Jesus Fucking Christ: evangelical bigwig opposed gay marriage "because it takes the dirt and danger out of clandestine sex with rent-a-men"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (551 of them)
As we know, middle aged men NEVER let themselves go, no sir.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

You mean other women are allowed to LEAVE the HOUSE? And here I've been posting from the balcony behind a carved wooden screen this whole time....

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

My favorite favorite thing about every time one of these super religious dudes fall apart is that try as they must of tried (and I am sure that no one tried harder than Haggard) that their bodies' wants/needs are so much more powerful than their God and their faith. It's pretty awesome that the human drive for pleasure is stronger than the power of any deity.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:21 (seventeen years ago) link

If Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance.

- Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian."

http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_nov2006.html


Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

haha. Yeah, Stephanie Miller was reading from that Bowers piece on the air today.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not sure the hypocrisy charge is really the important part here: people in Haggard's position actually tend to stick to their professed principles, admit wrongdoing, and try to make amends. It's not even essential that this sort of thing brings shame or suspicion upon hardcore evangelicals, either, though that's usually how it plays for most people. I think the important part is for those Americans who are neither evangelicals nor happy secular leftists to see a choice between two possibilities for the country. In one, where we accept that homosexuality is a part of a person's identity that's harmless and entirely their business, a man who's interested in having sex with other men will presumably be free to work that out on his own, in a way that's honest and fair to everyone involved. In the other, where we insist that homosexuality is a problem and insane disproportionate energy into discouraging it, it becomes very, very likely that people will wind up doing what Haggard did -- secret lives of prostitution and infidelity that harm everyone around them. And I'd like to think (or at least hope) that if you could get the average middle-of-the-road American to see things in those terms, they'd opt for the first one -- because no matter how uncomfortable they may be with homosexuality, I think most of them would prefer a world of people innocently minding their own business than a world of this.

(The problem with things like "this" and Foley, though, is that it just cements the link in people's mind between homosexuality and secret sordid activity like drug use, soliciting minors, and prostitution; it doesn't seem to register that suppression of homosexuality might be a major part of how people end up in those situations.)

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link

(also misses out the sidebar that drugs are k-awesome)

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Love the rewriting of history already at http://newlifechurch.org/ --

NEW LIFE NOW
1. A New Page in the New Life Story
2. Wonderland
3. Thou Shalt Laugh Comedy Night

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:19 (seventeen years ago) link

(at least, drugs are k-awesome until your teeth fall out; then they begin to lose their pall)

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:21 (seventeen years ago) link

it just cements the link in people's mind between homosexuality and secret sordid activity

yeah, that's the bit that other folks have talked about, and i might have even mentioned. That the hilariosly negative view these folks have about gay people, w/ all the pathological stereotypes & whatnot, is that the only gay people they ever come in contact with are those w/in their own midst who have had to repress so much for so long. Eventually they crack, and thus are evidence in some people's minds that gayes = teh evil.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

(Also Carson from Queer Eye For The Straight Guy)

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

roffle

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:27 (seventeen years ago) link

hahahah. such shiney teeth, such vacant expressions.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 6 November 2006 20:28 (seventeen years ago) link

The thing that most disturbs me about the driscoll thing is his (implied?) assertion that it was Ted's wife wot caused him to seek the company of meth-heads and strong, middle-aged, body-building male whores. It's all her fault for turning him into a crank-snorting sodomite.

Agreed.

i think the fact that bush had regular talks with a rabid YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST is a lot more disturbing than any of this shit

Agreed!

Yeah, Grady, but like you say, that's an issue of deniability and ass-covering -- protecting yourself against accusation and slander -- rather than an issue of avoiding temptation.

