Christians vs. Homosexuality: The Bible’s not the problem

by John Shore on December 13, 2010 in Christian Issues · 286 comments

What fuels the fiery hatred that so many Christians and others harbor for gays can’t be explained by pointing to the Bible alone. Clearly something more visceral is being triggered there.

And for so many people, that something is everything.

When you hear the word homosexual, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? A gay man. It’s always a gay man. It’s gay men that get people out on the streets waving signs and screaming. It’s gay men about whom people tend to get so impassioned. It’s gay men toward whom all the hate and anger is directed.

Zillions of people are a long way from being okay with lesbians; I don’t mean to in any way minimize the bigotry against which lesbians constantly struggle. But generally—on an instinctual, immediate level—the lion’s share of the rabid anti-gay energy is focused upon “fags.”

And so that becomes the $83 million question (which is how much total was spent to promote and pass California’s Proposition 8): Why are so many people as reactive to gay men as they are? What is it about them, really, that they just hate so much?

And the answer to that question is simple: Gay men threaten the traditional power base of straight men.

Here’s the basic run of it inside the brain/heart/subconscious of a typical straight man:

I may not be much. But I’m a man. And that entitles me to a lot.

Two women together? That’s kind of cute—sexy, even. But it doesn’t scare me. Because neither of those women can threaten my power. They can’t undermine the truth that, as a man, I’m still (figuratively and literally) on top. Two women together doesn’t change the fact that this is still a man’s world.

But two men together? Yikes. That’s a problem for me. That’s when all the walls in my world begin to crumble.

A man who is gay is essentially my equal, my peer: he’s one of my kind. If it’s okay for him to be romantic with another man, then, for me, everything gets seriously thrown out of whack. Because where the heck does that leave me?

I’m a man. I get to be a man. That means I’m … the man! I’m in charge. I’m at the head of the table. I make the money. I have the muscles. I build the castles. I’m number one! But I can’t be number one without people below me to be number one over. No true boss doesn’t have subordinates. My whole organization—my entire power structure, everything that keeps me being The Man—absolutely, 100% depends upon me—and, by extension, upon my kind—being in charge.

And what we’re in charge of is women.

Muscles. Castles. Food on the table. Conquering hero.

Swinger of clubs. Thruster of weapons.

Head of household.

That’s how it’s been. That’s how it’s supposed to be. That’s my goddamn right as a man. And if you try to take that from me, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you fail.

If men start loving men, then how can I dominate those men?

Men loving men takes away my power. It removes my power; it eliminates the place where I’m designed to exercise my power.

Gay men screw with the basis of my existence. And I will see them in hell before I’ll sit back and just let that happen.

And that’s how that goes.

That’s how that’s always gone.

And it’s hardly men alone who have invested their all into the traditional patriarchal power hierarchy. There’s much in that power structure that has always worked for women, too.

The traditional power hierarchy is traditional for a reason. Men are stronger than women. Traditionally the did have to go out and hunt, and chop down trees, and build homes. Women did have to stay home and have the babies. That’s how our species grew.

Gender matters. It’s real. And it’s sure mattered in the past.

But today? When meat’s for sale at any grocery store, and most guys wouldn’t know an ax from a fax? When women can tap a keypad with the best of ‘em? When it’s brains that matter, and not brawn at all? When the winner is the one who is the most creative, the quickest to adapt—the one who’s best at relationships?

Today, the ground beneath the personal politics and power of gender is shaking like a California earthquake.

And grabbing onto your Bible won’t stop that movement. Nothing can.

Men are going to kiss men. And that will always seem intensely weird to straight people—just like men and women kissing will always seem intensely weird to gay people.

It’s a new world. And it’s time to be brave about it.

And mostly, of course, it’s time to realize that when it comes to men loving men and women loving women, straight people have nothing—nothing—to fear but fear itself.

{ 286 comments… read them below or add one }

Laura C. Minnick via Facebook February 9, 2012 at 1:07 am

Jason, I always find it amusing that straight guys imagine that gay guys are attracted to them. Do they think they’re that hot, that a gay man couldn’t resist them? When I walk down the street, I don’t think that every man I pass is hot for me! What hubris!And how stupid…

Reply

Paul Keen via Facebook February 9, 2012 at 1:06 am

You probably are Jason. :D

Reply

Danielle Buie via Facebook February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am

That’s certainly one possible explanation, but I think there are a number of other explanations as well.

Reply

Jason Smith via Facebook February 9, 2012 at 1:00 am

amen. I’ve often wondered why my friends would freak out because I had other friends who were gay (I’m not). I’ve always told them, “when I go to hang out with them… I’m straight. When I am hanging out with them… I’m straight. And when I come home after having hung out with them… guess what? I’m still straight.” As for fearing a gay man would make a pass at me, I’ve always viewed that the same way I would if a woman who wasn’t my type did… “I’m flattered, but no thanks. Sorry.” Why is this so hard for the rest of the hetero world to understand? Am I that sophisticated/advanced?

Reply

Pro-Gay Rights Christian September 27, 2011 at 10:33 pm

Hmm…I just want to say, that similar to how straight men enjoy seeing two women kissing, there are many, many straight women who enjoy seeing two men kissing (and engaging in *ahem* other kinds of physical affection). Look up slash fanfiction or yaoi is you don’t believe me. That’s why I reject the notion that straights are immediately turned off by displays of physical homosexual intimacy – as long as it’s between the opposite gender! How strange human sexuality is.

Reply

Danielle February 9, 2012 at 12:51 am

Indeed. I’m a female who was once in a relationship with a woman who identified as lesbian, not bisexual, and she liked to watch gay male erotica. She couldn’t admit that in most lesbian circles, though, because bisexual leanings are generally not considered much of an asset in gay/lesbian circles. I think most humans like things, people, ideas, etc to fit into familiar boxes that lessen the chaos of human existence, and when this can’t be done, it causes anxiety. And of course there’s also the anxiety of having some level of awareness of same-sex attraction when a person is very invested in a heterosexual identity. I think this anxiety theory may explain a lot of the “hate” out there towards LGBT folks, i.e., the “hate” really is, at least in part, anxiety projected outwards.

Reply

Danielle February 9, 2012 at 12:58 am

…and the same anxiety theory probably holds true for gay/lesbian folks who are uncomfortable with bisexuality, i.e., either it upsets their sense of order in the world and causes anxiety, or it hits a nerve with whatever level of opposite-sex attraction they might have themselves, which could easily cause anxiety since bisexuals are kind of the black sheep of the gay “family”.

