Sep 29 2008
Religious Intolerance
I was reading a post on Lesbian Said What about Religious intolerance and amongst the comments was a post by some character called “Sane” who struck me as being totally insane. His argument against Gay Marriage was so laughably bigoted I had to repost it just to be sure I inhabit the same world.
“Sane” cites an article which is a synopsis of a book by Dr. James Dobson, called “Marriage Under Fire”. Dobson, a homophobe and evangelical Christian seems to be pretty dumb for a guy a with a PHD in psychology, so sit back and enjoy as a lay university drop-out (ie: me) savages his arguments. Which for the record, can be found here: http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/nogaymarriage.php
Argument #1. Same Sex Marriage Decays Families
Dobson cites the example of Scandinavia where half of all children are born out of wedlock. OK – what has this got to do with same-sex couples? After all same-sex relationships don’t produce children! I think we can squarely lay the blame for this statistic on the straight community.
Argument #2. Gay Marriage Will Lead to Polygamy
Actually this hasn’t proved to be the case at all. Gay marriage and civil partnerships where available, have largely been taken up by monogamous couples. We’ve had several years of legal “gay marriage” in various countries and to date, no-one has ever been charged with Polygamy, ie: marrying more than one person, (an offence under UK, European and US law) whereby the offender was married or in a civil-partnership with someone of the same sex.
To be honest Dobson here I think is confusing polygamy with polyamorous relationships, and as I’ve already stated it tends to be monogamous couples who take advantage of civil partnerships or gay marriage. The incidence of married polyamorous gay couples seems to be about the same as the incidence of polyamorous straight couples. Don’t believe me? Join a swingers club.
Argument #3. States Will No Longer Protect Marriage
Actually legalising gay marriage is all about protecting partnerships and giving gay, lesbian and bisexual couples the same legal rights as straight couples. How can we accused of undermining marriage when we are actually trying to encourage it?
Contrary to Dobson’s theory that it will make divorce easier. As far as gay marriage its concerned when it comes to divorce settlements, it actually makes it harder for gay couples to separate without financial consequences and gay-marriage actually rewards same-sex couples for staying together.
Argument #4. Children Will Be Taught Perversion
I choked on my cocoa when I read this one… Homosexuality and Bisexuality are not perversions. What gives Dobson the right to declare it so? Its such a backward view I almost can’t believe its been published, its right up there with the view that “the world is flat.” Dobson is a psychologist, so I’ll counter with the view of a far more respected and eminent psychologist, namely Sigmund Freud. Freud believed we were all inherently bisexual and that it was societies norms and expectations that made us predominantly straight. If you define perversion by what is ‘normal’, as opposed to what is ‘natural’, then Dobson may have a point, but I’ll opt to respect nature over societies social constructs, when I start to describe things as perversions.
My increasing opinion is that Freud was right and heterosexuality is a perversion of nature perpetrated by society and religion. Children aren’t born with prejudice, they get that from adults, so by teaching them that straight is great and queer is weird I think we are perverting their minds.
Argument #5. Children Will Be Placed in Gay Households
So what? Gay and Bisexual people have been parenting children since time began, especially in times that didn’t allow them to be open or honest with themselves or others about their sexuality. Over half of my gay and bisexual friends are parents. Their kids are fine.
Oh and please don’t think this is a contradiction of Argument #1. Gay people produce kids, not same-sex couple’s… can all the small minded bigots out there keep up?
Argument #6. Parents Will Be Required to Accept Homosexuality in Their Children
Er… yes that’s the general idea… In particular Dobson seems to reference foster parents of gay children, who will apparently have to undergo “sensitivity training” so they can be accepting of gay youths. You know what I think? If you need sensitivity training to accept LGBT teens, you shouldn’t be a foster parent!
Argument #7. Gay Partners Will Burden the Government Entitlement System
I love this one… its so ill thought out, its like a lazy slow ball begging to be hit out of the ground. Dobson wants us all to be straight, so in his utopia there will be 6 Billion straight people all wanting to get married and have two point four children under wedlock. Each couple claiming benefits under government entitlement systems for married couples.
Until recently people in same sex relationships have been letting the government off the hook. Their “gayness” was a get out of jail free card for the benefits system. Imagine the burden the system would be under if all these gay, lesbian and bisexual people went straight. Could you imagine the claims?
Instead, we opted for Gay Marriage… Why? Because its cheaper!!! Yes thanks to Gay Marriage, same-sex couples have the same pension rights, and tax allowances as straight couples, but as we’ve already established gay-couples don’t produce children, so the government doesn’t have to pay for paternity leave, both partners can invariably remain in full employment for their full working lives and actually contribute more to the treasury in terms of income tax and social security than a straight couple. Best of all due to the absence of children they can at the same time be less of a burden on the system.
Argument #8. Gay Marriage Will Spread Quickly to Other Countries
Good. What’s the problem again?
Argument #9. Evangelism Will Be Hindered
Again Good. What’s the problem with that? If this is the kind of thoughtless bullshit evangelism produces then frankly its rather hindering itself without any help from the LGBT community.