You're half right. The other half is the fact that there are people who are drawn to those in a leadership position, be it a priest, minister, CEO, president, whatevs. People who actually wish to engage in some kind of behavior innapropriate of someone in that kind of role, NOT just make false accuations that are impossible to disprove. And when you're in that position, it can catch you off guard and you can fuck up. Again, we agree on Driscoll going way too far in this direction and placing blame on spouses who "let themselves go." My initial point was just that being aware of the potential for both slander AND tempation (not the kind of OMG I HOPE THAT HOT LADY IN THE 2nd PEW STOPS IN TODAY temptation, more the kind that can catch someone off-guard) is very real. I was just getting a little bothered that the sentiment was "hahaha xians r afraid sexx lolz."

If Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance.

OTM x100,000,000,000. In Jesus Camp he speaks of a life in Christ being FABULOUS. I swear I'm not making that up.

it just cements the link in people's mind between homosexuality and secret sordid activity

This is why i was unrealistically hoping Haggard could be a key person/symbol in changing the shape of homosexuality and religion in this country. Sadly, it will only reinforce cuurent views.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:04 (seventeen years ago) link

my first "Agreed." was with KF, not Driscoll.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:05 (seventeen years ago) link

This is why i was unrealistically hoping Haggard could be a key person/symbol in changing the shape of homosexuality and religion in this country.

Well, the really unfortunate thing is that this country is full of well-adjusted gay couples who are Christians, and yet the evangelicals' rhetoric ensures that they'll never come into contact with them. (This would seem to be by design, actually: I assume the fear is that sharing anything with gay people -- trying to acknowledge common values at all -- will lead to GOD FORBID noticing that they tend to be decent human beings like anyone else.) The only way you can get that kind of example you're talking about would be ... well, the fairly unrealistic scenario of an unmarried clergyman being discovered as having a secret committed gay partner and raising adopted children in blissful good-citizen happiness?

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:20 (seventeen years ago) link

yet the evangelicals' rhetoric ensures that they'll never come into contact with them.

ding ding ding.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:21 (seventeen years ago) link

That parenthetical bit is actually something that nags at me: it's amazing to me that Christians can jump on the "What Would Jesus Do" meme without noting the overwhelming Biblical evidence that Jesus would totally welcome gay Christians into the church in a pretty loving spirit.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:22 (seventeen years ago) link

xxxpost:

Perhaps.

My fantasy scenerio was more along the lines of Haggard getting a divorce, dropping out of the spotlight for a number of years and then re-emerging as a homosexusal religious leader 100x more powerful than Vermont bishop guy. He cerntainly has a knack for leadership, and one would like to think that if he can build a congregation of 14,000 and have conference calls with the president while preaching homophobia that he can do the same as an openly gay man. One would like to think that the 14,000 member congregation, the 30mil association, all the political connections had less to do with his anti-gay anti-abortion stance than who he is as a communicator. The medium is the message, bro.

I know I'm sounding like I think Haggard is the best thing evah minus the pro-family rhetoric.

It's all just wishful thinking.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:27 (seventeen years ago) link

without noting the overwhelming Biblical evidence that Jesus would totally welcome gay Christians into the church in a pretty loving spirit.

or at the very LEAST, get to know them, spend time with them, and perhaps gain some understanding as to where they're coming from.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think there's any instances in the New Testament where Jesus welcomes/blesses/or even acknowledges the existence of sodomites.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:29 (seventeen years ago) link

(x-post to Nabisco)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Jesus was all about prostitutes and lepers; somehow I think sodomites were too high up on the social ladder for him to actually care about!

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

(tho I will grant that the Biblical Jesus is in many ways an open guy who clearly sees it as his duty to reach out to otherwise ostracized members of society, regardless of their moral failings)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Xpost to Shakey:

True.

But Old Testament the story of Soddom and Gommorah is terribly misinterprited as a story about God hating teh ghey when its really a story about God punishing bloodthirsty rapists (hetero or homo).

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:32 (seventeen years ago) link

oh man the Jack Chick Sodom & Gomorrah tract is SO UNBELIEVABLY AWESOME in its depiction of masculine angels fearing for teh homosexual rape...

but I agree in general abt the narrow interpretation of the story as being specifically homosexuality. Tho I believe there are several other OT passages commonly cited as "proof" that god hates fags. I forget where, Leviticus...? so many OT "laws"...