Reply

Jim August 15, 2011 at 7:39 pm

YOU SAY “But the Bible also says that slavery is reasonable (if not good), and that women shouldn’t speak in church, and that Christians should never eat shellfish, and on and on and on.”

This is truly dishonest scholarship. It sounds like deliberate fallacy.

Your purposely equating women speaking in church with what the Bible says against Homosexuality. Now you’ll say I misunderstood you but I didnt. Your trying to build a logical row of domino’s that leads to Homosexuality being knocked over with womens speech.

You have to if your going to defend this. Your smart so we cant just say you need work on your reasoning skills. You want gays to continue doing what they are doing so you twist things. You know the bible accepted the current norm of slavery and why–and that there wasnt a command to commit slavery. You know shellfish was part of the OT ritual laws that pointed to Christ. You know women weren’t told they would be cast into the lake of fire for the “abominable” speaking in church. You know there is no comparison– yet you make one.

And your reason why people are crazy is skewed as well.

People lust every day–but no one teaches it right.
People cheat on there spouses every day–but no one teaches it right or has parades why its right
.
They dont accuse people of being Haters for saying cheating is wrong.

If homosexuals acted on their feelings but didnt want to –and admitted they were going against God you wouldnt see anything special.

Your preaching something that is wrong is Right and not only that–your telling my children sin is right and Im a bigot and hater for repeating what God commands.

Im sorry but there is nowhere to go on this one. No clever arguments are gonna change that. Paul abstained from marriage as a choice. It can be done. You just dont want gays to abstain so you write your own laws. Its tough for sure. There are many sins we have to abstain from–this one must be overwhelming but your living for This world by twisting God’s world so you can enjoy yourself. You dont accept that God knows whats right–you decide whats right and teach what is wrong.

Reply

DR August 15, 2011 at 8:50 pm

This is hysterically fueled nonsense.

Reply

Dirk August 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm

It is also poorly written. If the writer’s mind is as disorganized as this screed, then it is no wonder he or she holds to such foolish notions.

Reply

TL September 28, 2011 at 1:09 am

This guy is so clueless that he proved exactly the point that this article has made, which is a reasonably true argument. In order to continue the struggle for power, Jim has to denounce you as being intentionally dishonest about scriptures. Au contraire, Jim.

Reply

Chris August 14, 2011 at 10:24 pm

An interesting argument. Thomas Aquinas, who for Roman Catholics was something of a definitive authority until the 1960’s, argued that male homosexuality (he never bothered his head about lesbianism) was wrong because:

a. two men could not procreate, (although he allowed that postmenopausal heterosexual couples could have sex w/o sin)

b. Animals don’t engage in same sex sex. (They do, and Thomas may have known that, but his readers didn’t.)

c. When two men lie together, one is taking the part of a woman, and that is an insult to his dignity as a man. There are no exceptions or conditions offered for this argument, which is apparently dispositive.

Thomas thought. with Aristotle, that women were defective males who merely provided a nest for homunculi deposited by men to mature. Bad biology, bad reasoning, bad morality.

Reply

Karen August 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm

I agree with your article, but I think that you are missing another key point to the “power” over homosexuals. Homosexuality is a “those people over” there sin. I can rile against them with out abandon, because I will never be one of them. I will never be sexually attracted to another woman, so I can judge them without ever facing the possibility of being judged by my own set of standards. I am better than the gays, because I will NEVER be amongst their sinning ranks. I have that power, and I will exploit that power to make myself feel better.
I won’t get on a soap box about adultery, because even though I love my husband and am completely committed to him, there is a possibility that I could face a weak moment in the future. I won’t get all fiery against adultery of the spirit (lusting after a man other than my husband), because I would have to stop watching those HOT vampires on True Blood.
I would not dare mention or get fired up about feeding the hungry, visiting those in prison, tending the wounded, etc, because those are things to which I could be held accountable.
I would much rather rile against “those people” of which I will never be one.
I think that this is a valid point, so I am also going to post this reply to your Facebook as well. So, whatever you do, don’t make any posts about the sin of pride.

Reply

Diana A. August 15, 2011 at 5:39 am

Yup. You nailed it.

Reply

Nay August 14, 2011 at 10:06 am

First and foremost i would like to say as a straight woman, i am not “weirded out” at the sight of two men or two women kissing. it is two people in love. and love is a beautiful thing. i would rather see them kissing then see two people killing each other.

this power struggle that you speak of, that is a man made problem, being gay/lesbian is not. you are born that way. i have spoken with some top notch genetic doctors, and they are norrowing down the genes. thats right genes. gifferent genes that make some more effemenent and some more butch. the the power struggle come from with man himself himself, gay or straight, male or femal, man ih the human context.

And while i do not believe this myself, i put this out there for the bible thumpers. In the NT (of which i do not follow since i am jewish, but am very familure) it says that Jesus says he knew his disiples, and, throughout the Bible OT and NT it say when a person knew someone it was in a sexual manor. so what does that say of Jeses? the point of saying that is that you can not take things word for word from an text that was written long ago in many different languages and rewritten translated and rewritten.

as for me, some of my nearest and dearest family and friends are gay and or lesbian. i love them all dearly and would trust my life with them. and i would defend them and their right until the day i die.

Reply

Allen August 13, 2011 at 5:51 pm

An aside:
Thanks, John, for the remark that men and women kissing seems intensely weird to gays and lesbians. Only decades being inundated with the image has made me, uh, comfortable with it. Not a huge deal or anything, but this doesn’t get said very often — especially by straight people. You rule (but I don’t mean that in a man-role patriarchy way, of course)!

Reply

Kat August 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Great article. I will chuckle while I “blasphemously” add shrimp to my paella for Sunday dinner tomorrow.

And yes. The poster who previously referenced the direct correlation between homophobia and repressed homosexual drive is really on to something. I’d like to take the argument further and expand on why some Conservative or fundamentalist women are also so blatantly anti male homosexuality. I believe it’s because it is a type of sexuality that we, as women, cannot compete with. In many traditional marriages, sexual desire is a type of “currency” that a wife may use on her husband. And if that husband is more interested in men, it’s like trying to pay for something using dollars in Europe and being told they only accept Euros. Now, for a rational and independent woman, a homosexual fantasy isn’t so big of a deal. We can acknowledge the fluid nature of our own sexuality, and we have control and respect in our relationships. We dont need to “buy” favors, and we know from all our high school experiences that a couple homosexual predelictions are normal. Not to give you too much info or anything…. ahem… I digress. The point is that, for a submissive wife who uses her attractiveness as her (only) bargaining chip and sees morality in stark black and white terms, ANY homosexual urge is a threat to her power and also an absolute indication of perversion. There is no middle ground, and the subject itself is painted in too much fear to be considered rationally.

Reply

Maria August 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Ain’t it the truth. Ain’t it the truth. How sad is it that the only thing most of these people have to hold onto is a power grid that is falling apart. This is why they fight so hard and this is why they are so fueled by fear, hate and anger.

Reply

Karen August 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm

Very true.

Reply

Wayne August 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm

aw shucks, I wanted to read the horribleness of Lanie’s post! uncensor it pleaaaaase! can she or you at least summarize it? Like forbidden fruit, now all I want is to know what was deleted.

Reply

Diana A. August 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Hi Wayne! I’m bad like that too!

Reply

Neo August 13, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Ironically, I think this argument can go both ways.
Homosexuals know that if fundamentalist Christians are right then criminalizing homosexuality and taking other measures may be justified. They see that the fundamentalist view threatens their power and that’s why they get so crazy about homophobia.
I’m not saying this is my position I just think it’s a blanket argument that goes both ways, it avoids the issue and It’s really just overgeneralization with what seems to be ad hominem. It’s a great Marxian analysis and it seems like a good way to piss off fundamentalists, but not much for an argument.

Reply

Diana A. August 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Even if I thought that homosexuality was a sin, I would not feel right about criminalizing it or making it legally acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals in other ways. Not everything that is a “sin” by biblical standards is or should be criminalized. For instance, do we really want to criminalize gossip?

Sometimes, it helps to look at what John wrote for previous blog posts. I vaguely remember this issue coming up and him deciding to write a post about it. I could be wrong but that is entirely possible.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 2:51 am

Diana,
Thanks for the response; even if I thought homosexuality was a sin, I wouldn’t feel right criminalizing it either. My intent was never to argue that such actions would be justified, criminalization merely strikes me as one example of a way in which homosexual power might be threatened by a fundamentalist Christian view. It seems clear to me that there is a power struggle between the two groups. I wouldn’t want to criminalize gossip, doing so might have interesting results though lol.

Reply

cat rennolds August 13, 2011 at 5:30 pm

except for one small tiny little detail, neo…..gay men don’t yet HAVE power. not even the power to be left the hell alone to live their own lives as they see fit.

Gay men – GLBT anybody – are not trying to force anybody else to be G, L, B or T. You can’t say that about the Christian “majority.”

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 3:04 am

Thanks for the response Cat,
To the contrary, I would argue that gay men do have some power. Clearly, not as much as fundamentalist Christians, but it seems clear to me that there is a power struggle between two groups here.

I think you make a valid criticism of the Christian majority, but I still think that homosexuals are trying to gain/protect their power just like the fundamentalists. Your comment seems to even emphasis the fact that there is a power struggle between the two groups.

Reply

DR August 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Are you actually suggesting that a group of people who’ve been murdered, abused, bullied and discriminated against for their sexual orientation have “power”, just because they are trying to organize and fight the majority that either inspires all of the above or actually does it? I’m totally confused by your point of view.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 10:33 pm

“Are you actually suggesting that a group of people who’ve been murdered, abused, bullied and discriminated against for their sexual orientation have “power””
Yes, I think the article suggests this as well, at the very least homosexuals have the power to threaten the power of fundamentalists. If homosexuals truly had no power there would be no reason for fundamentalists to fear them as a threat…. but this seems irrelevant to my original statement.
The point is that homosexuals are trying to gain/maintain/protect power, just like fundamentalists. To say that one group is only after power and the other group isn’t after power at all sounds like nonsense to me, it’s clear to me that there is a power struggle between TWO groups here, and each group wants MORE power, not less.
My statements don’t justify or ignore murder, abuse, bullying or discrimination against homosexuals whatsoever; neither do they classify these as “powers” which homosexuals have, obviously these things oppress homosexuals and do not empower them.

I think we may be using different understandings of “power”, I don’t necessarily feel that you must be oppressing someone or some group to have power…
Hope that clears things up a bit, thanks for the response.

Reply

DR August 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Yes, we disagree. The heterosexual, Christian community has the bulk of power in America. There is no other group that impacts public policy and even theology more than this group. They also have a tremendous amount of privilege as a result. That’s power. That minorities put *effort* and *energy* as well as has some influence as a result of organization and protest? Sure, but the threat of a removal of privilege isn’t the same as having privilege and power to begin with. I think to interchange those words is unnecessary sophistry of idea and discussion and will only serve to inject noise into a very important reality.

Reply

Neo August 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm

I think you’re trying to make this about taking power away from the heterosexual Christian community, when this should be about dealing with relevant issues that affect us all like murder, rape, abuse, etc…
Even if we use your definition of power and accept that homosexuals have no power, as you say…. I still think that telling the heterosexual Christian community that their power should be taken away will only piss them off and get us nowhere.

Reply

Diana A. August 17, 2011 at 4:58 pm

Not all members of the “heterosexual Christian community” are anti-gay. To the contrary, many who participate in this blog, including John Shore, DR, and myself, are heterosexual Christians.

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 4:46 am

How does that matter? No one appears to have asserted otherwise; DR simply noted that that’s where the power is, and Neo concludes therefore that empowering homosexuals diminishes their—our—power.

Reply

Diana A. August 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm

To continue: I have no interest in using your argument against you. I’m not even terribly sure what your argument is or why you’re making it.

Reply

DR August 17, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Neo? You took the wrong pill. I think instead of getting you out of the Matrix, it plunged you in deeper. The matrix *in* the matrix!

That’s deep.

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 4:45 am

It strikes me plain as day that you, DR, are the one interchanging privilege and power.

Reply

Dirk August 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Neo,
I think at this point it bears saying: Everyone here, even not-too-bright me, has made clear that you have not been clear.
It is possible, of course, that we all are too dim and that’s why we have misunderstood you.
This is what I think you are saying, maybe by comparing what I think you meant to what you really meant you can find a way to rephrase your thoughts.

If I understand you correctly, you see the conflict between us, the victims of conservative Christian hatred, expressed through beating, raping, torturing and murdering us and our enemies, just those conservative Christians as one of power.
You seem to be saying, were we to cease defending ourselves and let the conservative Christians continue to beat, rape, torture and murder us as they like, then…and that is where I just don’t follow you.

Reply

Diana A. August 18, 2011 at 5:18 am

Thanks, Dirk. This sums it up nicely.

Reply

Neo August 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt Dirk.
I’ll try my best to rephrase my thoughts.

