politics. What I am saying is keep religion out of it. There is absolutely no good reason for any politician to be talking about their faith. Your faith may be woven into your life, but a politician is here to serve the people. Those people will have different faiths and politicians need to have the ability to serve everyone – hence take faith out of it. Christianity is a big umbrella with many different sects which is the sole reason it can claim to be the largest religion in the US (Protestants actually make up the largest section of that). People who do not identify with a religion are the second largest.

    Lastly – Fox new is not the largest and most watched news network. CNN is. While the “reporters” and personalities at CNN are not that much different that Fox, at least they are not fudging their beliefs for numbers and people do take some of the personalities seriously; which is not something Fox can claim.

  6. sol Says:

    I did address the main point of your argument. I don’t know anyone who hates the gay community. How would Matt visit your website, since you didn’t leave the URL? You can’t accuse him of failure to read if he does not know what to read. You didn’t leave the URL this time either. So I guess we still don’t know what “Halfgay” means. Neither did I assume you have no faith.

    You offer no theological basis for you statement that “Neither of us were placed on this earth to save the other or anyone else for that matter.” You just assume that it is fact. The tenor of the New Testament is that we are here very much to

    Apart from Fred Phelps and his kinfolks, I don’t know Christians who have encouraged other to hate homosexual people. I don’t know any Christians who have advocated denying gay people civil rights. As far as I know, gay people have the right to vote, a right to stand for office, to be tried by a jury of their peers (their peers being other adults, regardless of sexual orientation), a right to use public facilities (I haven’t seen any heterosexuals-only water fountains or toilets), use public transportation (I haven’t seen any homosexuals having to give up their seat or sit in the back of the bus), and even eat in the same restaurants with heterosexual people.

    Unfortunately, you have mixed up tax breaks with civil rights. Given the entitlement culture that has crept into society, this is not surprising. Wrong, but not surprising. No single people may calculate their taxes as a married couple, regardless of their sexual orientation. Neither can two single people declare themselves married just because they are homosexual. God doesn’t have to come in and say “no no no”.

    There are those, including some who are politically energised by their sexual preference, who suggest that people in relationships other than marriage should operate under the same or similar tax structure. It is for legislators to decide whether these relationships should have the same tax structure. Most Christians will encourage their legislators to keep the tax structure unique to marriage, because marriage, as the inherent basic institution of human society is the sole institution that can replenish the human species and do so more often than not within a safe and secure environment. But that’s just economic common sense, not some sort of religious vendetta against non-procreative relationships.

    Now to the matter of God in politics generally… You agree that faith may be woven into a politician’s life, yet you assume that it is at the same time possible to remove faith as a factor in that person’s politics. That misses the whole point of it being woven into the person. A person cannot change their worldview as they move from one facet of their life to another. If they can, it is not a worldview in the first place. Faith that can be unwoven is not faith at all.

    This does not mean that every argument that invokes God is a correct argument. People with different worldviews will compete in the marketplace of ideas that is a legislative body. Their job is to find a consensus acceptable to the majority, not place their worldviews outside the legislative chamber.

    Fox has had larger viewer ratings than CNN for several years. At times, Fox has more viewers than all of the other cable news outlets combined. Google it.

  7. matt Says:

    Wow.

  8. HalfGay Says:

    You keep missing my point and I apologize that I am not better at articulating it. While Christians might not say “I hate Gay People” the actions do say that. Might I suggest, since you like google, to google the different between civil union and marriage laws. Maybe that would better describe what I am trying to relay. Your retort is incorrect and one sided. There are about 50 different sites that will come up on just that one issue.

    Keeping on the google….it will also show you some websites that contend your statistics on CNN and Fox are incorrect.

    Other than that – either I am a terrible writer and cannot describe my position OR you are not really reading what I am writing. Either is a possibility. The bottom line is I see your position, but I don’t see that you have attempted to look at mine.

  9. sol Says:

    My point is that to disapprove a behaviour, or even to proscribe it, is not hatred. Likewise to declare that a type of relationship is illegitimate or not entitled to recognition or protection by law is not hatred.

    It is not a civil right to have any sort of relationship recognised in law. Therefore there is not a denial of civil rights in refusing to legislate civil union, with or without the exact same status as marriage.

    Marriage itself is not a creation on the State. The state may regulated it to protect it’s citizens (hence the minimum ages, the necessary mental capacity, the lack of another marriage to which one party is still bound, etc.), but marriage is a relationship founded in the created order. Even the Mosaic law does not try to define it, but merely regulate it.

    Therefore a Christian should not approve of attempts by human agencies to rebel against God’s created order and attempt take what He has established and make it something different. They cannot do so. The State can’t actually make marriage any different than it is, but it’s attempts to do so are merely a reflection of the desire of certain bodies politic to exalt themselves above the Almighty.

    This all stems from the desire in an increasingly godless society to justify ourselves in legitimacy of whatever relationships we what in the pursuit of our own happiness. During the time this discussion has been going on here, Anthony Esolen has blogged a great series on posts on what he accurately calls “Pseudogamy” over at Mere Comments. They can be found here, here, here, and here.

  10. Lee Says:

    Yes, it is hatred hatero. All forms of systematic discrimination are rooted in heterosexuality. Gender hierarchy = heterosexuality. Sexuality hierarchy = heterosexuality. Racial hierarchy = heterosexuality. The list goes on. When will haterosexuals acknowledge it?

  11. sol Says:

    So the world will only be happy and fair when everyone is gay? This is so silly it’s almost funny. It is part of the fallacy that identity is defined by sexuality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: