Coda
Wednesday July 26, 2006
A Shaidlian coda to the hysterical screaming fit some lefty commenters had in the George Michael comboxes, in which they insisted that cruising for anonymous sex in public places had nothing whatsoever to do with gay male culture, and for...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I might feel better about Kathy Shaidle if she didn't express sympathy with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is a hate-monger and just as bad as anyone on the left. One could just as well say that it's folks like Ann Coulter that drive the rage behind Michael Moore.>
I'm not sure which Rod I like best: The breathlessly prurient "Have-you-heard-about-what-Teh-Gays-are-doing?" Rod, the hysterical "Kill-'Em-All-And-Let-God-Sort-'Em-Out" Rod, or the embarrassingly earnest Crunchy-Con-Rod that isn't like those tacky Republicans that shop at Wal-Mart. How many other Faces of Rod can you put a finger on?
GO!>
Is pornography part of the straight male culture? How about going to strip joints? I live near a street where every evening straight men come to meet female prostitutes and pay for sex, so don't tell me it isn't part of straight male culture.
Now that I have my hyperbole out of my system, let me underscore my point. Yes, cruising takes place among gay men. Very few people would agree with an idiot like George Michael, just like few straight men would agree that watching porn and hiring prostitutes, that it is part of a culture.
The problem with people like Shaidle and Rod is that they are so desparate to make a point about the ills of homosexuality, they will latch on anything that even mildly supports their larger point.
If poor behavior prevened people from getting married, straight men would never be allowed to marry. All the rape, domestic violence, porn, prostitutes, high crime rates should be a reason to deny these people marriage since they are so deviant.
At least that's how your argument goes.>
Shaidle lives accross the street from a cruisy park so that means cruising parts is a large part of gay culture?
My next door neighbor beat his wife when I was growing up. Does that mean beating your wife is a large part of heterosexual culture?
I saw some black people in line at the food bank. Does that mean food banks are a large part of Black culture?
I saw some pictures of innocent Arab people blown up by Israeli missiles. Does that mean murdering innocent people is a large part of Israeli culture?
I mean... I just *hate* it when people that I don't know what I know.>
bah - "I just *hate* it when righties tell me that I don't know what I know.">
To pretty much everybody who asked "is this part of (blank) culture?," the answer is: to varying degree, yes. None of these are good things, of course.
I don't have any idea how common gay men go out to have sex with other random men. However much it happens, it's too much. This doesn't mean it's okay when heterosexual people do the same thing; in either case, it's a cultural issue that needs to be resolved. However, when someone starts arguing that something like this is "cultural," and therefore alright, then we have a problem.
God bless!>
Yet again, Rod Dreher exposes his ignorance and outright prejudice towards gay people.
I could just as easily say that every Catholic, and every Catholic priest, is a raging pedophile simply for the fact that pedophile, Catholic priests exist in the world...but if I did I'd sound just as stupid and foolish as Rod Dreher.
I don't, either, expect Mr. Dreher to comprehend such a simple truth.>
Joey,
Is pedophilia part of the Catholic culture?>
I live near a street where every evening straight men come to meet female prostitutes and pay for sex, so don't tell me it isn't part of straight male culture.
Given that an overwhelming majority of men are heterosexual, the absolute numbers of men who engage in such deviant behavior will be large even when the percentages are very small.
At least here in the developed world, the percentage of heterosexual men who employ prostitutes is very, very small. Most of us never have and never will.
Is it also true that only a tiny percentage of gay men have ever gone "cruising" in public parks/restrooms or other such places?>
Is it also true that only a tiny percentage of gay men have ever gone "cruising" in public parks/restrooms or other such places?
I never have and don't ever plan to. I know of only one person that has done such things, and he was pretty screwed up by his Christianist upbringing.
What's the percentage of pedophile priests in the Catholic church? At what percentage does a certain behavior become part of a culture?>
MNW---
Again, considering how many priests molested boys, yes, it is to some degree part of Catholic priest culture. Again, a problem.
I've probably stated my case badly...the point I was trying to make, though, is that no matter how many gay men do this, it's wrong (and the same for every other example thrown out there). Furthermore, the idea that someone like George Michaels using "this is my culture" to justify it is wrong---just as wrong as if a priest said molesting kids was "Catholic culture." Whether it is or not, it shouldn't be, and each community needs to work to end its particular problems.
God bless!>
I still can't figure out why George Michael's comment is being taken as indicative of anything other than his desire to get out of trouble. I mean, if I got caught shoplifting and then said that it was OK because in my Ruritanian culture it was considered permissible to boost a few things now and then, would you be wondering what's wrong with Ruritanian culture or would you be laughing at my pathetic attempt to escape the consequences of my actions? Common sense would dictate the latter.
As for percentages of gay men who cruise vs. straight men who pick up prostitutes, I know absolutely nothing. It would not surprise me to learn that gay men have more stranger-sex than straight men, but that wouldn't necessarily be a feature of gayness so much as maleness; in general, men, straight and gay, are more willing to have sex with strangers, and when you happen to incline towards other men, there's a better chance you'll find a stranger willing to have sex with you. (If homosexuality were the only factor involved, then why would lesbians have an often well-deserved rep for very stable, long-lasting monogamous relationships?)>
Whether it is or not, it shouldn't be, and each community needs to work to end its particular problems.
Each community needs to work to end its particular problems?
Are they not the same problem?
I don't see these two problems as much different. I don't see them as a problem for our "cultures". I see them as a problem for our culture. Rod Dreher and Kathy Shaidle see "cruising for anonymous sex in public places" as a problem within gay male culture. I see it as a problem in American culture. I also recognize that the pedophile Catholic priest problem is also a problem within American culture...and not necessarily Catholic culture.
Do you recognize any similarities between cruising for anonymous sex in public places and pedophile priests? Do you think there might be a common root these problems share? Do you think it possible that if we focused on solving our problems, together, instead of pointing out everyone elses problems that we just might create a better world?
Ideas about sex have come a long way since the days when Puritans put their stamp on American culture...but certain elements of culture are hard to shake...sometimes to the detriment of that culture.>
Michael......go read the statistics on pornography usage at http://www.blazinggrace.org/pornstatistics.htm and then with a straight face try and tell us again that porn isn't a part of the straight male culture.>
Aw come on. Ann Coulter is just Tom Paine in drag. A white Nina Simone sans piano.
No, I don't agree with everything she says, was shocked by her "ragheads" remark at CPAC, etc. Like McCarthy, she does as much harm as she does good.
But the thing about McCarthy was: he was a loud, overly-ambitious drunken bully.
And he was right.
Anyhoo: it's gonna take me a bit to adjust to "Shaidlian"... :-)>
And btw: when I say I lived across the biggest cruising park in Toronto, that means I lived in Boystown -- one of the largest and oldest gay villages in North America, if not the world. My apartment was owned by a gay couple, my neighbours and friends were gay, my city counsellor was gay, more than half the store owners were gay. I read the local gay papers like Xtra as a matter of course, the way you'd read your community weekly.
So please, don't dare tell me my experience and observations are invalid just because they offend your delicate sensibilities.
What I should have added (as a -- yes -- gay male friend and reader of mine reminded me) was that alcohol and drugs play a large part in cruising culture. Which is true as well.
There: Now you've got something new to fight about!>
Kathy's absolutely right. And this gay male culture with its cruising has fed right into the Catholic priesthood and religious orders. And I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. I work in a "Catholic" agency where most of the "religious" brothers are gay. One of them keeps gay porn on his computer. Another visits his boyfriend every weekend in NY. He also hits on every new male hire in the place AND doesn't want anything to do with women unless he absolutely has to. Homosexuals do not integrate well into ordinary society, especially with women. They have been the ruin of the priesthood and religious orders. Other than that, there's nothing wrong with them.>
Jathy-- welcome to the discussion-- hope I can help you understand the points that have been made here.
No one here wrote that your observations were invalid. If I'm incorrect, please direct me to the comment that did.
Rather, people argued that the simple fact that cruising exist proves prceisely nothing about gays.
When I drive home from downtown in my city, I have to pass 3 strip clubs and a one-block stretch where prostitutes hang out. That is an inarguable fact, like the fact that you lived across the street from a gay cruising spot in Toronto.
Now, the issue is, what conclusion do these facts allow us to draw?
Because you don't like homosexuality, you want to draw the inference that cruising is more integral to gay culture than, say, wife-beating or cheating or pornography or onanism or what-have-you is to "straight culture." But if I had an ax to grind the way that you do, I'd say that the fact that there are prostitutes is an indictment of straight culture.
Both statements are equally plausible.
As Michael wrote: "Yes, cruising takes place among gay men. ... The problem with people like Shaidle and Rod is that they are so desparate to make a point about the ills of homosexuality, they will latch on anything that even mildly supports their larger point."
Off topic, CS Lewis wrote that he couldn't claim any real moral virtue in his refraining from gambling, because he happened to have been born with no interest in it. That's how I (straight male) feel about prostitution and strip clubs. Those things creep me out. If it weren't for the degenerate straight lifestyle, I wouldn't get shudders every time I drove home.>
Kathy-- sorry for misspelling your name-- it was a typo, not a nonsensical insult or anything.>
Sleaze doesn't have a sexual orientation. The Episcopal congregation I belong to has many gay and lesbian members.
Most of the gay men are in committed relationships, and I doubt whether any of them would be caught dead "cruising" although of course I can't guarantee that.
I believe the "culture," so-called, of cruising is a direct reaction to the still poisonous atmosphere of condemnation of homosexuality and to the current popularity of considering it a choice or a lifestyle as opposed to a part of a particular individual's innate nature.>
"Aw come on. Ann Coulter is just Tom Paine in drag. A white Nina Simone sans piano." -Kathy
"A white Nina Simone..."?!?!? You, my dear, are an ignorant sack of shite.>
That there were Communists in the U.S. government that needed to be rooted out: McCarthy was right.
That George Marshall was deliberately trying to further Soviet interests: McCarthy was wrong.
Most (not all) of the real Communists, like Alger Hiss, were caught by persons other than McCarthy.>
I'm not sure what inference we're supposed to draw from the alleged fact that "cruising" or promiscuity or whatever is "part of gay (male) culture." Is it that gay men can't be monogomous? But conservatives frequently insist that gays should be celibate. Why is that more realistic?>
"...the still poisonous atmosphere of condemnation of homosexuality..."
What planet is this writer on?
The only people and institutions that condemn homosexuality these days are those on the margins of popular culture. The most common influences on people's lives (Hollywood, TV, magazines, music, etc.) all scream their acceptance of homosexuality.>
Take a look at this.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/27/MNGDTK6DE21.DTL
Mainstream gay rights activists and their supporters including big names like Gloria Steinem, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich and novelist Armistead Maupin say that marriage rights for gays are too constricting. We need to support flexible relationships of many types like polyamory.
Sure looks like gay marriage isn't a slippery slope. More like a saturn V.>
It does seem to be the case that many of the most prominent advocates for gay marriage are not particular friends of marriage generally.>
What gay marriage? You don't want them to marry and you don't want them to cruise. If straights couldn't marry, there would probably be a lot more parks in this country.>
tt: "The only people and institutions that condemn homosexuality these days are those on the margins of popular culture. The most common influences on people's lives (Hollywood, TV, magazines, music, etc.) all scream their acceptance of homosexuality."
Ah, can gays get married in your state? (Check to see if you live in Massachusetts. If not, here's a clue: "no").
I humbly submit that the rule of law is a more powerful influence on day to day life than "Will and Grace.">
Awaiting for the inevitable Rod post about polyamory and polygamy being part of gay culture and how gays are trying to destroy marriage. It's as predictable as the sun rising.>
Barry,
Rod doesn't have to. Legal Director Shannon Minter at San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights, does it herself in a public statement.>
I live in San Francisco, where surveys have indicated the population is 18% gay. We can probably safely assume around half of that 18% is male, so for the sake of argument let's say there's a 9-10% gay male population locally -- given a total population of 740,000 in 2005, we're looking at somewhere between 70,000 and 80,000 gay men in SF proper.
Predictably, there are also a number of well-known local cruising spots: the eastern slope of Buena Vista Park, a wooded strip at the west end of Golden Gate Park, etc. Wandering through these areas, even at what might be assumed to be "peak" hours (early evenings, weekends, etc.) I can't say I've ever spotted more than eight or ten lurking, eye-contact-avoiding men at any given time (usually more like 5). This would seem to suggest a level of per capita gay male participation in these kinds of activities considerably lower than that assumed by some of the participants in this thread. Which is to say, we're looking at a slim subculture within a subculture here, not some overwhelming cultural force within the gay community.>
First, Shannon is a he. Second, that's not what he said. He said that these arguments are poorly timed, which is correct. They don't reflect the mainstream of gay thinking, any more than Andrea Yates represents the mainstream of Southern religious conservatives or pedophiles represent the mainstream of Catholic priests.>
It sometimes seems that the only debating tactic left to the Left is to roll their eyes, huff loudly and try to Gaslight you into thinking you don't know what you know. It helps explain some of the fury that drives the Ann Coulters of the world, I think -- raging against the boldfaced lying and headgames of one's opponents.