The articles presents the situation between fundamentalist christians and homosexuals as being one of power.
Essentially, the argument presented in the article is that fundamentalist Christians don’t really care about marriage or sexual morality or whatever homophobic reasons they might give to criticize homosexuals, but they only dislike homosexuals because they see them as a threat to their power.
Specifically, the article presents this power, which is being threatened, as the traditional power hierarchy.

Now I’m not concerned with whether this is true or not, the article could be 100% correct in everything it says and I still think this would be a useless argument.

Why is it useless? You’re probably wondering at this point, because it seems to present valid criticism of the fundamentalist position.

Here’s the issue I have with the argument presented in the article:
It’s not really an argument, it’s just a theory about the motivations of a group of people.
Anyone can make up theories about people’s motivations and defend them all day long, especially when the motivation is argued to be power.
Just like my original example: “Homosexuals know that if fundamentalist Christians are right then criminalizing homosexuality and taking other measures may be justified. They see that the fundamentalist view threatens their power and that’s why they get so crazy about homophobia.”
Again, THIS IS NOT MY POSITION, it is a counter-example designed to show how unfair it is to make a theory about the motivations of a group and then go on to push your theory as a criticism of that group and an argument against their position.

I really hope this helps…

Reply

Dirk August 18, 2011 at 5:47 pm

Neo,
A bit. It does help a bit.
My background is in the hard sciences. I tend to view social theories as next door to useless at best and truly dangerous at worst.
I’m a practical man. If going back to 1858 and letting Dixie go (and please, take Texas with them) with a period of time for the conservative Christians to leave America and go live in fascist, theocratic Confederacy while the good Christians leave Dixie for a sane country will resolve the problem, let’s do it.
Whatever it takes, the number of beatings, rapes, murder and torture of gays, lesbians and the transgender has never been higher. This persecution of us by conservative Christians must stop.
And it will stop.
By any means necessary.

Reply

Neo August 18, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Well said sir,
Except the “By any means” part, don’t stoop down to their level…. MLK never had too and neither should you. Thanks for giving me the chance to explain, we seem to be more on the same page now.

Reply

Pastor PMHA August 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Neo, there is nothing ad hominem in this argument, no personalizing of any statement, and nothing Marxist either, other than saying all people are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights – among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (oh, wait that is American).

And this arguement cannot go both ways because it is about the powerful wanting to maintain that power at whatever cost and seeing anyone not buying into that social construct as dangerous to themselves. The reality is that straight men DO KILL gay men. And Fundamentalist Christians are not right – they have read into the English translation their bias. There is no more threat or abomination of a gay person loving another than there is to eating pork or shrimp, touching a dead body, wearing fabrics of mixed fibers, or any number of other things called “abomination” in the Bible.

Jesus seemed to prefer the open minded and accepting folks, rather than the self-righteous and dominating religious folk. And I say this as a professional religious folk!

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 3:23 am

Pastor PMHA,
Thanks for the response, we may be using the descriptions (Marxist & ad hominem) in different senses.
As for Marxist, I was referring to Marxist Conflict Theory where society is formed of different groups competing against one another for power. The article points out two groups competing for power, that’s what I think makes it a Marxist analysis.
I understand your confusion in my use of the term ad hominem; simply put, I feel that if you make the claim that an opponent in a debate is not concerned with the issue at hand but is only concerned with gaining/protecting power, you are making a personal attack on the person rather than making a logical argument relevant to this issue.
“And this arguement cannot go both ways because it is about the powerful wanting to maintain that power at whatever cost and seeing anyone not buying into that social construct as dangerous to themselves.”
And my argument was that homosexuals may see fundamentalist Christians as dangerous to themselves, so it goes both ways right?
“The reality is that straight men DO KILL gay men” < I see them as dangerous too

"There is no more threat or abomination of a gay person loving another than there is to eating pork or shrimp, touching a dead body, wearing fabrics of mixed fibers, or any number of other things called “abomination” in the Bible."
I confused as to why you begin to argue that homosexuals are not a threat here, seems irrelevant.

I think you may have misunderstood my argument, sorry if I wasn't clear enough I hope this helps.

Reply

DR August 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm

He didn’t misunderstand it, your argument is flawed. This is *all* about power – the power to decide if being gay is right or wrong, the power to decide if being gay is accepted or condemned by God, the power to decide if gay men and women can marry or support their partner at their partner’s death bed. The power to define marriage as only one way vs multiple ways. This is all about power and the wrong people having it. Period.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 10:43 pm

DR,
Besides “He didn’t misunderstand it, your argument is flawed.” and “the wrong people having it.”, everything you’ve written seems entirely consistent with my argument.
I’m sorry but I think you’ve misunderstood as well.
As for “the wrong people having it.”, I haven’t made the claim that the “right” people have the power and I don’t intend to…
I’m claiming that there are two groups here who are BOTH competing for power… not just one. Whether one group is right or wrong is irrelevant to my argument.
I hope this helps better explain my position, maybe I should have been more clear in my original statement.

Reply

DR August 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm

No, they aren’t competing for power. One group wants to keep it. The other group wants to be protected from it. Huge, huge difference, Neo.

Reply

Dirk August 16, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Neo,
Your arguments remind me of why I so hated freshman philosophy.
While we gays, lesbians and the transgender are being murdered, raped, beaten and our families threatened with physical violence, you are voicing a theoretical point of argument based on a discounted social philosophy.

Is it a power conflict? In the sense that the chosen victim of a murderer who defends him or herself against that want-to-be murderer is engaged in a power struggle, sure.

Just, what possible point is there to your comment? That is the crux of the matter.

Reply

Neo August 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Dirk, thank you for your criticism. It strikes me as a very intelligent response, although I think you’ve misunderstood my argument(Just like everyone else apparently lol)
My comment was a criticism of the article, the article makes a marxist analysis of a conflict between two groups. While I believe there is a conflict between two groups, I don’t believe that pointing this out does us any good. We should be making arguments about relevant issues that effect us all.

“While we gays, lesbians and the transgender are being murdered, raped, beaten and our families threatened with physical violence, you are voicing a theoretical point of argument based on a discounted social philosophy.”
This is pretty much my criticism of the article, except I was trying not to pick sides….
The article voices a theoretical point of argument based on a discounted social philosophy while PEOPLE are being murdered, raped, beaten and threatened.
Murder, rape, abuse, threats…..These are the relevant issues we should be dealing with. Instead of dividing society into two groups, pointing fingers and competing for power, we should all be working together to deal with these issues. Taking the former route will only piss off fundamentalists, the latter route might actually help them see things from a different point of view….

It seems that you’re trying to use my own argument against me lol, the difference is that you choose to divide society into two groups…. as if one of the groups is never affected by these relevant issues(like rape, murder, etc.)

Reply

Patrick Mahoney August 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm

I am sorry but I feel the post by Neo is just nonsense. I wasn’t concerned about losing power or being afraid the fundamentalist were right. Goodness, I was a fundamentalist, I grew uo surrounded by straight people and their assumptions about gay folk. I came out for several reasons. I didn’t want to spend my life alone. I didn’t want to go on hiding and being ashamed of myself. It’s crazy to think of gay folk as some seperate population competing for power. We are members of the same families and communities. When anyones rights are dimished all of us suffer. When anyone lives in fear we all have a responsibility to do the right thing.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 3:39 am

Patrick,
Sorry if my post offended you. I only meant to point out that it’s useless to make the claim that one group(out of two competing groups) is after power. It seems clear to me that given any two competing groups, we can conclude that each group is after power in some way, shape or form.

“It’s crazy to think of gay folk as some seperate population competing for power.”
I completely agree, as I wrote to my original post, “I’m not saying this is my position.” I’d like to take it a step further, I think it’s crazy to think of fundamentalist Christians as a seperate population competing for power as well. This I think, is exactly what the article does.
Unfortunately, if we view society as being composed of different groups competing for power, I feel that we would have to place homosexuals in that category as well as fundamentalist Christians. Personally, I don’t feel that this is the way we should be looking at members of our society, hence my criticism. I hope that clears things up a bit; I really didn’t mean to offend.

Reply

DR August 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm

I think it’s crazy to think of fundamentalist Christians as a seperate population competing for power as well. >>>

What is it, exactly, that you think Fundamentalists are so scared of losing? They are losing the power to decide what God thinks about marriage, family and how gay men and women play a part in that.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 11:13 pm

DR,
I feel that your statement here implicitly puts homosexuals in the position of a separate population competing for power.
I don’t think you can say that one group is competing for power while the other isn’t. If one is, then they both are.
If one isn’t, then neither are.
There cannot be one group competing for power against no one, if this is the case then they are not truly competing for power.

Reply

DR August 15, 2011 at 8:57 pm

I am literally speechless.

Reply

Diana A. August 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm

I get the impression that Neo is mostly interested in an intellectual debate and does not understand that there are real human beings at the other end of his arguments. I could be wrong.

Reply

DR August 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm

Yes. It’s so creepy. It’s like watching a drowning man struggle for life and then making this casual observation, “It would appear as though the drowning man is struggling for power against the ocean.”

Reply

Neo August 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Diana and DR,
These are the same impressions I get from reading the article.
You’re trying to use my own argument against me lol, the difference is that you choose to divide society into two groups…. as if one of the groups is never affected by the relevant issues(like rape, murder, etc.).

Reply

DR August 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm

Neo, with all due respect it seems like the collective response to your comments can be summed up in a very short, “Dude. WTF?”

There is nothing you’re saying that has any *impact* to the real-world homophobia that’s prevalent in our culture and is being actively promoted and spread by Christians. That’s the only thing that matters – stopping that. Stop pontificating about power and get engaged in the real debate, you seem smart!

Reply

Neo August 18, 2011 at 9:41 pm

DR,
The article pontificates about power and avoids the real issues, that’s why I criticized it….
With all due respect, it’s becoming very difficult to engage in intelligent discussion with you.

Reply

DR August 19, 2011 at 7:42 am

Neo, it looks like we’ll just agree to disagree (I left the discussion. Enjoy yours with the others!)

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 5:31 am

“I get the impression that Neo is mostly interested in an intellectual debate and does not understand that there are real human beings at the other end of his arguments.”

“It’s like watching a drowning man struggle for life and then making this casual observation, ‘It would appear as though the drowning man is struggling for power against the ocean.’”

What silliness! Was it not abundantly clear by this point that Neo’s very point is that this—it seems to him (though I could, and perhaps you all should, have argued otherwise)—is exactly what John Shore’s article here is effectively doing on this issue?

Reply

nikos August 14, 2011 at 5:51 am

I’m pretty sure homosexuals get crazy about the fundamentalist Christian (or just fundamentalist religion in general) view of homosexuality is because it leads to people getting beaten to death. The fundamentalist standpoint is at best forced closeting and banning from public life anyone gay, and at worst literally homicidal. The power threat only applies to those in power, and homosexuals ain’t the ones in power.

Reply

Diana A. August 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm

It’s the little things, like death, that get a person down, ya’ know?

Seriously, thanks for the reminder about what’s at stake here.

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 11:04 pm

Nikos, great input!
If it’s true that the fundamentalist Christian view leads to people getting beaten to death, then we have a valid criticism of the fundamentalist position.
I want to make it clear that I do not mean to defend the fundamentalist position.
I think arguing that one group is after power and one group is not a relevant or valid criticism, unlike the criticism you’ve given.
Whether one group is in power or not is irrelevant, the two groups are still competing for power.
I hope you can see how your argument actually deals with the issue at hand and doesn’t go both ways, unlike the argument given in the article which I meant to criticize.
I think we should be using specific arguments and criticisms which deal with the issue at hand(like yours) rather than irrelevant arguments that can go both ways(like the one given in the article).

Reply

Neo August 14, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Sorry, meant to write
“I think arguing that one group is after power and one group is not cannot be a relevant or valid criticism, unlike the criticism you’ve given.” for line 7…. Guess I’ve been writing too much already lol.

Reply

DR August 17, 2011 at 6:54 pm
DR August 17, 2011 at 6:55 pm

I’m so sorry to ask this – I mean it. But…are you high? It’s a serious question. This doesn’t even make sense.

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 8:11 am

Ok… so now there’s nothing here to add this to:

Of course, it would be a mistake for me not to hasten to add that I consider you, DR, and you, Neo, and Diane and everyone else in the world who isn’t against me on the issue at hand, as on precisely the same team. That doesn’t mean teammates don’t ever dis one another’s game. The ultimate purpose in doing so improving the overall effectiveness of the team, and I simply feel that DR had a habit—not to say I don’t yet have far worse habits myself—of contributing unnecessarily to factionalism within the team, which of course does harm to its potential for effective teamwork, and degrades the overall team spirit. Knowing, however, that she’s not going to quit this team just because I give her a hard time—no, she’s a true fighter—I allow myself the liberty of doing so. Why? I was never born to be much of a team player myself. But I do wish everyone no hard feelings.
(See how much wordier it is to try to be more diplomatic about these things?)

