I have to admit that what inspired me to write this post was something simple: I was perusing all the folks who clicked on “follow” to read my posts and I discovered that one of my followers is a right-wing Christan fundie. I mean this isn’t a guy who belongs to the more moderate churches, but this is a guy that has an issue with women being cops, because he’s worried that it’d be confusing for little boys to see their moms kick someone’s ass. He sees it as emasculating…
Huh. When did it happen? When did our masculinity hing on the actions of women around us? When did we start measuring our manliness by what the women in the world were doing? Why is seeing a woman take names emasculating? My thought is if you (the blogger) feel that women cops are confusing and emasculating, then I suggest you rethink how you identify yourself and what you perceive to be masculine.
But that’s a completely different discussion than what I intended to write up. What got me to the whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” line, which by the way, I hear so many times, that I wish I owned the copyright to that because I’d be rolling in coins. What brought me to this line was a post that the blogger in question reposted – about anti-bullying efforts in school. I won’t put a link because I’m not in the business of giving bullies publicity.
But, oh my, some of you are I’m sure gasping – aren’t you displaying hate toward that writer? Isn’t respect a two-way street?
Yeah it is, but the problem is, I walked down your street first and stepped in dog crap, so don’t expect to walk down my street later and think you’ll emerge with clean shoes.
So yeah, I’m slingin’ the nastiness because you know what? I don’t have to be kind to bigots – I’m not going to be polite to folks who think that they’re better than women, or that women shouldn’t serve in the military because they might break a nail or muss their hair – and I’d love for these numbnuts to spout that sexist garbage to one of our brave servicewomen, and see if he emerges without al least crossing his legs.
And yeah, I’m not gonna be kind to those who try to explain away rape culture as if it doesn’t exist, or as if it somehow unduly victimized men and boys, and put undue strain on them.
Anyways, back to this article that I read – and probably shouldn’t have. The author has an issue with the Toronto School Board’s anti-bullying initiative that targets anti-gay bullying. Or as he/she calls it “the Sodomite Agenda.” You know the agenda, right – the one where we want to be able to walk the streets without getting our asses kicked or faces punched in? I know it’s a lot to ask, I’m sorry….
So in his/her article, the poster writes, “No one likes a bully. And lately there has been a lot of bullying in the news. The shocking suicides of teens that have been bullied have really struck a cord with the media and with the public at large. There is now an “Anti-bullying Day” in schools: students wear pink shirts to protest the bullying of gay students (“Pink Shirt Day” was actually started here in my home province of Nova Scotia and has now become an international phenomena). The anti-bullying emphasis in our schools now has taken on an almost exclusively anti-homophobia tone. Indeed, “bullying” now is almost a code-word for anything that would speak negatively of the homosexual lifestyle. Let me stress that I have no sympathy for anyone who would pick on a teenager for having homosexual struggles, tendencies or actual lifestyle. But neither should I (or anyone else) tolerate the bullying of children for their race, religion, language, weight problems, or even plain old nerdiness.”
So far, so good – I agree – no one should be bullied for any reason – and kids get teased and tortured for lots of things: because they’re heavy, because they wear glasses, because they’re black, because they’re biracial, because they’re transgender, because they’re smart….Anyways, I’ve decided that I’ll include the idiot’s entire post and go paragraph by paragraph and school him because apparently, he’s either confused, stupid, or possibly (probably both):
He/she goes on to write, “And this brings me now to my point. The Toronto District Schoolboard (hereafter the TDSB), has a “Gender Based Violence Prevention Initiative” called “Safe and Positive Spaces.” Part of this program is a series of posters displayed throughout the schools in the Greater Toronto Area. The posters connected with this “initiative” have been controversial to say the least and have gotten a lot of media attention in the GTA and beyond—not to mention a lot of upset parents (with good reason).”
So I saw these posters – I won’t repost them because I don’t have permission and wouldn’t want to wade into copyright infringement. But anyways, the posters are cute – if a little photo-shoppy. And the idea of upset parents doesn’t really concern me because we have parents who are upset when their students have to read To Kill a Mockingbird or Toni Morrison’s Beloved, so I don’t put much stock in parent outrage as a whole, especially if it’s reported and supported by a conservative source.
“One of the most controversial posters is called, “Love Has No Gender”which shows a collage of “stickmen” images representing people both male and female. It depicts two females together, two males together, male and female together, and the ones that caused the uproar: two males with one female, and two females with one male! Parents were concerned that some of these images were promoting polygamy or a ménage à trios relationship. The TDSB representatives vehemently denied that the mixed threesome images were polygamous depictions. A spokesman from the board said it “does not support polygamy.” He went on to say, “The images in question were meant to support an individual’s right to choose whom they love, regardless of gender. “For example, the reason for depicting two women and one man was meant to show that a person can be attracted to more than one gender,” he said. Well it fooled a lot of us; one wonders what the children are taking from it.”
First of all, I’m not one of those people who’s deathly afraid of polygamy – after all, lots of societies practice it, and if everyone in the relationship is treated well and fairly, I don’t care. Now obviously the poster was aimed at showing that folks can be attracted to both men and women, because guess what – bisexuals exist (this is something even some gay folks have an issue with). So the author felt concerned that the kids would see these posters and suddenly be interested in having orgies because some people were too stupid to understand it; he writes, “Well it fooled a lot of us; one wonders what the children are taking from it.” Well, the smart, intuitive kids are thinking, “Hey, it’s okay to be gay, straight, bisexual, or whatever,” and the dummies are thinking “those are weird signs for a bathroom.” I think the original designers of the posters were giving the kids of the Toronto District some credit as to being able to discern and interpret a picture. And if the kids had any questions, then would be a great learning opportunity – because, it is school after all, about the fluidity of sexual attraction as well as the interpretation of poorly designed posters.
“Another poster proclaims, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re in your school!” No kidding. They’re in the TDSB too, and what pretends to be a violence reduction and anti-bullying program is in reality a sodomite indoctrination program. The reality is that it will neither stop violence nor reduce bullying but it is certain to subtly corrupt the minds of children. This will be the new normal. Whatever happened to reading, writing and arithmetic.”
So In this paragraph the author has an issue with a frankly ugly poster of a bunch of tropical fish, with the a variation on the classic “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” slogan. He finds this to be an indoctrination program, which I find to be highlarious because if that were the case, then we are probably the laziest cult on the planet – I think it’d take more than some posters to convince some kids to cross over heterosexuality and join us heathens in sodomite hell. He writes that these posters won’t reduce bullying or stop violence but will corrupt the minds of children. My question is corrupt them to do what? The author has it jammed in his/her head that considering queers as mainstream and normal is corrupted, and that our ultimate goal is to gather all the young people for ourselves (to do I don’t know what) and leave none for the straight people. This is the ultimate in straight privilege – this sort of obnoxious egotistical thinking that straight people are these jewels that we simply must have, and we will do our damnedest to get our clutches on them – girl, please – we don’t want people in ranks who aren’t interested in a fair and equitable society (we certainly wouldn’t want the author of the blog post).
Yet another poster called “There are no rules to being a boy or a girl” has boys wearing girls clothing, playing with dolls and girls wearing boys clothing and so on. One little guy appears to be wearing a bright red woman’s wig. Six-year-olds in “drag.” Lovely. Not your momma’s school. Has it really come to this? Apparently.
Ah not your momma’s school – because drag is a new phenomenon created by RuPaul. Sorry, but drag’s been around since forever – guys have been trying on ladies’ clothes and vice versa since the first fabulous caveman saw floor-length loin cloth and decided he must have it. By the way, drag isn’t necessarily a gay-specific thing – Milton Berle, Flip Wilson, and Bugs Bunny all donned dresses – and studies show most cross dressers identify as heterosexuals. And so what that a six-year old wants to dress in drag? When I knew a girl who dressed up like Batman one Halloween and Charlie Chaplin a year later. I don’t think she plunged into a life of debauched sex and thievery later on (I Facebooked her and found out she’s studying marine biology in Phoenix – so that is the consequence of letting kids dress in drag, they choose to study difficult majors in college in the South West).
