I thought I would take a break from my self-obsessive whinging to comment on something I saw in the news. Rev. Franklin Graham wrote an op-ed piece wherein he says his decision to move his foundation's accounts from Wells Fargo wasn't because they were gay friendly but because they were pro-homosexual "advocates" by featuring an ad with a lesbian couple adopting a special needs child. He goes so far as to say that all individuals and businesses should be "gay friendly" (by treating LGBT people decently) but never "endorsing" (by validating our desire to live outside the uncomfortable little box people that think his way have set aside for us).
As pleased as I am to see civility from the anti-gay crowd, I can't help but view it with suspicion. They never bothered with this veneer of "hate the sin, love the sinner" tolerance back when the court of public opinion was on their side. They sure as hell never bothered with it when I was growing up, listening to their rhetoric and thinking that the whole world hated me with no one to talk to or to tell me any different. They just said horrible things about "those people"—laughing, sneering, dismissing and threatening violence, and no one called them out for it. I can only think that the anti-gay lobby is being disingenuous now, as they makes their arguments minimally palatable—so as to fly under the radar of popular sentiment—all the while continuing their efforts to marginalize us.
I honestly believe that the entire piece was an effort to save face after it came to light that his new bank has a pretty LGBT-fabulous history as well. Rev. Graham even mentions the fact that they were associated with gay pride and apparently have a high score with the Human Rights Campaign. All in all, I think Rev. Graham's track record speaks for itself, and his words mean nothing when his deeds demean an entire segment of the population that he and people like him see as a label first and as human second.
Also In the News
The not-really-news website CNS News ran an article about seven "homosexual" ambassadors wanting trade talks to include discussions of LGBT rights. (I love how the author put "homosexual" right in the title, as if to tip you off that their gayness automatically invalidates their position.) The subtext, of course, is that the "gay agenda" is gaying up foreign policy like it faggots up everything else. I made the mistake of reading the comments, and so many of them echoed these sentiments. (One prolific commenter warned of "homosexual outbreaks," so I guess we're the zombie apocalypse.) Whether or not you approve of someone's "lifestyle" doesn't strip them of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as was enshrined in our founding documents.
The main problem I have is the hypocrisy of it all. Substitute the word "homosexual" for "Christian," and I'm willing to bet that all of these same people would be clamoring that defending foreign Christians should be a priority. The same website even had another article taking this general tack and mentioning two (presumably "heterosexual") lawmakers sponsoring a bill calling for the global repeal of all blasphemy laws. Where is all that indignation about interfering with other cultures and values? (I assure you that same-sex attraction and transgenderism aren't choices, but being Christian certainly is.) I personally agree that we should try to use our influence to improve human rights for all oppressed people, including Christian minorities. We can start by getting out of bed with Saudi Arabia, a country that despises every aspect of our culture but wants us as its personal attack dog. We can also start by holding ourselves to a higher standard—something that Obama has been trying to do—and not acting as if standards don't apply to us.
As pleased as I am to see civility from the anti-gay crowd, I can't help but view it with suspicion. They never bothered with this veneer of "hate the sin, love the sinner" tolerance back when the court of public opinion was on their side. They sure as hell never bothered with it when I was growing up, listening to their rhetoric and thinking that the whole world hated me with no one to talk to or to tell me any different. They just said horrible things about "those people"—laughing, sneering, dismissing and threatening violence, and no one called them out for it. I can only think that the anti-gay lobby is being disingenuous now, as they makes their arguments minimally palatable—so as to fly under the radar of popular sentiment—all the while continuing their efforts to marginalize us.
I honestly believe that the entire piece was an effort to save face after it came to light that his new bank has a pretty LGBT-fabulous history as well. Rev. Graham even mentions the fact that they were associated with gay pride and apparently have a high score with the Human Rights Campaign. All in all, I think Rev. Graham's track record speaks for itself, and his words mean nothing when his deeds demean an entire segment of the population that he and people like him see as a label first and as human second.
Also In the News
The not-really-news website CNS News ran an article about seven "homosexual" ambassadors wanting trade talks to include discussions of LGBT rights. (I love how the author put "homosexual" right in the title, as if to tip you off that their gayness automatically invalidates their position.) The subtext, of course, is that the "gay agenda" is gaying up foreign policy like it faggots up everything else. I made the mistake of reading the comments, and so many of them echoed these sentiments. (One prolific commenter warned of "homosexual outbreaks," so I guess we're the zombie apocalypse.) Whether or not you approve of someone's "lifestyle" doesn't strip them of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as was enshrined in our founding documents.
The main problem I have is the hypocrisy of it all. Substitute the word "homosexual" for "Christian," and I'm willing to bet that all of these same people would be clamoring that defending foreign Christians should be a priority. The same website even had another article taking this general tack and mentioning two (presumably "heterosexual") lawmakers sponsoring a bill calling for the global repeal of all blasphemy laws. Where is all that indignation about interfering with other cultures and values? (I assure you that same-sex attraction and transgenderism aren't choices, but being Christian certainly is.) I personally agree that we should try to use our influence to improve human rights for all oppressed people, including Christian minorities. We can start by getting out of bed with Saudi Arabia, a country that despises every aspect of our culture but wants us as its personal attack dog. We can also start by holding ourselves to a higher standard—something that Obama has been trying to do—and not acting as if standards don't apply to us.
