This morning I came into work to Fox Noise Channel's ongoing coverage of the beauty queen homophobe's supposed persecution by the evil liberal media, and now apparently Donald Trump. Great way to start off a Monday! I hate to rant, but really, are Conservative Evangelicals really this hypocritical to make this chick their gay-marriage martyr after pornographic photos she apparently lied about taking have come to light?? And yes, I think they are pornographic, not "tasteful" as the moron on Fox described them as.
This whole shit storm beautifully illustrates how warped the Christian right's views on gay marriage really are. Gay marriage will supposedly destroy the sanctity and institution of marriage they argue, yet the type of "modeling" Miss Prejean has been involved in has done more to tarnish and destroy traditional marriage in this country than the gay rights lobbies could ever dream of. It just goes to show how dogmatic the issue of gay marriage has become with some Christian conservatives.
Conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this, and they need to just back out before they continue to look even more foolish. Marriage is not going anywhere, unless you believe something instituted by God can be destroyed by humans. We live in a pluralistic, secular, democracy. So gay couples should have the same rights heterosexual couples have, and if this country wants to call it marriage then so be it. I personally would disagree that the term "marriage" accurately describes the union of two homosexuals, but I also would disagree it accurately describes whatever that two day fling was that Brittany Spears had as well. The bottom line is that family will not be strengthened when we have a marriage amendment to the constitution, as conservative evangelicals so fervently believe. The family will begin to be strengthened when we start treating each other as human beings and not sex objects. And it will be strengthened when we actually see marriage as a covenant rather than a contract we can tear up when things get tough. Until these Christians recognize that, they're going to continue turning Americans off to their brand of Christianity. Not that that's a bad thing.
4 comments:
my only disagreement here is that someone is a "homophobe" because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman?
i think those who choose to take shots at whats-her-name (i realize this is not a shot at her, you're rightly targetting the odd "christian" right), need to be careful they don't actually do the thing they are perhaps dishonestly accusing her of.
her statement was only about her personal belief, she didn't take a shot at anyone...
that really is ALL i have to say about that...
thanks for commenting dave!
i wrote the word homophobe while i was in rant mode and debated as to whether i should change it. i chose not to because after i thought about it, in my experience, i don't think i have met one person who is opposed to gay marriage who doesn't display homophobic sensibilities. i'm sure there are exceptions, but, for the most part, it seems to be that if you're an opponent of "gay marriage", then you also tend to be homophobic.
sounds to me that you might be overly expanding the definition of "homophobic."
is someone homophobic simply because they think homosexuality is "wrong"?
i'm sure that is how some are defining it these days, but i would suggest is is intellectually intolerant to libel (that is not a typo) someone simply because they choose to assign a moral standard to a certain activity.
thanks dave, i know what libel is :).
let me clarify my own views first: i believe marriage is between a man and woman. i believe homosexuality is not what God intended.
websters: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
so there is the technical definition. to me, homophobia is simply a deep-seeded hostility towards gay people. and in my experience, people who are opponents of gay marriage often display such hostility. it's a little like someone saying they are for segregated bathrooms. you would assume that someone who is for such a thing is racist.
that said, miss prejean may not have said hostility, but notice that the webster's definition included "discrimination against homosexuals." i believe denying rights that heterosexual couples have to homosexual couples is disciminatory. therefore, i can still in good conscious call her homophobic.
Post a Comment