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:44 (seventeen years ago) link

specifically [about] homosexuality

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:45 (seventeen years ago) link

ah yes, good ol Leviticus:

Leviticus 18:22 "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Now Jesus, for his part, did explicitly deny the necessity to follow all the rules laid down in the OT, so you can ostensibly combine that rejection of Jewish moral traditions with his "hey I love everybody" attitude and extrapolate from there that he woulda been cool with Rip Taylor or whoever, but I think we should all be able to agree that that's stretching it quite a bit.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

nice summation of Bible vs. teh Gays here: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:51 (seventeen years ago) link

ew at "stretching it quite a bit"

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:52 (seventeen years ago) link

xxxxpost:

It should also be noted that there is a considerably large movment within Evangelical churches to admit that the ways in which the church has dealt with honosexuals hasn't been Christ-Like©. This movment seeks some kind of reparations with the Gay community and encourages openly homosexual families into thier churches in order to treat them as Jesus would have and perhaps gain understanding from them... but still defines homosexuality as a sin only redeemable through a life in Christ.

It's a nice sentiment, but if you're only going half way, just fucking forget about it.

Shakey OTM re: Chick tract on Soddom and Gommorah.

Re: other OT passages, yes there's at least one in Leviticus. There's a hilarious "Open Letter to Dr. Laura" floating around the net where someone goes "gee, thanks for setting me straight on Leviticus' commandments regarding homosexuality. Can you set me straight on a few more?" ...and goes on to ask her stance on shearing sheep, disposal of moldy clothing, stoning of adulterers, and other things Leviticus goes into inane depth on. quite teh funny.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:52 (seventeen years ago) link

(sp)

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:53 (seventeen years ago) link

My fantasy scenerio was more along the lines of Haggard getting a divorce, dropping out of the spotlight for a number of years and then re-emerging as a homosexusal religious leader 100x more powerful than Vermont bishop guy.

v. gene, where's yo' POWAH?!?!??

threads like these almost make me glad i done grown up episcopalian.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:54 (seventeen years ago) link

goatse.cchrist

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

Dr. Laura and Leviticus

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

threads like these almost make me glad i done grown up episcopalian.

They make me completely glad I did!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:56 (seventeen years ago) link

"I would like to sell my daughter into slavery..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 November 2006 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Leviticusalso has tons of utterly ignored prohibitions, like against wearing garments made of two diff fabrics, cuz hello, they were made SPECIFICALLY FOR / BY JEWS OF 5000 YEARS AGO.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:01 (seventeen years ago) link

That Dr. Laura is really funny.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:02 (seventeen years ago) link

The party line on Leviticus is that modern day xians are responsible for defining which parts were essential for life a few millenia back and which relate to MORAL CONCERNS that trancend time and culture.

Guess which column "lying with a man as a woman does" falls in to????

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:04 (seventeen years ago) link

i grew up presbyterian(still considered myself as such, more or less), and chose sunday school over the sermons.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:05 (seventeen years ago) link

KF-

(not to be read as snarky at all)

what does that have to do with what we're talking about? Is it that you relate more to a group discussion that listening to a speech?

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Wait, so Leviticus was totally cool with lesbians?

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

apparently.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

They used part of that Dr. Laura thing in an early "West Wing" episode, didn't they?

Django Blowhardt (Rock Hardy), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link

"Thou shalt not, as a woman, lie with a woman as a man lies with a woman unless thou art on Myspace"

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Shakey, I'm referring more to the obvious Jesus habit of welcoming all people into the church and often emphasizing that it's the lowest among them who deserve the most compassion, etc. (Though I will grant you that in a Biblical context it's possible that his examples on this front -- prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, etc. -- may have been examples of "poor social standing" more so than "moral abominations.")

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:09 (seventeen years ago) link

So wait prostitutes have poor social standing, but they are on morally good ground?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:10 (seventeen years ago) link

prostitutes and tax collectors were both viewed as hugely immoral. OTM though.

researching ur life (grady), Monday, 6 November 2006 22:10 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.