I confess I am not going to be reading the Manhattan Declaration. I was a Catholic for too many years, and from Timothy Kincaid's description, it looks like there's nothing new in the rhetoric or the justifications. Been there, had my intelligence insulted by that.
But you don't have to read it to see the point. This is the formalization of a new Axis of Homophobia, which begins in the Vatican, runs through Nigeria to pick up the homophobic wing of the Anglican church, and then crosses the Atlantic to plant its flag in the American South.
The only usual suspect missing from the Axis is the Taliban, but they're involved in an actual war, and don't have time for manifestos. The document might seem to exclude them, since it is "A Call of Christian Conscience," but the Taliban do seem to be a good fit. Their conscience is as homophobic as any of these Christians. Maybe next year.
The anti-gay forces are now circling the wagons. As the rest of the civilized world moves past its fevered imaginings about homosexuals, the most intense religious objectors are huddling together for heat. The Catholics, in particular, are feeling particularly vulnerable as the Vatican watches half of its Americans (and God knows how many Europeans and Latin Americans) supporting civil equality for same-sex couples. What's a celibate bunch of fey men to do?
All I can say is I hope they enjoy one another's company. They're certainly not doing much to win over anyone else's.
19 Comments for “Axis of Error”
posted by Neil D on
If you don’t read the declaration you’ll miss its lesson: it is impossible to be gay and Christian. We must stop indulging the fantasy that we’ll ever be accepted by people who hate us as a matter of doctrine.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, please do, Neil; there’s nothing I’d like to see more than gays like yourself try to turn this into even more of a religious war. Make it clear that it’s impossible to be gay and Christian, that all gays who think otherwise are delusional, and that the gay community is all about being antireligious, pushing religion out of public life, and quashing religion in every way, shape, or form.
Not that the vast majority of people don’t already know that “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a fake and a non-Christian, but it’s nice to hear the gay liberal community confirm the fact that it’s impossible for him to be a Christian because he’s gay.
posted by BobN on
I confess I am not going to be reading the Manhattan Declaration.
I read parts of it. It seemed to be stretching desperately for some sort of anchor for self-assigned, Christian moral authority. We get to tell you what to do with your pee-pees because our predecessors plucked infants out of Roman trash bins.
Very odd. Plus they failed to address whether those rescued infants were placed in adoptive gay families…
posted by CPT_Doom on
Not that the vast majority of people don’t already know that “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a fake and a non-Christian, but it’s nice to hear the gay liberal community confirm the fact that it’s impossible for him to be a Christian because he’s gay.
Well, clearly NDF, the answer then is perhaps a more effective strategy – exposing the heretics and blasphemers among the “Christians” who have signed this attack on innocents. The irony, of course, is that neither the Roman Catholics or the evangelicals (who are, as the nuns told me, “pseudo-Christian cultists”) believe the other religious lifestyle choice is valid. Therefore this can only be seen as a cynical political ploy to scapegoat people and shore up a dying brand of bigotry.
posted by Neil D on
On the contrary, North Dallas Thirty, I would like nothing more than to see the religious aspects of the conflict resolved. I’m simply ready to concede that Christians have a right to define their doctrine for themselves. If they want to define adultery or homosexual sex as sins, who am I to argue? I want no part of their religion anyway. What is to be gained by the debate?
I think our mistake has been to intrude onto Christian turf. The resulting backlash has been left us without marriage rights or even, in some cases, the option of civil unions.
I want to call off the war by saying I have no interest in their faith or their blessings. Those gay people who insist on seeking acceptance from a religious authority are free to do so, but please don’t expect me to go along for the ride.
posted by Bob on
The question: What’s a celibate bunch of fey men to do? 2nd question: Are You sure they are celibate? (Hint: Ask the closest choirboy.)
posted by Jorge on
Aren’t the Taliban those people who kill women for showing skin between their cheeks and their eyelids?
I fail to see the comparison.
I haven’t read it, either. I suppose I should, but I’m going to hear it one way or another anyway.
posted by Debrah on
“I think our mistake has been to intrude onto Christian turf. The resulting backlash has left us without marriage rights or even, in some cases, the option of civil unions.”
***********************************
But how do you deal with those for whom religion holds no importance or fascination, but simply view marriage between two men as ridiculous—openly verbalized or not?
How do you deal with those who are stunned every time they see a successful, intelligent, and attractive man take on “girlie” characteristics when fighting for “the rights of gay and lesbian citizens”…….when he is really fighting for his own right to marry another man?
How do you deal with the visceral change which takes place in observers—openly verbalized or not?
It’s not the “religious right” about whom to be concerned. As you’ve seen in Maine—a live-and-let-live environment—most Americans, I believe, support civil unions, but inside the private confines of the ballot box they say another thing about “marriage”:
Bullsh!t!
posted by Neil D on
Debrah asks how to deal with those who oppose gay marriage for other than religious reasons. While the “ick” factor surely has had an effect, I believe these are the people who can be persuaded. I think the question to ask them is “Why do you care?” If they have no religious basis for their objections, one would hope that people of goodwill can be turned our way.
posted by Debrah on
“I think the question to ask them is ‘ Why do you care?’ “
**************************************
Neil, as one who expresses your views with eloquence, I’m surprised that you ask such a question.
For many observers the answer to your question is that old line from Denzel Washington’s dialogue in “Malcolm X”—(a shout-out, by the way, to those in the gay community who piggy-back on race issues as a fetish)……..
“We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us”.
No one would have to care, but many gays will pummel a good situation and contaminate a perfectly positive atmosphere with their obnoxious personal agendas.
And it’s even worse when that person is apparently out-of-the-closet, socially, but chooses not to be identified as gay, openly, in their profession.
Decisions can be made by such people that contaminate the general professional atmosphere and others are left to wonder—-“Why do you care?”
Only to discover that editorializing comes from the very personal agenda of that individual.
If you’re gay, be gay and OWN it.
Otherwise, don’t slink around like some double-dipping coward, putting your toes in the ocean of controversy…….then running back to the safe shores when convenient.
If heterosexuals behave in such a way, they can be vilified and ridiculed for using their personal lives and their sexual practices to affect professional decisions.
But with a prissy, petty gay man to mouth off and vent frustration for not being able to officially take his “husband” down the aisle……it’s “gay-bashing” not to allow this unprofessional and adolescent self-indulgence.
That’s why some people are FORCED to care.
They are disappointed and shocked at the way some people take for granted sheer, unadulterated double standards.
If it’s so grand to be gay, get your azzes out there and be open with it, professionally.
Then we won’t be shocked when we see this adolescent behavior that we’ve come to expect.
Moreover, this ability one has to jump in and out of the closet, socially and professionally, is also the best reason for not drawing “minority” analogies to race.
posted by BobN on
So, Debrah, who is this prissy, closeted gay man in your life and what has he done to make you so mad?
posted by Debrah on
TO “BobN”–
Though I am gratified by your concern—and I really am—this is a general statement.
And “closeted” is not the issue.
My point is that some gays choose not to be “out” professionally…..and then wonder why observers question their whiplash behavior when they choose to use gay issues only when they’re “in the mood”.
And then just as suddenly try to dismiss the issue when they are asked to debate that which was begun by THEM in the first place.
Very strange way to conduct “gayness”.
Extraordinarily childish.
posted by Diogenes on
@ Deb …denail much? The real childness is your responses on this site. You have a complete lack of understanding on the issues you comment on.
posted by Debrah on
I’m sure I could be persuaded to give a vivid and detailed response to your lackluster ankle-biting……
…….however, the semi-literacy with which you express your “opinion” suggests to me that my efforts would be wasted.
(Proofreading, by the way, can be a very close and helpful friend.)
posted by Diogenes on
Maybe if english was my first language I would be up to your standards or even second or third, alas its only been speaking it a couple of years. You are still, “madam”, a raging a$$hole.
posted by Diogenes on
@ Debbie- it is interesting to me that a person with a crappy website that features tacky masks and OOOOOOOOoooooooooold pictures of a homely woman would be insulting anyone.
posted by Debrah on
Diogenes, I’ll certainly have to take your comment under advisement.
I have no doubt that on “everything azzhole”, you’re an expert.
Including the ins and outs and all structures in between.
posted by Debrah on
Diogenes–
I don’t believe for a minute you’re anyone other than a regular commenter who has taken on another moniker for “anonymous” ankle-biting.
Kind of like the sleazy “Patrick” from a previous thread.
If you’re the Indianapolis visitor on my blog, then let me educate you.
A handmade Venetian mask collection is valued into the thousands of dollars.
Mine certainly is.
You probably have them confused with your dime store Mardi Gras fare. Perhaps a bit more reading might enlighten you.
Lastly, this pettiness of yours seems to have suddenly brought out much better English!
Again, you’re a cowardly ankle-biter. rather like a little screaming girl who can’t debate the issues.
And my personal blog is filled with many photos, indeed.
Some from the past—like most normal people—and some taken just days ago.
Your silliness is so indicative of a sour, lazy mind.
Tell us who you really are and debate.
posted by Debrah on
Hey “Di”–
Are you the same “Diogenes” as the one on this thread?
I recognize a similar caustic flair.
Yet the similarities you exhibit here are uncannily “Patrick”.
And your English just keeps getting better and better!