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 8:48 am

Since John is going—as he certainly should—to make sure I play by his rules (which, as with all the most natural of rules, seem to have a somewhat fuzzy at the borderline) one way or another, and as I’m just getting too old for this nonsense, I suppose DR and I—mostly I—had better figure out once and for all how we’re going to play nice (or nicER) around one another.
Here’s my proposal, if you’re out there, DR: In the future (and I’ll not comment any further on anything from the past), if I think you’re just not quite getting it, I’ll simply comment—and if you have a better idea, go ahead and let me know, but for lack of a better idea—”I don’t know about that, DR,” and I’m done. It’ll be up to you how to react/respond/whatever to that. And when you, or John, see me crossing the line, you can simply say “Matt…” and I pledge to tone it way down immediately or else not to comment until I do (which is, of course, not to say that John can’t still remove whatever remarks he wants any time he chooses).
What do you say to that, DR? John?

Reply

Alan Austin August 13, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Increasingly, Biblical scholars are agreeing that all the Biblical texts interpreted as condemning gay activity in fact condemn same-sex abuses – rape, exploitation, prostitution, heathen worship practices – not loving committed relationships.
And increasingly, churches which welcome gay couples are finding their ministry enhanced.
Excellent article. Thanks.

Reply

nikos August 14, 2011 at 5:59 am

Can we just accept that we’re talking about a millennia-old text written by people? It’s going to be flawed, and some of those flaws are going to come through as hate directed irrationally at an entire group of people.

Just a note, “heathen worship practices” grouped in with rape and exploitation is a pretty good example of the kind of thought I’m talking about.

Reply

Diana A. August 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

I agree with this one too. The need some people have for every word in the Bible to be literally true drives us sometimes to absurd measures in pursuit of that goal. Much better to remember that “inspired by God” and “dictated by God” are two different things.

Reply

Karen August 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm

As well, sodomy was a form of pagan worship at the time. So was Paul talking about the act of homosexuality, or was he talking about what it meant? I see it the same as the little golden calves on my 4-H trophies from my youth are not a sin, but the golden calf that was built to be worshiped was.

Reply

Sarah August 13, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Wow! This piece certainly hits at least one of the nails, squarely on the head! Thanks for that!

Reply

Gina August 13, 2011 at 2:24 pm

I really like this article and agree with you about the lack of fear from lesbian sex. But you don’t speak to the reason why some women find gay-men-sex threatening. I’m wondering how their fear plays into your male power theory. Surely they can’t all be Polly-homemakers from the 50′s that believe their world rises and sets in the success and happiness of their husband-providers and thus anything that upsets their hubby’s world is detrimental to their own! Although maybe they are fearful of the declining potential mate pool–but is there real happiness in a marriage to a closeted gay man?

Reply

Pastor PMHA August 13, 2011 at 6:04 pm

The women may be afraid their world will fall apart if their husbands come out of the closet. Mixed Orientation Marriages exist and are devistating before, during and after the truth comes out. See books about the topic by Amity Buxton, Carol Greve, and articles about such public outings of senators, fundamentalist pastors and govenors (dishonesty with self and others always hurts someone).

Reply

cat rennolds August 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm

it’s not about happiness, for anybody. it’s about reproduction and it’s about power. Power to force that man to provide for you and your children whether he wants to or not, if not legally then by social pressure.

A lot of them ARE “Polly homemakers.” The secret power the feminists never want to admit to, to control a whole family by apparent sweetness and submission. Making your happiness the yardstick of his success. Letting him think he’s making the decisions while you run his life. Anything detrimental to his world IS detrimental to yours; it’s less profitable, less comfortable, less happily-ever-after. It diminishes your STATUS. Your IMAGE. What will the neighbors think? The Happy Family Game is a competition, and the whole GLBT community, given equal status, would make it look pointless by comparison.

There are also oppressed, brainwashed women who rabidly endorse the system oppressing them. Otherwise they’d have to look at themselves and go, “How did I let this happen to me?”

Plus, there are already more women than men. Female infant mortality is lower, we’re overall healthier, and we live longer. In a monogamous culture, if men start marrying each other, there are going to be even fewer of them to go around. Of course, with our overpopulation, this is a bad thing, how? But you are looking at thousands of years of training versus only a few decades of technology and overpopulation.

It’s not politically correct, or at all pleasant to look at, but there are some serious hind-brain, instinctive, PHYSICAL reactions going on here. It’s not just acculturation. I know the popular thought is “homophobes are closet homosexuals,” and sometimes it’s true, but sometimes it’s just a gut-level ick factor. I know a LOT of gays and lesbians who get the same ick factor from even the idea of straight sex.

Gregarious animals, with a few exceptions, establish power by harassing each other until the strongest one is on top and makes the rules. Then the less powerful ones will gang up on the least powerful and the most different. The more unusual an individual is, the more harassed he is going to be. Sometimes to death. But are we humans, or are we chickens?

Reply

DR August 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Of course, the response of the church is poor at best and needs A LOT of reflection on how to be more Christlike in this whole debate.>>>

Thanks for clearing that up. It would be great to hear you actually be specific as to what some of the contributing factors are instead of diminishing this one (which has got tons of citation and support behind it).

Reply

Jeannie August 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Wow. I got to say, this just makes so much sense.

Reply

Tracy Smith August 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm

It’s always amazed me the extremely shaky base that stereotyped “masculinity” is based on. If one’s self-esteem comes from external bases — how other people in one’s life behave — then it’s just essentially a house of cards. True self-esteem comes from within and is not affected by what other people do or think. Concerning men vs women, how does a man truly “win”, when the woman has agreed to always come in second — to play a rigged game?

As far as men being stronger than women — yes, they are, if you’re talking about brute strength. But there are other types of strength, such as the strength it takes to endure the agony of labor and to push a new life into the world. I once read somewhere that men can run faster, but women can run longer. Women’s strength is that of endurance, rather than brute strength. So, though not exactly the same, it is equal, because both types of strength are needed in the world.

Reply

John Shore August 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Lanie: Good points; made with too much toxicity. I’ve put you on moderation. Be nicer!

Reply

Lanie August 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Wow.. are you kidding? You’ve edited what I’ve said to make it look like I sweared at you. That’s pretty outrageous.

Reply

Lanie August 13, 2011 at 1:45 pm

ALSO- you can’t possibly edit what I say and call me an asshole at the same time.

Reply

John Shore August 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm

I can. I did.