And when, exactly, did this become a tactic of the left in particular?
Try asking a (non-crunchy) conservative to talk about global warming. Present them with the evidence, and they deny it. Present them with the consensus of the scientific community, and they assert that it's a big conspiracy by a bunch of politically-savvy, money-grubbing scientists. I personally know a pretty decent sample of this politicized and greedy scientific community, so I know what a hoot these allegations are. It would make me laugh out loud if the underlying issue wasn't so damn serious.
If we're going to stand on stereotypes and throw stones at "them", then I would say that the pattern that has emerged is pretty clear: Liberals lie about mutually consensual sex between adults. Conservatives lie about issues of scientific and military import that get people killed.
I never liked Slick Willie, but no one died when Clinton lied.>
Barry,
Sorry about the confusion over Shannon but the name is usually feminine and director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Well an easy mistake to make.
However this is his quote; "equality of marriage rights must come before other forms of relationship recognition.
Gay legal groups already agree with them and are doing the things they recommend for the most part," Minter said.
So, they already agree and equality of marriage rights must come "before other forms of relationship recognition."
Those two quotes indicate to me that he supports this movement but "not yet." Pushing it step-by-step is a more effective tactic.>
No offense, but who the hell is this Shannon person?
By digging up extreme things that some people have said, you distract from the actual issue: should the law treat gays equally?
Mao Zedong delighted in reproducing the "I Have a Dream" speech all throughout China-- many people know it well even now. Mao was bad; but King was still right. Judge King's words on their merit; and judge the principle of equality for gays on its own merits.>
Tom,
Read the article linked in the SF Chronicle or check this out:
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
While the list of signatories leans left, these are 600 serious people. Many establishment figures with prominent positions in the gay rights movement.
Shannon Minter is legal director at San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights. That is not a marginal group. It is mainstream gay rights.>
Actually, those arguments are not new and some on the right--think Eve Tushnet--have made the same argument. The idea that we should disconnect the religious idea of marriage and the legal rights provided by the secular state are not a completely out-there idea.
And it has nothing to do with polyamory or polygamy.>
I'll be glad to say what planet I'm on, thomastucker. The first time I ever encountered gay people was in junior high school. A popular teacher at my school was fired, and rightly so, after he became involved with a male student of about 15.
At the same time, an unpopular straight teacher in the same department used, regularly, to drop his pencil on the floor and try to look up girl students' skirts. Everybody knew it, but this teacher was not fired.
During my teenaged years, my family knew a married couple who ended up divorced because it turned out the husband was gay. He later committed suicide. I know of at least one other (closeted) gay man who attempted suicide because of his unhappiness over his sexual orientation.
Those who complain today about a climate of growing acceptance for gay men and lesbians living in committed relationships perhaps need to dredge their memories for similar examples from the bad old days.>
Barry,
It is very clear that the idea is put on equal footing all sorts of relationships including to quote from the statement " Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" with heterosexual marriage. In other words polyamory.
And, I haven't read Eve Tushnet on this so I won't comment about her opinion but there are very, very few on the political right who agree with that position.>
SVS: Thanks for the link. Just glanced over it myself. Yeah, that's a kinda strage list of stuff.
Now, of all the signatories, I've heard of about 5-6 or them-- 2 only b/c they taught at a school I attended.
I submit that if "Betsy Reed, Executive Editor, The Nation; Reno, Performance Artist; and Ruby Rich, Author of Chick Flicks: Theories and Memories of the Feminist Film Movement, Community Studies Dept, UC Santa Cruz" all agree on some issue, their views are not likely to be implemented in our lifetimes.
Also, I'm not super well versed in all this, but I've never heard of the "National Center for Lesbian Rights." I've heard of Lambda Legal, and HRC (neither of whom are represented on this list, I don't think), but not that group. I suspect that very, very, very few people on this list can, say, get to talk to a congressman about his or her views.
So, I'll stick to my view that this manifesto is a fringe statement, with no more policy impact than ... me posting on my blog. Focusing on it distracts from the issue at hand, which is: should the law treat gays equally?>
Tom,
I don't know where you live but many people on that list are mainstream in San Francisco and I have no doubt that the minority leader of the house has been available to such groups.
Also, I link to that article because Shannon Minter's position conforms to what I've heard in many forums. For example when California had an initiative on same sex marriage on the ballot SF's PBS radio station conducted a debate. There was one outright opponent of gay marriage, one lawyer from the ACLU who was pro gay marriage (and was working with the courts on gay marriage) and an anti-marriage gay rights person.
When the anti-marriage gay rights person was critical of the gay marriage position as too confining, the lawyer readily conceded the point but said that it was but one of many possibilities that had to be developed. I hear this stuff all the time.>
"mainstream in San Francisco" != likely to impact the course of national policy.
You seem to dislike the idea of equal treatment for gays; hence, it's not hard for you, living in SF, to hear and remember extreme stuff that people say. If I were a liberal living in, say, Orange County, I could surely hear and catalogue loads of extreme stuff that made me mad. But it doesn't mean that the extreme stuff that the conservatives are saying in that area is really a big part of the national discussion.
As I said before, that statement doesn't appear to have anyone from HRC, the mainsteamest gay rights group around (I think). I think its impact is roughly zero.>
OK Tom,
Fair enough. However, let's see if HRC makes any statement. I doubt it. I would expect from my experience having lived close to gay culture and reading gay periodicals from time-to-time that most members of HRC agree with Shannon. The only prominent pro gay marriage person that has disavowed such an opinion that I have read is Andrew Sullivan.
Keep in mind, that Shannon was picked for a quote from a gay-friendly publication. I would guess that he is on their rolodex as a mainstream gay rights lawyer from whom they can easily get a quote.
Also, I have lived in SF but don't any longer. I live in Santa Clara county which is the most populous county in the SF bay area and politically quite liberal. However, SC county voted against gay marriage in the state referendum. So my positions on this issue are quite mainstream where I live. We do get SF media however and our local media is quite liberal as is the case in most places from my experience.>
Try asking a (non-crunchy) conservative to talk about global warming. Present them with the evidence, and they deny it. Present them with the consensus of the scientific community, ...
Among those who have disputed the 'consensus' are Richard Lindzen of MIT and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.>
Homosexuals do not integrate well into ordinary society, especially with women.
Get out much on your planet?
Honey, just about every gay man I know has a Grace...or a Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, or Miranda.
Perhaps what you meant to say was "homosexuals do not integrate well with women like me or in segments of society that harbor prejudices towards them.">
In my never humble opinion, the core of the problem is the societal conditioning that makes sexuality subject to ownership: I have sex with you, I own your body, your heart and your ability to show affection (sexual or not) to other members of my gender.
That, my friends, is at the heart of the entire psychosis.
Like respect, fidelity must be earned, and cannot be bought. Why is it so hard to grasp that? We won't get into the logical next step of celebrating one's mate's sexuality including her (from my POV) ability to love more than one person.
Sex is not love. Sex is a way to express love, no more or less valid than a smile, a hug, a kiss, or a strong admiration from afar.
FTR, polyamory has if anything a higher proportion of ethical conduct than most monogamies I've seen or heard of. To point to a breakup (like the lesbian couple in Boston) as a symptom that disproves the concept is to ignore millenia of human experience. I find that incredible as well.
Jealousy, like impulses such as violence and theft, is a part of human nature. Like other impulses, it can be controlled and rechanneled into constructive paths. That is what polyamory is about. It is no more about sex than monogamy is, and in my view it's about a damn sight more than most monogamists tend to think about, let alone discuss with each other.>
Alicia- your examples speak more about the inherent unhappiness of those afflicted with same-sex attraction than they do with anyon'e disapproval of that attraction.
Tom Tomberg- the law is not something that most people look to in adopting their values; spend some time with teenagers lately and you will understand that the laws against gay marriage are destined to fall because of the indoctrination of our young by Hollywood and the media. The law is slow to reflect changes in societal values, but eventually it will catch up (as our society increasingly degenerates.)
And if you want to see where the degeneracy is leading, just read the post above by the polymorphously perverse Franklin.>
the inherent unhappiness of those afflicted with same-sex attraction
Sexuality is a gift...not an affliction.
There isn't anything inherently unhappy in sexuality...it's quite the opposite.
