Tuesday, May 12, 2009

How Can They Say These Things?

I know a lot of our readers also check out Box Turtle Bulletin, so I tend to avoid duplicating their posts. Today, though, Tim Kincaid says something so directly and so well that I can't help reproducing the whole thing here:
I sometimes wonder how anti-gay activists can knowingly and purposefully say things that simply are not true. I wonder how they can see the decency and normalcy of gay people and yet ascribe to them the most evil intentions and agenda.

Somehow these folks have created a world in which the evidence before their eyes is far less important than a blind faith in the opposite. They choose to believe that all that they see in front of them or hear from those who know is to be discounted, dismissed, and argued away unless it fits with their pre-conceived view of existence.

I believe that a faith that cannot subject itself to scrutiny is not a faith at all; rather it is based in fear - a fear that it we look too closely and see too clearly that what have always believed may disappear leaving us without a foundation or protection, alone. So those whose faith is fear must seek self-blindness, willfully.

Today I ran across an example, a truly tragic story. Cherie Rowe, a volunteer for ex-gay group Exodus International, tells of her struggle over the past 13 years to deal with her daughter’s homosexuality.

Now this is not a tale of “that dangerous lifestyle”. The daughter has a “sweet partner”, wonderful friends who have become family to her, and still tries to keep a relationship with her mother. But despite recognizing that her daughter has a blessed life, Cherie still longs that God work a miracle and remove all that goodness from her daughter.
I do confess that seeing their demonstrations of affection to one another is sometimes difficult, but God’s amazing grace allows me to accept them and love them without approving of their lifestyle.

I am so aware of how I might have been swayed by the tides of emotion in favor of these same sex relationships, had I not been rooted and grounded in the infallible Word of God.

The extent to which Cherie Rowe’s self-absorption is present on the page is astonishing. And no doubt that ability to see the world only in terms of herself has given her certainty that she and her faith are absolute, steadfast in the face of all evidence to the contrary - so she is careful not to see it.

She is so “rooted and grounded” that she can see love and think that it is evil. She is so “rooted and grounded” that she thinks that her own selfish desire to control her daughter is a passion to see God glorified.

Willful Blindness

It is a strange trainwreck when ideology and personal experience contradict one another, you know what you believe and you know what you see with your own two eyes and they do not go together. When that happens, most of us investigate to ensure there is not an illusion, and then adjust our belief to be congruent with our perception.

I love the first sentence of Kincaid's post: I sometimes wonder how anti-gay activists can knowingly and purposefully say things that simply are not true. We have seen this over and over in our county, whether it's lying about what's in the sex-ed curriculum, lying about the nondiscrimination bill, or whatever. If you are used to associating with people who expect and deliver truthfulness and honesty, and then you talk with these anti-gay lunatics, you almost feel like you are among a different species. It's not just that they have different customs from us, it is a fundamental difference where basic cognitive building-blocks such as facts and logic are simply absent.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Miss California USA can retain her crown even though she failed to reveal she had posed in her underwear as a teenager, pageant owner Donald Trump said Tuesday.

Trump also defended the answer that Prejean gave at last month's Miss USA pageant when she was asked her view of marriage by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. She said she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

"It's the same answer the president of the United States gave; it's the same answer many people gave," Trump said. "She gave an honorable answer; she gave an answer from her heart."

May 12, 2009 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An activist devoted to "outing" closeted gay lawmakers who work against gay rights drew the ire of a news anchor who said he wanted to punch the activist during a TV interview.

Mike Rogers runs the Web site BlogActive, exposing what he calls government hypocrisy by listing the names of politicians and staffers who vote against gay rights issues but may be gay themselves.

On May 6, he appeared on 'Let's Talk Live,' a Washington, D.C., show co-hosted by Doug McKelway on News Channel 8.

During the show, McKelway isn't shy about letting Rogers know that he doesn't agree with his tactics.

When Rogers accuses the host of implying that being gay is wrong, McKelway tells Rogers he'd like to "take you outside and punch you across the face."

May 12, 2009 11:30 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Here's the video of the confrontation between McKelway and Rogers.

May 13, 2009 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one should threaten to punch anyone.

