Sunday, September 23, 2007

If You Love Homophobia So Much, Why Don't You Just Gay-Marry It?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we get things started I just want to say to whoever is doing so, please don't spam my comments box. It's annoying, and we have all seen that ytmnd file by now. If you are gonna spam my comments section at least spice things up with a little variety. Like, I dunno, maybe some of those medieval ones, something that's animated, or perhaps you could upload my Samson & Goliath pic to ytmnd.com (uploading yours would be even better). But as for now, on to the show.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

College has kept me busy for quite some time, but I have decided to take a break from procrastinating my assignments to once again travel through the series of tubes to write about James Dobson, the Pope of politically participating patriarchal protestants.

Now, for those of you out there who don't know who James Dobson is, let me give you a bit of backstory. James Dobson (judging by the sound of his voice heard over the radio) was conceived in sodomy between John Wayne and Porky Pig. He was later adopted by a Nazarene minister and his wife that were so filled with the love of Christ that they would hit him whenever he used the exclamation "hot-dog". He accepted Jesus into his heart at the age of three, helping him overcome a life-destroying apple-juice addiction. While he was a child he made dogs fight for his own amusement and was beaten by his mother with her own garter-belt; experiencing a childhood that can only be described as one foot in the world of Father Knows Best and the other in that of a Thomas Harris novel. Little Jimmy then went off to Christian College to study psychology, hoping to one day become a Batman villain. He finally became a doctor only to later spit in the face of God by breaking his Hippocratic Oath through promoting the unethical, harmful and pseudoscientific quackery of reparative therapy.

One day, he climbed to the top of a mountain and saw that The Children of Baby-Boomer Evangelicals were being rude and unruly. He descended the mountain carrying a hardcover edition of his famous parenting book Dare to Beat the Shit Out of Your Kids, which he then used to whoop some serious whipper-snapper ass. When the BBEs saw how well behaved and twitching their children had become, they fell to their knees in gratitude and proceeded to suck off the good doctor as if his urethra was a juice-box straw and his gonads were filled with vanilla custard. And that is how Focus on the Family was formed; an organization that provides many services and tools to Evangelical families, like movie reviews that bring attention to the amount of cleavage shown by the Fairy Godmother in Shrek 2.

One day some politicians saw that there were a lot of BBEs and decided that the best way to be popular among the BBEs was to do what they were doing. So they went down on Dobson as well, shouting "HAGH GOARS! LOOG AD USH!" and the BBEs look out of the corners of their eyes and saw what the politicians were doing and said among themselves "LEGDS BOAT FOA DOSE GAISH!" And that was how Dobson, in his own special half-assed yet mad and power-hungry way, became involved in politics. This in turn led to him writing articles like this one, a synopsis of his book Marriage Under Fire. All presented in a neatly summarized, and easy-to-mock, format:

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

Argument #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It would be nice if he could link us this article, because -y'know- many newspapers have web-sites these days. Usually when a newspaper article that supports the his position is mentioned by a web-author on either his blog or a web-page, the author provides the common courtesy of linking to said news-article so the reader would then be able to read it and see if what the author is saying about it is true or not.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.


"It is predicted now" by who? You? And gay-marriage will cause/has caused (?) this how?

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings.

OH MY GOD! I have three grandparents! We're practically halfway there! And no good Christian man should ever marry a "used" woman with children of her own. Why, he would miss out on that fresh-vagina smell.

Well, at least we know that little Billy is going to get a fair bit of Christmas presents this year.

"Dozens of half-siblings"? How is it that Dobson has a PhD yet somehow is unaware of the use of contraceptives?

It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today).

Yep, gays are responsible for "huge numbers" of unwanted children. They reproduce like jackrabbits, them queers.

Yes, I hear gay marriage is very popular in countries that have a lot of street-children, like India.

All those children in foster-homes and living on the streets. It's a shame there isn't anyone that wants to adopt them. Well, anyone that isn't kept from being able to so by the followers of certain demagogues that misrepresent the scholars they cite (on rare occasions when they actually do cite a source instead of crying wolf).

Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

Reality TV?

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).


Oy Vey! Time for me to whip out my notes from Countryman's Dirt, Greed and Sex.

Yep, Paul was talking about a homosexuality "epidemic" in Romans 1 (our God does condemn people for illness, does he not?). It's not like Paul wrote Romans as an attempt to heal rifts between Jewish and Gentile Christians at that church; He wasn't using Greco-Roman rhetorical technique to capture the sympathies of the Jewish part of his audience by expressing the Jewish cultural connection of idolatry to the "uncleanliness" of gentile culture (verses 18-27) by bringing up homosexual acts instead of unclean foods as that bringing up unclean foods in such a context would only exacerbate tensions in table-fellowship between Jewish Christians concerned with food purity and Gentiles that didn't observe kosher. Nope, he wrote Romans to warn us about gay sex being responsible for all manner of evil in the world.

Countryman notes that the Greek word epithymia, translated in the NIV as "sinful desires" is more accurately translated as simply "lusts" as it is used again by Paul in Romans 7:7 and by the Septuagint in Exodus 20:17 being defined as the sin of coveting, Paul himself uses the word positively in 1 Thess 2:17 (his "intense longing" to meet of with his brothers in Thessalonia).

Countryman also points out that Paul has a very rich plethora of Greek words he could've used to describe the "sin" of homosexuality, such as:

  • sin (hamartia, hamartema)
  • lawlessness/transgression (anomia)
  • unrighteousness (adikiu)
  • impiety (asebia)

But he doesn't use any of these describing the homosexual acts, although he does use the language of physical purity, describing them as "unclean" and "shameful" (which they would have been to Jews).

The list of sins found in verses 29-32 -the sins that "deserve death" (note that there are no "purity" violations on that list, sexual or in any other physical sense) although practiced by the "impure" gentiles, were not limited to them as Paul then follows this by rebuking in the following verses those who judged the "impure" and even noting that the "pure" Jews commit the same sins as Pork-eating, dude-loving, two-crops-in-the-same-field planting Gentiles (Romans 2). Thereby preserving the unstable unity of the Roman church by not alienating his his entire Jewish audience (by acknowledging the Jewish purity code and Jewish "superiority" in this regard) defending his Gentile audience (by not presenting Gentile culture as uniquely sinful in and of itself), and laying a rhetorical smackdown on Jewish Christians that judged "impure" Gentiles (while simultaneously not appearing anti-purity to his Jewish audience). It is only after lengthy exposition on Jews and the Law, Gentiles, and the Grace of Christ does Paul finally bring up the matter of food purity (Romans 14).

Long story short. Dobson just shot himself in the foot, as Paul is saying that "every kind of wickedness" can also be found among those who practice purity codes. And adherence to purity codes are not conditions to receive the Grace of God.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Uh. Mr Dobson, I don't know what they taught at University. But at where I attend college my profs teach me that when you put forth an argument against something, you're actually supposed to put forth an argument.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.
Tom Green? I thought he was only married once, to Drew Barrymore, and even that only lasted a year.

Mr. Dobson, Lawrence v. Texas was about decriminalizing homosexual sodomy. It didn't really have much to do with gay-marriage (other than allowing the "gay" without the "marriage"). It seems to me that it was more a case of "there is no way we can enforce this law without violating the constitution, screw it" kind of thing.

I can't be the only person here who can see the irony of a "traditional, Biblical-model" family advocate complaining about polygamy which technically is the most "traditional, Biblical-model" type of family (although I believe it wouldn't function well in today's society, much like Dobson's patriarchy).

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.
Of course the state will have to prove that polygamy will hurt our society (which should be easy for them to do) because, technically, you can't prove a negative.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.
Yep, the institution of marriage never changed from it's original state of a man owning one or more wives (and perhaps a few concubines and slaves) obtained at the age of menstruation from their parents in exchange for three goats to a man owning only one wife (something the Jews adapted from those Grecian fags when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine, according to Bible Scholar L.W. Countryman) to the woman having a degree of ownership of her husband as well (You can thank the J-man for that one) to a committed and consensual life partnership between two adults where their financial assets are united, their insurance carried, ect.

Another thing Dobson didn't learn at school: "Slippery-slope" arguments are almost always fallacious.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

As opposed to the prohibition of marriage between homosexuals being supported by nothing more substantial than a power-mad right-wing demagogue's context-ignoring interpretations of a religious text, his nation's history, and the U.S. Constitution.

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four.

He's shooting off numbers like an auctioneer.

"Andthentwoandthreepeoplewillbeabletomarrythensevenandeleventhenpi
andthity-seventimestentothepowerofeightthenzeropointfiveandagooglethey've
SOLD out our nation's Christian heritage."

Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!)

Like Tom Green the polygamist.

How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

I'm sorry Dobson, but marriage between relatives has been going on long time before the gay-rights movement.

"The legal underpinnings for marriage" destroyed? I guess Adam's insurance won't be carried to Steve then. Kinda like when they change the speed limit for a stretch of road, the legal underpinning of traffic-control is destroyed.

Yes Dobson, I see your point. Two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a state-recognized legal contract is a gateway to marriage with animals ("good luck signing the marriage certificate with that hoof, eh.") and that the only thing keeping courts from giving the seal of approval to relationships where the small and weakest of our society are selfishly abused by their elders is the "ick" factor, because it sure as hell can't be that courts recognize the fact that pedophiles actually hurt children.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit.


Oh, so they don't want any of the legal benefits of marriage, since ending of the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether would result in said benefits (aside from a very tall cake and a ceremony) going down the crapper. This is basically a modern day version of "if we let Jews drink from our well they will poison it".

And Dobson, as long as married couples own things, divorce will always be a matter of the courts.

With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

So gays want to get married and adopt kids because they hate commitment and the family. Makes sense.


Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

NO! Not TEXTBOOKS! I want my kids to learn about homosexuality the old fashioned way. Evangelical Right-wing congressmen sending them dirty emails.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Wow, I had no idea that there is such a high demand for and limited supply of orphans these days. I bet they move faster than flapjacks.

"Sorry, but Angelina Jolie was in here earlier today and she just cleared us all out. Why don't you come back Monday, that's when the truck comes in."

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Yeah, it's worse for orphans to be raised by a gay couple than to remain without parents, shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (now where have I heard that before?).

Yeah, I remember when you argued that straight-parent families do better than gay-parent ones from your guest column in Time, where you lied like the sleazebag you are.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

What can I say, it beats shipping them off to ex-gay camp against their will.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Is he just pulling these "arguments" out of his ass? It is speculated that roughly 10% of the population is gay, so even if they all decided to get married I seriously doubt it would flood the system. And since having dependents "burdens the system" why doesn't Dobson encourage cohabitation among his straight followers instead of marriage? Real swell knowledge you have of the economy there, Dobbie.


Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

Wait wait wait. Pornography "spread throughout the world" -from America- after the Nixon Commission?

America is the "fountainhead of filth"? Somebody get this man an internet, STAT! Has this guy seen the shit coming out of Japan? Does he know what bukkake is? I know he has some familiarity with porn, mainly the kind with chicks "hanging from trees, and being murdered with knives, guns, ropes, etc" (me, I happen to be partial to the big-butts; but whatever floats your boat, man).

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate.

Actually Canada has already legalized gay-marriage. And, surprise surprise, families still exist and fire isn't raining from the skies. Who woulda thunk it?

And Dobbie, it might surprise you to realize that Canada and Europe doesn't look in your direction and think to themselves "That country run by George W. Bush, how can we become like it?"

Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

So looking at how laws in other countries with cultures similar to yours for ideas on how similar laws will affect your country is grounds for impeachment, but lying about a reason for war isn't? Nice set of priorities you got there.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

That's kinda weird, considering how even though Jesus was not overtly hostile to the institution of the family, he did not portray"family-values" as a central part of the Gospel. There's also the fact that the Apostle Paul personally believed that raising a family distracted one from the work of the Kingdom. Ah Dobbie, your knowledge of scripture is rivaled only your knowledge of anthropology, sociology, and snuff-porn.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

This is just me talking, but judging from the rest of that chapter, it's a condemnation of divorce, which you haven't really proven is caused by gays marrying in your country.


That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries.

Yeah, I hear families and Christianity don't exist in Europe anymore.

Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture.

You see, this is what separates James Dobson from actual academics. Actual academics will actually present a case whereas Dobbie here will just repeat himself and panic.

Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!


"The third country in the world to 'normalize'" homosexuality? Somebody's doctorate isn't in historical studies.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.


"Like in the days of Noah"? I didn't know the Bible taught that God punished the entire earth for disobeying a Levitical purity law that didn't exist at the time.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.


"You need to pray harder, dammit!"

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.


It could be that they aren't "taking action" because Christians are finally realizing what deceitful, wolf-crying, fear-mongering paranoiacs you and your Focus-fluffers are.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

Long story short, if gays are allowed to marry, America will turn into this:





And to end things on a pleasant note. The musical humor of Roy Zimmerman:

3 comments:

Rachel said...

Oh, I like him. (Roy Zimmerman, I mean, not... oh, never mind.)

Anonymous said...

I'm actually really glad to see that you are against homophobia.

Generic Cialis said...

I've known for sure that the people that talk trash all the time about gay people and gay marriage are just afraid to death of it because they have certain tendencies over that side of the street. I wish this people could just shut it and accept that some people are different and that they might be part of the rainbow as well