I read the comments on a Breitbart article that criticizes the 2017 film Call Me By Your Name for depicting a romance between two bisexual men ages 17 and 24. I may not have found the levelheaded conversation to be had about legal consent, but I did find something that invokes a wonderment all its own.
Homowood
The film industry? Not fans, Breitbart readers:
Whenever and ANYTIME homosexual scene just appears in the middle of a movie and/or a series....my channel gets changed. [...] They only throw scenes like that in to try and assimilate people, that things like this is "okay"....but it's not and NEVER has been!
The first response noted that "I am the same, I instantly shut off that repulsive vomit-inducing filth." Another joined in,
"...if a series we are watching, decides midstream to throw a gay couple in, like SuperGirl, for example, thats it. Channel is turned. Me and mine will NEVER think homosexuality is normal! God doesn't make mistakes!!
Well, one could perhaps argue that he did, dear commentator. Another reader described similar sentiments:
Boycott, no need for cable, save some money, I cut mine two years ago, haven't see a theater Movie in a few years. All Marxist Propaganda, and Anti White inserted in nearly every film, sitcom, commercial. Degenerate homosexual agenda to capture more little boy, Trans Freaks, I've tuned out, other than Tucker Carlson, free on YouTube at my convenience.
Well, it's nice that she gives Tucker Carlson a pass.
No worries, evil Western media is "being replaced by Bollywood and anime." Indeed, "It's funny a lot of people don't realize how many strong conservative values are represented in some animes." My mistake - I didn't realize the gayest export of Japan was chocked full of conservatism, but there you have it.
Article 1: "Piers Akerman: Hypocrisy is the Winner in the Same Sex Marriage Debate"
This is a fascinating emotional appeal from conservative columnist Piers Akerman. He throws out a populist line about the Australian public, who will soon vote on marriage equality, having a longer memory than gay rights advocates credit them. There is some irony here, since he goes on to make a number of arguments that anyone paying attention to the gay rights debate could easily debunk. a) Marriage equality is equivalent to discarding traditional marriage He cites Masha Gessen (mistakenly printed as Marsha in the article) and her ideas about how marriage should change or be discarded. To my eye, Masha is advocating for typical feminist/leftist ideas. Conservative news sources pounced on this and interpreted it as the MYSTERIOUS AND POWERFUL GAY LOBBY admitting their true intent. Assuming that support for gay marriage is equivalent to extreme feminist propaganda is naive at best. Support for marriage equality is an expansion of the definition of marriage. It does not nullify or discard traditional marriage. Indeed, if traditionalists were a bit smarter, they could easily ride the marriage equality train with the goal of strengthening all marriages, lowering the rate of divorce, and advocating for responsible sexual conduct. b) Gay marriage will have impending negative consequences
No matter how much I tell myself I’m over how society treats (or has treated) gay people, I’m not over it. I recently watched Brokeback Mountain (2005) for the first time, and bawled afterward. Take a look at what's facing gay men and women in Chechnya. The world is something of a hot mess (surprise).
The Video
I want to talk about a clip that’s surfaced both on my social media and in my thesis research. Ideologically labeled, “Christian Pastor Destroys Gay Pastor,” it’s a clip of two pastors debating same-sex marriage shortly after the corresponding Supreme Court ruling. To spare you from watching the exchange, I’ve paraphrased their discussion below. 'J' is Dr. Robert Jeffress arguing against gay marriage, and 'C' is Rev. Neil Cazares-Thompson arguing for it.
J: Should bakers lose their business for not baking gay cakes?
C: Should the law not protect people who oppose slavery or support interracial marriage?
J: Race is different from sexual choice. My black friend agrees with me.
C: Being gay is a gift from God, it’s not a choice.
J: All sexual activity is a choice. Maybe not inclination though.
C: Christianity has continued to evolve through tradition and our understanding of scripture.
J: God’s word never evolves or changes.
C: God still reveals himself through living beings.
J: God doesn’t contradict himself. Jesus says a man shall leave for a woman, which has been the pattern for 2,000+ years.
C: Marriage wasn’t about a man and a woman loving each other as much as it was about property and men’s domination of women. We have evolved on marriage.
J: It was God’s created plan. It wasn’t about domination, but about one man and one woman. Who are we to say we know better than God?
C: Should we continue slavery, considering it was okay in the Bible?
J: Slavery was never condoned in the Bible. Those who led the fight against slavery were Christians.
Religious Freedom
Turning away gay customers is inherently not a good thing, and the manner in which the government interferes is something beyond the complexity of this post. Dr. Jeffress asks a loaded question, assuming at least a few things:
Catering a wedding means supporting the behavior and beliefs of the couple
Gay marriage is not compatible with Christianity
Religious beliefs must explicitly inform business practice
The government’s intervention in this matter is contrary to the first amendment
All of these should be argued in their own right before asking if bakeries should “have their businesses taken away from them.” I would hope that most Americans do not want to live in a “big brother” society. The way to balance that desire with protecting minority groups from unfair abuse is a matter more complex than this post intends to go.
Race vs. Sexuality
No, race and sexuality are not perfectly analogous. But analogies aren’t drawn between things that are the same, they’re drawn between things that are different but offer important similarities to clarify arguments about one or both. Saying these things are different does not nullify Rev. Cazarez-Thompson's analogy.
Orientation vs. Behavior
Sexual orientation is a construct of our society. Even heterosexuality wasn’t really an accepted concept until the 20th century. Rev. Cazares-Thomas implies as much in a different portion of the interview I’m not going over here (complete debate can be found here). First century understanding of same sex sexual behavior is naturally vastly different than ours. Conflating the two understandings is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Without engaging the concepts that make this entire debate function, it’s impossible to convey your belief for or against gay marriage.
Evolution of Religion
Be forewarned: You’re never going to win an argument about this with a fundamentalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re perfectly reasonable and have the perfect case for what is historically provable. Fundamentalism, like extreme liberalism, inherently ignores history in favor of revisionism. It took me a long time to accept this, but the “historical context” they provide for Scripture is little more than a snapshot of a 2,000 year old world with almost zero regard for everything that has happened since. To a fundamentalist, quoting a passage of scripture that sounds relevant has more weight than a rational argument based on thousands of years of tradition and history. The two should go hand in hand.
Instead of discussion divine revelation, however, I want to focus on the given examples of religious evolution: marriage and slavery.
Example A: Marriage
It was over a millennium after Jesus death that marriage for love began to become a thing—and that was only in Europe. In the Middle East and India today, love marriages are either unpopular or considered socially unacceptable.
Believing that the current Fundamental Baptist ideal for marriage has always been God’s plan and it’s always been that way is absurd. Many marriages in the Bible have components that are not acceptable today, especially when it comes to women. Polygamy, anyone?
And let me say how frustrating the How do we know better than God? reasoning is. The only way we can hope to perceive or understand the nature or mere possibility of a deity is through ourselves. We sense, observe, and interpret. How do we know better than God? ends up being a lazy rhetorical device used to shut down legitimate discussion on moral issues. I’ve seen it many times. The more subjects you put beyond the possibility of debate, the easier it is to control people with unwavering dogmatism.
Example B: Slavery
Go read Exodus Chapter 21. The entire passage assumes slavery is not only acceptable, but a natural part of life. There’s even a rule says you shouldn’t be punished for physically assaulting your slaves unless they die from the attack. No Christian would support that today, but many of them would happily quote Leviticus to delegitimize same-sex romantic love.
I’ve listened to pastors and other Christians try to explain why the Bible doesn’t support slavery, but all it took was one step back to realize how tenuous those arguments are. The Bible never celebrated the institution of slavery, of course, but its writers provided a framework in Christians could interact with it (see Paul’s letters). Likewise, the Bible certainly never advocated for abolition of slavery. And while many abolitionists were Christians, so were their pro-slavery counterparts. Both sides argued their position from scripture. Both sides declared God was on their side. And one side was wrong.
Conclusion
There are cases to be made for both positions reflected in the original video. And while I don’t think either advocate got a chance to fully explain his position, I contend that Dr. Jeffress’s arguments are deceptive, inaccurate, or both.
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” - Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 1. This clear endorsement of the heterosexual lifestyle is a shocking summary of the flagrant pro-heterosexual agenda of the pop novel Pride and Prejudice. Who is this Jane Austin, and what is her purpose in writing this book? There are rumors that the author, never married, was a heterosexual, and actually believed it was acceptable for her to date men. Her sexuality never realized, she turned to writing to live out her strange fantasies.
Though Mrs. Bennet's concern for her daughters secure the family fortune is noble, the implication is clearly that she believes they should form romantic attachments with men to do so. Later in the book, a clergyman actually proposes to Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine! A man of God, suggesting a sexual connection to a woman? Outrageous.
These disturbing heteroerotic undertones continue throughout the book. Male and female characters refer to having "regard" for each other. What unspeakable heterosexual euphemism is this? I shudder to think of what terrible sexual exploits underwritten by this word.
Austin plays with our morality when Elizabeth (rightly) rejects Mr. Darcy's sexually disturbing advances halfway through the book. We think she is proclaiming the unnatural practice of different-sex relations, only to turn around and have Elizabeth fall for his hidden charms, which before she was happy to leave to his male friends.
Strangely, much of the family's tension does revolve around a different-sex relationship, that of Lydia and the shameless Mr. Wickam. That their horror at this attachment does not extend to the other daughters of the Bennet family leads you to wonder what a morally sick atmosphere the early 1800s had.
It reminds us to pray more for the healing of our land from the cancer of heterosexuality. It has pervaded our media, our neighborhoods, even our churches. How can we raise a pure generation if heterosexual people pass themselves off as normal?
Books like Pride and Prejudice only advance this mentality. I recommend leaving this title for the perverts that enjoy the kind of immorality it advances, the unnatural bonds between a man and a woman.
A
dim sliver of light flickered across my face. An ache that hinted at a lack of
sleep tugged at my mind. I surveyed the other bunks in my monastical hideaway.
Seven holy Brothers, my faithful companions for the past two years, still
slept. The sylvan scent of pine leaked through the dragon-eye slit which also
let in the sun, our call to action.
I pulled out the trunk containing my five possessions. The first
possession was a vaguely red formal robe with my mother’s initials stitched in
the collar in black thread. The second was a heavy book in which I had recorded
sayings from the Book of Rime. It represented a year of toil, and treasuring it
was my greatest sin. Staring at the words brought back my faith, quelled my
doubts. The third possession was a small dining set: metal bowl, metal cup,
wooden fork, wooden spoon. The fourth was a satchel, into which I shoved my
book and my last possession. I blush to mention the stack of money I had saved
from my old life. It would do little good to give it to the poor—if I gave it
here at Renwald Abbey, that is.
It isn’t
that our abbey is corrupt, but the ways of men are not forgotten here. A holy
brother once spoke of Brother Ezriel’s endless pockets. Though he swore by the
feet of the gods he meant nothing by it, he spoke as one who said a woman was
not of concern to him, when his heart ached to watch her pass. The next day, I
observed Ezriel dig his bloated hands into the bag and stuff coins into his
habit when he thought no one was looking.