Toronto Sun columnist and radio NewsTalk 1010 host Joe Warmington asks in his column “so now the Toronto District School Board is telling kids they don’t have to be boys or girls? What the hell is going on with these people?” Blunt talk, but it is evident that even the general population and not just Christians or other religious groups are concerned about this. Reading, writing and “cross-dressing” – who would have thought? Mark Twain’s words may be appropriate here when he wrote that, “The strange thing about common-sense is that it is not all that common.” This past May I posted an article on my blog called “When Sodom Rules the Land” (http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/05/when-sodom-rules-land.html) after President Obama came out in support of “gay marriage.” My contention was to show that there is a “Sodomite” agenda at work in North American society. I tried to distinguish, in a gracious manner as possible, those who are homosexuals, from those who are actively promoting this and imposing it upon society. This is why I used the term Sodomite rather than homosexual. The thesis of that post was to show that the inhabitants of Biblical Sodom were not merely homosexual, but were aggressive (even violent) in pushing their “lifestyle,” or as the prophet Isaiah described it, “They declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not” (Isa. 3:9).
The blogger then introduces a loudmouth radio host – well, then, he must be right because he’s on the radio (two words: Rush Limbaugh). And Mr. Warmington is upset because the Toronto District School Board is telling kids they don’t have to be boys or girls. Wrong, pal – and I’m a little surprised that you don’t get it, because, after all, you’re on the radio, so you must be smart, but what the Toronto District School Board is saying is that there are more than two or three ways of being boys and girls, and it’s not up to grown-ups to decide just what kind of girl or boy a child decides to be.
I do have to concede to the author, because for support for one of his arguments he chose the timely and current pundit Mark Twain, who is an expert on the field of LGBT concerns. Good on you – I’ll make sure to show you my article about Internet piracy and what Charles Dickens had to say about the topic at a future date.
So the author is pissed also that our president finally caught up with the 21st Century, and decided to be a decent human being. The author writes that this is clearly some kind of work of a Sodomite agenda, because we’re actively trying to push our “lifestyle” on society. Because straight folks never did that – except when they did.
But the author has a point: he’s/she’s right – we are trying to force our agenda – I can’t believe the secrets out. Didn’t you know, dear readers, that the point of gay marriage is that it will replace heterosexual marriage. In fact, a little known provision in the law states you have to get gay married even if you’re not married. Not only that but we’re also pushing for arranged gay marriages among teens. I just hate that our secrets out before we were able to roll it out in stages. This blogger’s a crafty one.
Any of my readers who are familiar with my stand (either through this blog or on Twitter) concerning the Church’s role in the world will know that I don’t believe it is the Christian’s place to be judging sinners, whether homosexuals, adulterers or whoever. The apostle Paul was very clear about this when writing to the Corinthians stating, “For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges” (1 Cor. 5:12-13 NKJV). Paul is saying that the Church has no business in judging sinners, but we ought to judge those who are in the Church. In other words, leave the poor sinner alone, homosexual or otherwise—unless they repent God will eventually deal with them on judgment day—therefore our business is to lovingly present them the gospel of God’s grace. Meanwhile the Church does well if it keeps its own house in order—this ought to be our focus if there’s going to be any judging going on.
Then the writer goes on to start blah-blah-blahing about the Bible. Which is fine, because it’s obvious he’s/she’s really good at the remembering verses from the Bible – but guess what – just because you can regurgitate lines from an old book verbatim doesn’t make it true. I can toss of quotes from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice but that doesn’t mean there’s a Pemberly in rural England with a dreamy, but sullen master who’s married to a spirited and witty girl.
The cool thing about religion is that it’s personal and you’re allowed to believe in whatever you please. The cool thing about public society is that you get to have those beliefs without having to kowtow to other people’s beliefs. I have some great Jewish friends, and guess what – I love me some bacon cheeseburgers (well, I did, until my doctor told me to stop eating them or I’d have a heart attack). That’s the beauty of a pluralistic, diverse society – we each get to do our thing as long as we aren’t harming others.