Unrelated to that issue... I don't understand why Rogers feels that, just because a lawmaker is gay, he has to vote for gay issues. I occasionally talk on the cell phone while driving, but I wouldn't vote for a bill that promoted increased cell phone usage while driving. I drink sodas, but I wouldn't vote for a bill that promoted increased soda drinking. Just because you partake in something doesn't mean that you need to vote for it.

Besides, lawmakers aren't supposed to make laws just because they, themselves, would benefit from them.

May 13, 2009 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rogers doesn't want officials necessarily to change their vote, he merely wants them to be honest about who is casting it. A female elected official who votes against women's rights is honest, but a closeted gay elected official who votes against gay rights is not.

May 13, 2009 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A politician should be held only to his word and to the promises he makes to his constituents -- not to whether he or she divulges personal information. If someone runs on the platform of getting rid of drunk driving, it is of no consequence to know whether or not that person has ever driven drunk.

May 13, 2009 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a drunk pretends to be a teetotaler and runs on a platform of getting rid of drinking, the voters have a right to know the truth.

May 13, 2009 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea not anon
Is there anyone who thinks these plasticized people are really representative of anything besides exploiting themselves for money? Why would anyone be surprised that this woman posed in underwear- or less? She has had her body- and probably her face made over- at the such a young age- I guess she hated herself as well as gay people. Ever watch the people who force their tiny daughters into pageants because- "she wants to do this"(yes, I am sure a 2 year old can decide that). The whole thing is sick and these women are pathetic.

May 13, 2009 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If a drunk pretends to be a teetotaler and runs on a platform of getting rid of drinking, the voters have a right to know the truth."

Are you saying that if a gay person doesn't publicly state that he's gay -- then he's "pretending" to be heterosexual? Are you saying that all politicians must air their sexual desires and preferences?

May 13, 2009 11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm saying hypocrites in office or running for office should be exposed.

May 14, 2009 7:37 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I am very sensitive to the unfortunate social and political reasons that lgbt people have for remaining closeted. For millenia, my people have been forced to live in silence and in secret.

People like anonymous with his discrimination and, to be honest, hate, are a major cause of this.

On the other hand, I'm really not against action which gets rabid anti-gay politicians out of office. Such people are no help to anyone. Larry Craig deserved whatever he got. So did Ted Haggard.


May 14, 2009 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Anon (the one you like) and I were having a fine, spirited debate about important disclosure/non disclosure issues within the field of politics. There are fascinating arguments to be made on both sides, and both this Anon and I were making them in a friendly fashion. In fact, I like this Anon's style.

Why in the world did you come in and accuse me of "hate" and "bigotry"? In fact, I'm going to write to my good (lesbian) friend right now and get her take on your comments. We've been friends for over 20 years, so I'm sure she'll give me an honest answer.

May 14, 2009 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert -- I meant to put the word "discrimination" in quotes, not "bigotry" because you actually used the word "discrimination."

May 14, 2009 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

If you're the anonymous who uses words like deviant and abnormal, my comment needs no explanation. WBC et al claim not to be hateful, defending themselves with the notion that they are simply correct in their opinions. The If you're someone else, you should distinguish yourself.

I'm not sure why I bother to explain myself to you. It has the effect of pouring one's canteen into the sands of the Sahara.

To elaborate, anti-lgbt discrimination and the real threat of emotional and physical violence lead to closeting, through fear. You should take some responsibility for this.


May 14, 2009 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

BTW, I may have failed to be clear, or you may have succeeded in being even more obtuse than usual, but I was agreeing with you.

May 14, 2009 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

In watching the video, one can not help but wondering why McKelway has such a visceral response to Rogers. Does he have a friend or relative who has been damaged, or could potentially be damaged by such revelations? In an era in which lgbt people in the military receive dishonorable discharges and lose their livelihoods and pensions, I have friends whose lives and careers would be ruined by such revelations. Can one imagine, say, an lgbt Secretary of State who didn't change the policies which discriminate against non-straight family members of diplomats? We all make the compromises in life that we have to make.

May 14, 2009 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert's really making a classic fool out of himself this week.

May 14, 2009 10:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home