Unhappiness is inherent in not accepting life on life's terms and believing all the garbage others tell you about your own life.
Happiness is accepting who you are and living to your greatest potential. One's sexuality does not have any affect on one's potential...for the greatest potential is love...and the greatest love of all is love of self. It's in believing the lies others tell you about your self where unhappiness is inherent.>
I've been labelled perverse before, many times, but not polymorphously. I think I should look up that word, but I doubt a dictionary is going to reveal to me what Mr. Tucker's intention is in using it.
In any event, I shall wear it proudly, and tell my friends all about it. I'm sure they'll all be very envious of me.
It's in believing the lies others tell you about your self where unhappiness is inherent.
Thank you, MNW, for a simple and elegant statement of fact.>
In contrast to MNW's assertion, the greatest love is actually love of others, not love of oneself.
This is the teaching of Christianity. It is a paradox, but God made you for love of others, not yourself, and cultivating self-love above all else leads to unhappiness rather than happiness.
As for unhappiness stemming form believing the lies that others tell you about yourself- I would agree and add that one of the foremost lies being told to you is that homosexuality is normal, natural, and the way God wanted you to be. Following that leads to unhappiness. In contrast, accepting that God had a plan when he "made them male and female" and understanding how that plan has been thwarted in your life will start you on the road to healing and happiness.>
If you will pardon the implied argumentativeness, Mr. Tucker, the statement was that self-love is the greatest love, and neither intended nor implied "...cultivating self-love above all else..." This is a common misunderstanding of the concept, and I don't fault you for falling prey to it.
Self-love is the strongest foundation for the love of non-self. It is at the core of conjugal love, communal love, and the highest abstract of love, patriotism. It states, quite simply, that the greater my love can be, the more it will infuse the objects of my love. There is no stronger place for love to reside than inside of me.>
Perhaps that is what MNW meant by self-love, but it surely isn't clear from his post.>
Well, I can't write for MNW, but I am willing to risk a possibly bad assumption and say that it is what she/he meant. It is certainly what I mean by it, and it goes with my post about polyamory.
Something like this: love multiplies, not divides. Anyone with different arithmetic is just not getting the point.>
In contrast to MNW's assertion, the greatest love is actually love of others, not love of oneself. This is the teaching of Christianity.
It may be the teaching of Christianity...but it is not the teaching of Christ.
Love God above all things.
Love your neighbor as your self.
How am I to love my neighbor as myself if I do not love my self?
My love for others is limited by the love I have of self. It is in finding love within, that I have found love to share with others.
It is a paradox, but God made you for love of others, not yourself, and cultivating self-love above all else leads to unhappiness rather than happiness.
It may seem like a paradox to you, but it is not. It's quite clear to me and not contradictory.
Who said anything about "cultivating self-love above all else"?
Within me I have discovered an inifinite well of love. It has no bounds and is always full. It is from this well that I give from. Love is something that is given. It is something that is received. How could I give Love to another if I have not received Love within myself?
As for unhappiness stemming form believing the lies that others tell you about yourself- I would agree and add that one of the foremost lies being told to you is that homosexuality is normal, natural, and the way God wanted you to be.
I know within myself what is true. No one has told me what you claim to be lies. My sexuality is what it is...to me it is perfectly normal, natural, and the way God created me to be. I don't have to listen to others to know these things...they simply are what they are.
Following that leads to unhappiness.
Following people like you is what lead to unhappiness. It is in following the inherent prejudice in your opinions about my life that lead me astray. It is in following people like you that I was lead away from my own heart and my own love within. It is in following the bigotry of Christianist know-it-alls that I was delivered to unhappiness.
It is in accepting myself just as I am...that I found Christ and was accepted by him just the same. People like you could learn a lot from Christ...but even moreso, I believe you could learn a lot from your gay brothers and sisters who have found him, despite all of the stones and boulders laid in our paths by people like you.
In contrast, accepting that God had a plan when he "made them male and female" and understanding how that plan has been thwarted in your life will start you on the road to healing and happiness.
I find it pathetic that people place such emphasis on penises and vaginas, when Christ's message was overwhelmingly one of the heart, spirit, and soul.
Perhaps if YOU were able to get beyond YOUR hang ups with penises and vaginas you might begin to see the purity of heart and spirit your gay brothers and sisters have to share with you...because in my expereience they have so much more love to share with others than you have ever imagined.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.