Audio: We are offended. PERSONALLY.
In this audio snippet from a recent California marriage panel, you'll hear the voices of Skyline Church's Dr. Jim Garlow, conservative personality Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, and Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton. Marvel in just how little they realize (or admit) how intrinsically personal their gay-exclusive actions really are:
Okay, first off: We aren't TRYING to turn anything in this "culture war" into anything. Gay people's response to having our rights hijacked is not something that we have coordinated in board rooms. The messaging for certain campaigns, maybe. But the pain, the frustration, the deeply personal hurt -- that is organic. We accuse the other side of hurting our personal lives because they are -- wait for it, wait for it -- HURTING OUR PERSONAL LIVES. Realistically. Tangibly. Demonstrably. The hurt is both authentic and gut-wrenching.
As for the veganism argument? Well of course it is easier to disconnect that debate from one's sense of personal self because it is a dietary choice, not an orientation. In fact, in terms of links between veganism and anti-gay sentiment, it would be a more accurate parallel to compare gay people with the cow! After all, since both the animal protection and the pro-gay arguments revolve around cruelty towards living things, those who are being subjected to the cruelty are the ones who can't help but feel personally slighted!
And lastly -- it is complete and utter B.S. to act as if the LGBT community is packed to the gills with people who are opposed to marriage equality. There are of course some, just like there are some devout evangelicals who are in favor of gay rights. But to suggest that there are "a number of" anti-marriage equality gays traipsing through this nation is as much of a red herring as saying opposing gay civil equality shouldn't make a gay person feel personally slighted. Both ideas overlook actuality in favor of advantageous rhetoric.
But we do get why these kids feel the need to take this off a personal playing field. After all, human beings do have to sleep at night.
*MORE: Watch the full video from the 10/19 marriage panel. Above part begins around the 20:02 mark:
I'm not sure if I have the stomach to watch, I'm not sure if that's cowardice or what, but I do like this point very much:
"The messaging for certain campaigns, maybe. But the pain, the frustration, the deeply personal hurt -- that is organic."
Posted by: zortnac | Oct 28, 2008 12:02:55 PM
Zortnac: There's no real reason to watch the full vid. Other than this audio clip and the one Maggie Gallagher point that we made earlier, most of the video is standard conservative talk.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 28, 2008 12:17:03 PM
this is the "lowest form of politics" and yes people do hate vegans, not because they consider us sinners, but we represent a threat to their former thinking.
Posted by: queerunity | Oct 28, 2008 12:43:28 PM
queeruntiy: I didn't want to get too far into that in this post; but yes, there can be some pretty intense hostility towards veg people.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 28, 2008 12:58:54 PM
I don't trust any Church's (especially those who have this kind of extremist view) words on this. Evangelicals tend to overreact, are extremist and won't even listen to anything that is outside of their extreme worldview.
Posted by: Benjamin | Oct 28, 2008 8:12:21 PM
If we could classify any taking of power from another person as low or high on some scale that actually existed I feel (feel being the operative word) that religion would rank pretty low.
If I exercise power over someone and tell them that an invisible eternal force makes it okay to do that, no argument will ever be sufficient to prove me wrong.
I almost wish I were a sociopath when I see religious leaders. They have so much power. And the money. Imagine receiving $100s of dollars from each of your million or more followers every year.
Hopefully, as information becomes more and more available gullibility will literally die out. Informed and curious people are a lot harder to control with calls of faith for the existence of invisible beings. You actually have to start explaining what you do using reality based arguments.
Posted by: Lance Bergstrom | Nov 20, 2008 7:21:34 PMcomments powered by Disqus