I've noticed a shift in my feelings toward straight couples. Though I would never have described my feelings as phobic, they could be...dismissive. I'm not talking about humor or teasing, but a psychologically veiled dismissal that I'm still trying to parse.
Was I jealous of the ease with which I assumed they could date and marry? Was I trying to reduce the value of the traditional family to justify myself? Was I simply trying to cope with being different?
I've been thinking about my place in the world. Listening to different opinions is something I value; I don't want to get stuck intellectually.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
YouTube Recommendations: Shameless Edition
I could talk about how YouTube and new media are a revolution in communication, but instead I'll try to summarize my favorite creators in one sentence.
I Hate Everything: Despite the dour British exterior, IHE manages to provide thoughtful criticism of questionable movies, video games, and cultural trends.
JonTronShow: One of my first loves of YouTube, JonTron has amassed a significant catalog of hilarious video game and film reviews with ever increasing production quality that make his uploads worth the wait.
ralphthemoviemaker: Ralph is a talented filmmaker with a sarcastic wit who reviews films, especially ones that deserve harsher criticism.
Sardonicast: This is a movie podcast with Ralph, IHE, and YMS that is too good for this world.
YourMovieSucksDOTorg: The sharp witted YMS is the best movie reviewer I've seen, making incredibly entertaining and well-edited content from even the most terrible films.
Reviewers
FanboyFlicks: This subdued Canadian humorously describes terrible films, many of which you've probably never heard of.I Hate Everything: Despite the dour British exterior, IHE manages to provide thoughtful criticism of questionable movies, video games, and cultural trends.
JonTronShow: One of my first loves of YouTube, JonTron has amassed a significant catalog of hilarious video game and film reviews with ever increasing production quality that make his uploads worth the wait.
ralphthemoviemaker: Ralph is a talented filmmaker with a sarcastic wit who reviews films, especially ones that deserve harsher criticism.
Sardonicast: This is a movie podcast with Ralph, IHE, and YMS that is too good for this world.
videogamedunkey: A remarkably creative video game reviewer that uses absurdism and satire to make his point far better than a literal review ever could.
YourMovieSucksDOTorg: The sharp witted YMS is the best movie reviewer I've seen, making incredibly entertaining and well-edited content from even the most terrible films.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Breitbart Readers Own the H0mos
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
"Stupidest Ideology" Continues to be Goal of Gay Debate
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
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
Friday, May 12, 2017
No-Name Blogger Destroys Ideological Pastor Who Attacks Calm Christian Reverend
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:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)