Argument #10. The Culture Will Be Anti-Christian
Yet again good, though more specifically culture will be anti-Abrahamic religions, which include Judaism, Islam and Christianity. In short, more secularism. Great! Sorry, but I just don’t see any of the last 3 points as a negative.
This is intended as a scare tactic to mobilise the zealously religious parts of the USA, politically being “Anti-Christian” is almost as bigger slur as being a “liberal”. But frankly I don’t have a problem being “Anti-Christian” if being “Pro-Christian” means I have to be a bigoted homophobe that believes in the rather dubious morality of the Old Testament. Which for those of you who don’t know is where the Christian prohibition of homosexuality originates, along with other such gems as executing children who curse their parents, stoning adulterers to death and massacring women and children. Yep its all in the old testament. Yet curiously the only part of it which hasn’t been disowned by the church is the bit about homosexuality.
* * * * * *
OK – How did I do?
If you enjoyed this post. Please share it with others by adding it to the following social bookmarking sites. This is greatly appreciated and doesn't go unnoticed. Just click the graphics below.
11 Responses to “Religious Intolerance”
Leave a Reply
Please write in good English, using correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. Please also capitalise your sentences correctly.
The SHIFT key is your friend.
“If this is the kind of thoughtless bullshit evangelism produces then frankly its rather hindering itself without any help from the LGBT community.”
LOL
Thank you so much for this well-thought-out, well-reasoned post. I watched that argument with such trepidation, but you refuted all of “Sane”‘s points beautifully. Bookmarking and sending to others, thank you.
Thank you for posting this. You are so much more eloquent than I.
C.
Great post. Most arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage are fallacious or hypocritical, and you illustrate Dobson’s fallacies well. Opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history, and future generations will likely see ant-gay rhetoric as akin to 19th-century arguments against interracial marriage.
Perhaps we should make a distinction between legal and ecclesiastical marriage. If some fundamentalist congregation doesn’t want to marry two men, fine. Many religious groups have their own special requirements for marriage, but those restrictions need not apply to people outside their church.
I understand resentment against anti-gay hate, religious and otherwise. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t paint all Christians with the same brush. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, evangelical, or anti-gay. At least one large group (the MCC Church) actively includes GLBT people in every respect. I’m not trying to promote that or any other church. I just want to be fair-minded because I think pitting GLBT acceptance against religion trivializes both and makes it harder, not easier, for GLBT people to win the acceptance we deserve. Fundamentalists and bigots get the most press, but James Dobson not speak for all Christians any more than Roy Cohn speaks for all queer folks.
Despite that minor disagreement, I appreciate your post, and I enjoy visiting your blog. To read regular thoughts about bisexual concerns is fantastic. I look forward to reading from you again.
I hate these dumb ass irrational, ignorant, and fearful reasons to not allow Gay marriage. This type of ignorance is one of the main reasons why I absolutely can’t stand religion and it’s bullshit!
excellent stuff! In a similar vein, here’s something I found on facebook:
This is in response to a particularly ridiculous post appearing recently on this group’s wall. It has been making the rounds and I hope you enjoy it.
Why Gay Marriage Should be Illegal
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
11) Civil Unions are almost the same as marriage, they are seperate but equal, and everyone knows how well that worked out with the white and black children having seperate but equal schools
I like Christians, especially the bi-sexual ones, and gay ones are nice too, and Christian lesbians also.
It’s the Christians that think the old testament’s mistranslated verses (the whopping two of them) really do refer to homosexuality who are a challenge.
And apparently it was okay to be a lesbian. They aren’t refered to until the new testament (allegedly); not by Jesus of course, and only once.
As a bisexual Christian, I would like to say that, if Christians would spend more time sharing the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and less time fretting over other people’s sexual and romantic orientations, we might actually fulfill His “Great Commission”.
Another (mostly) great post, but please stop the religion-hating. Seriously, it’s no different from queer-hating. If we go from a “queerphobic” society to a “theophobic” one, we’ve made no progress. As an out, bisexual, male (and former atheist), who converted to Reform Judaism, I have friends who are Jewish, Christian, atheist, straight, gay, bisexual, and any combination of the above. I didn’t come to terms with my bisexuality until *after* I converted, and whilst I’m not out to everyone at synagogue, that’s mainly by virtue of the fact I haven’t gone up to all the members of the congregation and said “Hi, I’m bi”. But I would have no qualms about coming to shul with a Jewish boyfriend. And while that wouldn’t hold true if I were Orthodox, you miss the point that not even today’s Orthodox Jews lead a recognisably “Old Testament” lifestyle.
Well Jeffrey, you are a little late to the debate. This post was published nearly 2 years ago!
To answer your post…. NO – I’m not going to stop with what you call “religion hating” – because frankly I do hate religion. At least I hate orthodox interpretations of the Abrahamic faiths. (I don’t know enough about other faiths like Hinduism or Sikhism to develop an opinion.)
Its also very different to Queer-hating. Let me explain why.
Gay people don’t spread hate. Religion spreads hate. Its intended target is frequently gay people. However when you spread hate you often get it thrown right back at you.
I’m not a Christian, I don’t have to turn the other cheek, I don’t have to love the hate-monger regardless.
If you subscribe to the hateful biblical doctrines detailed in this post then you have rightly earned my loathing. I feel perfectly justified in despising people who spread such bigoted beliefs.
Equally though, show me a moderate Christian, Muslim or Jew, (they do exist) tolerant of homosexuality and bisexuality, supportive of gay rights, one who believes people of all faiths and none have something of value to offer this world and they’ll find no truck with me.
However, the same people will usually find themselves at odds with their religious leaders.
I’m going to take your first point last, if I may.
To answer the rest, in order,
“Gay people don’t spread hate. Religion spreads hate. Its intended target is frequently gay people. However when you spread hate you often get it thrown right back at you.”
Erm, yes exactly.
“I’m not a Christian, I don’t have to turn the other cheek, I don’t have to love the hate-monger regardless.”
Nor do I, I’m a Jew.
“If you subscribe to the hateful biblical doctrines detailed in this post then you have rightly earned my loathing. I feel perfectly justified in despising people who spread such bigoted beliefs.”
Perhaps you didn’t read my post? I’m an out, bisexual, Reform Jew. I don’t hate gays, women, or for the record Palestinians or Germans either. Nazis, I hate.
“Equally though, show me a moderate Christian, Muslim or Jew, (they do exist) tolerant of homosexuality and bisexuality, supportive of gay rights, one who believes people of all faiths and none have something of value to offer this world and they’ll find no truck with me.”
Really? Then why tar them all with the same brush as the “God hates fags” brigade?
“However, the same people will usually find themselves at odds with their religious leaders.”
How many of those religious leaders do you know? My rabbi (who’s a woman, btw) knows I’m bisexual and has no problem with it. And perhaps you haven’t heard of Lionel Blue, who is Jewish, gay, a British Reform Rabbi, and has been out since the sixties. Or Steven Greenberg, an American, Orthodox rabbi who is openly gay?
And finally, “To answer your post…. NO – I’m not going to stop with what you call “religion hating” – because frankly I do hate religion. At least I hate orthodox interpretations of the Abrahamic faiths. (I don’t know enough about other faiths like Hinduism or Sikhism to develop an opinion.)”
Well, quite frankly this is bull. It also brings us right back to square one, “gay people don’t spread hate”. Now, either you presumably include bisexuals in that statement, or you allow that bisexuals do (and can) spread hate. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. It certainly is true that religion can be used an excuse to spread hate, but so can atheism, anti-clericalism etc. as you so deftly prove. You quite clearly have a brain and an aptitude for writing; it’s sad to see it shown up by your attitude to religion. Don’t have a religion? Fine, I have no problem with that. But in my view your opposition to religion should stop at objecting to people using religion to oppress others – whether others pray to Allah or YHWH, or meditate in front of a statue of Buddha, have sex with other men (or other women) or eat pork is quite frankly no-one’s business but their own.
Actually I did read your post and I fully understand your position. I did qualify all my comments with the point:
“If you subscribe to the hateful biblical doctrines detailed in this post then you have rightly earned my loathing.”
“If” being the operate word and “you” being the universal anyone, commonly replaced by the Queen with non directive pronoun “one”. Which I flat refuse to use lest I come across like a member of the aristocracy. So patently I wasn’t referring to *you* – give me some credit.
My point is simple yet clearly easily misunderstood.
If you (one) spread(s) hate you deserve to get it thrown right back at you (one).
Its that simple.
If you note that I have an aptitude for writing then you should also note I have an aptitude for caveats. In my last sentence I used the term “usually”. Go back an re-read my comment and you’ll see I left plenty of room for people like *you*.
Equally, when I wrote the original article, I was targeting a particular religious conservative. This much is clear because the article clearly addressed the views of one individual and those who shared his beliefs.
Unless you share his beliefs (and you have made it quite clear you don’t) then you really ought to be smart enough to realise that the article is not addressing you (or people who think like you).
I also think most people know what I’m talking about when I say “I hate” orthodox interpretations of abrahamic religions. I’m talking about those who take a conservative and literal interpretation of scripture.
And frankly I don’t care what your personal experience of religion is like because your experience of religion is clearly far more liberal than the norm.
When I say: “people [like you] will usually find themselves at odds with their religious leaders”. I’m speaking factually.
A pro-gay catholic will find himself at odds with the pope. A pro-gay Muslim will find himself at odds with 99% of ayatollahs, a pro-gay Anglican will find himself at odds with the archbishop of Canterbury. I don’t know that much about the Jewish faith but I know that a pro-gay Jew will find himself at odds with Leviticus 20:13 as will any pro-gay Christian, who also has Romans I to contend with.
Factually I’m talking sense. If you are religious (in the abrahamic faiths) and are pro-gay then you are either at odds with your religious leaders or at odds with your scripture (or both).