Reply

John Shore August 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Another good point! I changed.

Reply

Danielle August 13, 2011 at 11:20 am

Well, sure, fear of losing power may be in the mix. But a 1996 study also showed that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal. Hence, overcompensation for much-feared feelings of same-sex attraction in the form of homophobia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Reply

Brad in Oklahoma July 29, 2011 at 8:05 pm

I agree that it is the whole power thing that scares the bejeebus out of them. Think about it gay men call their significant others “partners”. A partner by definition is someone who is equal and shares in the endeavour. If a str8 man thinks he is the head of the household but boom his wife considers herself a “partner” he looses power because that would entail allowing her to share equally in tasks and decisions. I personally like having somebody to walk beside me and help to keep the pace as we make it through our life’s journey! But then again, I like power-sharing!

Reply

Tracy Smith July 29, 2011 at 11:38 am

I think you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head here. It is the men who are most insecure about their own sexuality who tend to be the most homophobic.

I think a big reason why gay men are reviled more than lesbians is related to misogyny. That is, these people see gay men as taking on the role of a woman, thus giving up their manhood.

Reply

Allen August 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Right you are, Tracy. And that’s why “which one of you is the man in the relationship?” keeps getting asked of gay couples (lesbian couples too, for all I know). It’s usually a straight man who asks that, and I think part of the reason is, from their perspective, that tells them which one of us they need to pay attention to.

Reply

Pastor PMHA August 13, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Yes, in fact the New Testament word translated in the past as “homosexual” is actually literally the “abuse of one man by another”

Reply

Meandnotyou March 16, 2011 at 9:56 pm

Great last line. That really does sum it up.

Reply

Robert June 13, 2011 at 8:32 am

you know… the whole christian thing about loving the sinner but hating the sin… is sort of like saying… “I love african americans… except for the color of their skin”.

Reply

Sara August 13, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Excellent analogy Robert – I’m going to adopt it. Thanks!

Reply

Dennis Gilbert March 11, 2011 at 5:25 pm

You all are just discovering what I’ve known for awhile….John Shore can bring it! Great writer that continues to challenge me every day to be a better person of faith

Thanks, John! Lokks like you’ve got a few new fans…

Reply

Laura Morefield March 10, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Wow. When I read this blog (as a radical, recovering fundamentalist Christian), I was smacked between the eyes. Of course that’s what this is all about. Doh.

Great job.

Reply

Douglas August 13, 2011 at 1:20 pm

You’re not the only one!

Reply

JohnJay60 March 9, 2011 at 9:06 am

Please note some corrections. The bible does not say slavery is GOOD. It acknowledges the situation, as an economic condition and not a social condition, and had in the Old Testament elaborate rules for treatment and release from slavery, and in the New Testament an impassioned plea from Paul to a slave owner’s master for leniency. Also Christianity got over the whole shellfish thing in the middle of the Acts of the Apostles; you may be thinking of Levitical law 1500 years earlier.

Reply

DR March 10, 2011 at 2:28 pm

You’re not even addressing the point. The Bible was used to justify that slavery was “good”.

Reply

Michael Rowe March 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm

When Paul said “slaves, obey your masters,” he wasn’t “acknowledging slavery as a social condition,” he was endorsing it. He didn’t say, “Masters, free your slaves.” Is Christianity and the Bible really that difficult to defend without changing what it actually says? If so, perhaps it’s time for a change of religion

Reply

Matthew Tweedell March 11, 2011 at 2:07 am

What St. Paul was endorsing was obedience and subservience, accepting of the lot one’s been given in life. He didn’t give a clear endorsement like “Masters, take more slaves.” The Bible teaches, in fact, that we all have our masters, but no man can ultimately serve more than one. It is no coincidence, you see, that the new religion spread like wildfire among the enslaved and oppressed in the Roman Empire. It’s spiritual rebellion, of slaves against their overlords and of Jews and others oppressed under Roman governance. The Kingdom of our Lord is not of this world; it’s out of this world, man! How radical Christianity is, was, and ever shall be: for the Truth shall set you free! We submit and subordinate then unto worldly authorities simply because it has been so ordered by our one heavenly Lord, Master and Teacher, who ultimately Himself is namely a perfect servant unto us! The Word of our Father has been born to us, not to bind us, but to advise what’s ultimately in our own best interests, so we freely choose (as the first “free” thing we really can do, owing to how sins puts one’s own true nature in a bind, prior even to truly apprehending the capacity for a choice) to listen to the Word of the Father, as we trust in His manifest Wisdom and Love for us. So, in serving our Lord—the Lord even of Lords, the Almighty—we are not so much serfs, as sons of God. Therefore, let us accept as worthy of adherence the command that we “do not resist an evildoer”, and in the same Spirit, let those enslaved obey their masters, until that day when He shall pass over them and set them free—surely that day is coming and is already come! So let us put the past behind us and get on with the journey through the wilderness; the Promised Land awaits us on the other side!

Reply

Cameron July 21, 2011 at 3:56 am

“What St. Paul was endorsing was obedience and subservience, accepting of the lot one’s been given in life. ” Ya know, Mathew – you probably aren’t ever going to read this, as I am months behind you posting it. But I am just SO grateful that Martin Luther King Jr., along with thousands of other people, did not buy into the above statement in the era of the Civil Rights marches, and Freedom Rides. People were beaten, hosed down with fire hoses, gassed, beaten shot and KILLED resisting their “lot in life” to be treated as less than human.
When the money changers in the temple were turning God’s great dwelling into a circus of animals, manure, noise, theft and usury, they were abusing the poor who came with very little, struggling to buy their offerings. The poor were supposed to be subservient. Its their lot in life to be on the lower rung – and great is their reward in heaven, for the poor you have always with you. Jesus made a whip out of rope and in a move that would have scandalized non-violent Gandhi, waded in, over-turned tables, scattering money everywhere and brought down the hammer. He beat the crap out of the money changers abusing their power and abusing the poor.
So lets just knock off with the whole subservience is always and only the right thing. There is a time and place for everything including when to serve and when to resist – and when to resist non-violently and when to resort to violence.. Wisdom is knowing when to do which.

Reply

Matthew Tweedell February 9, 2012 at 4:18 am

“the whole subservience is always and only the right thing”

W.T.F.?
I, for one, have argued no such thing. Pardon me, but I am by nature a fighter myself. I really struggle with the whole “turn the other cheek” thing. But you said it yourself:

“People were beaten, hosed down with fire hoses, gassed, beaten shot and KILLED resisting their ‘lot in life’ to be treated as less than human.”