However, the thesis of my post was that the sodomite agenda has a prophetic significance and that it is inexorably moving society towards the place of God’s judgment predicted in the Bible. This agenda promotes a total moral inversion of created order which can only end in the wrath of God. “Gay marriage” is neither gay nor marriage; the covenental and sexual union between a man and a woman is what alone constitutes marriage. It is the Sodomites who are filled with “hate”—they hate God, they hate Christians and they hate any right thinking individual who would dare draw a moral line in the sand. Take for instance a reader’s response to my above mentioned post:
More God suff, and then the author accuses us of hating God, Christians and right thinking individuals. He’s/she’s right about one thing, I hate anyone who thinks like the right. She/He then quotes a reader of his/her blog:
“Pretty sick, and hypocritical, that one who identifies himself as a “Christian” would spend so much time and energy railing against people who are born the way they are. You are not only hateful, you are ignorant, and lastly, a hypocrite to call yourself a follower of Jesus, who preached “Love one another as I have loved you” and “Judge not, yet ye be judged. I pray that you are taken from this world in haste, that your hatred dies with you . Besides the fact that it is a barely disguised death threat or at least death prayer, he betrayed the “hate” within his own heart—it is he, not I, who “hates.” I pray for him and would ask my readers to do so also.”
So the reader was obviously pissed and wished that the author died right away. I don’t wish that – I hope the author lives a long and happy life, so that he can see the progress made by the LGBT community and its allies. I want the author to have a safe, comfortable, and peaceful old age, where he/she sees other old folks who are in committed gay relationships, not have to worry about pesky details like survivor’s benefits, or hospital visitation rights. I hope that the author lives long enough to see our first lesbian Latina president.
“We all agree bullying is unacceptable. Children are bullied for various reasons and not exclusively because of “sexual orientation” or gender issues. Why the fixation on this one thing? If those who are promoting the Sodomite agenda are so concerned about bullies, they ought to first look at their own bullying tactic of brainwashing and forcing upon the minds of innocent children corrupt and wicked practices. Is it not bordering on psychological abuse to have children question their own sexual identity?””
I like how this author takes the bold stance of saying “bullying is unacceptable.” It’s that kind of brave talk that no longer exists in our society…I’m gonna go out on a limb here and add that I think murder is pretty bad, too.
But the author is wondering why we’re fixated on anti-gay bullying. I’ll try to explain – I remember from earlier in the post that things can get confusing for the author, so I’ll choose my words carefully, and I promise not to use too many polysyllabic words.
Kids are bullied for lots of different reasons – but LGBT kids are distinct because the bullying that they have to stand not only comes from the other kids, but often from teachers, administrators, their parents, religious figures, figures of authority, family members, etc.
If a Jewish kid is bullied because of her faith, she may very well face indifference from anti-Semitic forces all around her – whether it’s her peers or her teachers. But she can at least find some succor with her religious leaders and her family. Black kids also can turn to their families or at least their communities for support when they have to face racism.
LGBT kids often – and usually – don’t have this important network, because usually LGBT kids aren’t out to their families or friends – and if they are out many are ostracized by those they trust most – their parents or their religious figures. LGBT kids represent a disproportionately high number of teen runaways and suicides – it’s not an accident or a coincidence – it’s because that their sexuality or gender identity isolate them from their family and friends that makes the bullying all the more dangerous. Because lots of LGBT kids can’t turn to their parents for support, they become vulnerable to all the insidious repercussions of bullying.
I hate to end my flippant response to the blog post on such a serious note, but I can’t help it – this is a serious topic and is still grossly misunderstood and mishandled. I hate that there are gay kids out there who listen to idiots who tell them that they’re worthless, perverse, sinful, evil, or sick. I hate that this kind of hate speech is enshrined in religious liberty and that folks hide their bigotry behind piety.