If only this were a Christian nation, in the true sense of the word, this should not ever have been necessary at all. And it proves Paul right, that resisting is dangerous. I still think he was giving rather practical, situationally dependent advice. What slave uprising ever ultimately succeeded? Rather the institution was brought down in the end by external forces of justice.

By the way, Jesus never taught us to follow his example in the temple, but his example on Calvary: He did not say, “Take up your whip and follow me,” but “Take up your cross and follow me”. The temple incident gives us rather an example—that of the moneychangers—of whom *not* to be like, if we wish to avoid God’s righteous anger.
In any case, there’s no indication that he used the whip to ever actually strike anyone, but only to drive them from the temple. I would think the sight of the approach of a seemingly crazed man swinging around a long, thick whip, and the sound of him cracking it against the table where one is working would be sufficient to drive away most self-interested individuals without bodily violence. If Jesus ever inflicted bodily harm to anyone, ever, all four Gospel-writers have somehow neglected anywhere simply to say so.

Now, the late Rev. Dr. (or can we just call him Saint already?) Martin Luther King, Jr., did a superb job—in rather Christ-like fashion—of maintaining proper balance between fighting against the established unjust order in the manner that’s most effective—a war of the spirit—and not in the way that’s most damaging—physical warfare. Of course, that doesn’t—neither for Dr. King nor Jesus Christ—prevent others from applying this tactic against oneself, but by limiting the wrongs to one and not making them two, at least the losses are more limited overall. And as for the gains? The Kingdom and a seat of honor at the table there of the Prince of Peace. But that’s not to say there isn’t also a place there for those who physically fought so valiantly, be it at Gettysburg in 1863 or Tripoli in 2011, for an increase in what is good and right.

Yes, I know perfectly well that there is “a time for peace and a time for war”. But I really don’t like war. Perhaps I just have too much on my conscience as relates to that particular issue.

Reply

Alan December 15, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Let’s spend a moment of silence considering all the electrons that lost their lives in this pointless argument with a guy whose one and only rhetorical ability is post-hoc reasoning.

BTW, interesting ironical tidbit… I notice Phillip mentions he’s a dispensationalist. In the old days, my traditional and orthodox Calvinist religious forebears would have burned him at the stake for such heresy. These days it is the fundamentalist dispensationalists who are supporting churches and laws in Uganda that work to make homosexuality a capital offense.

So it goes…

Anyway, as for the topic. There’s some interesting research out there correlating increased homophobia with increased arousal when subjects viewed erotic same-sex images. And, of course, one hardly needs a study to see the hundreds of high-profile loudmouth homophobes that get caught every year with some rent-boy “lifting their luggage.” (Thanks to uber-homophobe and quack psychologist George Rekkers for introducing that phrase into the lexicon.) While I am well aware that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, I also know that two points make a line and five points make a trend.

I was raised in the midwest, and never learned an appreciation for eating fish, seafood, or shellfish. (When I was growing up, the Filet o Fish was the gold standard of seafood in these parts.) Even today I still don’t like those things. Yet somehow, I am able to restrain myself from trolling from blog to blog arguing with seafood lovers about how fish tastes and smells like a rotting corpse, or haranguing people about the dangers of mercury in lake fish, or fantasizing about the disgusting texture of scallops. *shudder* However, every day “straight” folks wander around blogs pretending (uh…pretending?) to be experts on homosexuality, experts on the health aspects of being gay, and conjuring up all sorts of fantasies about gay sex in military showers. Weird.

But as someone observed in a previous comment, the closet queen explanation may describe many of the homophobes, but probably not all. So what about the other 1%? In my experience, one can never underestimate the overwhelming and deep-seated need some people have to be meddlesome busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds.

Since we’re unlikely to convince them of the wrongness of their ideas, regardless of the underlying reasons for why these supposedly straight folks spend so much time obsessing about man-on-man action, my question is this: Is our enabling of that obsessive behavior by engaging with such people really healthy for them? Or for us?

And what about the electrons? My God people, won’t someone please think of the electrons?!?!

Oh well, as long as trolling blogs keeps the homophobes out of the rest stops, maybe it’s a useful outlet.

Reply

Anonymous December 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Wow, Alan. Welcome to the upper, upper, upper echelon of my (or anyone else’s, ever, anywhere on the web) blog.

Reply

Cheryl Ensom December 15, 2010 at 8:13 pm

I like you!

Reply

Shadsie December 15, 2010 at 9:24 pm

*Laughing* I was reading your post while lunching on raw tuna. I first tried sushi last year – fell in love with the stuff and get it whenever I can.

Fantasies about military showers – I want to have *words* with those people. Though maybe they wouldn’t believe me because I am female and of course women aren’t as horny as men or something. I had a stint in Basic Training – Air Force, way back in 2000. I enlisted because I was poor, wanted money for college and adventure/to escape my family – it didn’t work out for me. I was one of the (emotionally) weak people quickly culled from the herd, but I remember the experience. Indeed, in basic training, you shower with your group in communal showers. I saw lots of naked women and they saw me – no desires to do anything with that. “May I borrow your shampoo” was about as “sexy” as it got. We had all of FIVE MINUTES to spend showering, bone-tired from the day and needing to get quickly back to our bunks to polish our boots and organize our things *exactly* the way the TI wanted it to avoid group punishment in the morning. When your feet are covered with bursting blisters from breaking in your boots and you’re hungry and sick because you got all of five minutes to hork down what dinner you could get into you and you’re so tired you could die — yeah, sex is the *first* thing on your mind *rolls eyes.*

Reply

Cheryl Ensom December 15, 2010 at 9:31 pm

I think we’d all like to know if you have a blog, Alan. :)

Reply

Suz December 16, 2010 at 2:44 am

Not to pander or anything, but you seem pretty smart, pretty funny, and you’re a VERY good writer!

Reply

vj December 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm

“In my experience, one can never underestimate the overwhelming and deep-seated need some people have to be meddlesome busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds.”

I think, Alan, that you have entirely hit the nail on the head….

Reply

StraightGrandmother December 16, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Alan I really enjoyed your post.

Reply

Jim March 14, 2011 at 11:11 am

Alan, I don’t know where I can find more of your writing, but, I’d be a REGULAR READER if you post somewhere. JIM

Reply

Phillip Yanda December 15, 2010 at 8:56 am

Agreed. I was just clarifying that what Sandy Beach was saying, “When this is refused, they ask for Lot’s daughters!”, never happened.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post in Christian Issues:

Next post in Christian Issues: