Ship of Fools: Beat the gayness out of that boy!

Thread: Beat the gayness out of that boy! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028633

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

A Baptist pastor in North Carolina preached a sermon last Sunday that advocated beating a child as young as four years old who showed the slightest sign of effeminate behavior.

In the same sermon, he advised young girls to play sports, sure, but to walk, talk, dress and smell like girls.

The pastor subsequently issued an apology and retraction of his remarks, which many have interpreted as half-hearted at best and downright mendacious at worst.

Surely this brings the question of how being gay fits into the Christian scheme of things to a new level of discussion . . . ?

(Please forgive if this is not a Dead Horse or should have been appended to an existing thread -- it struck me as a new enough take on the subject to merit a thread of its own.)

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

That's not new, is it? It's just the same old sickening arseholery from someone who desperately needs a hug.

I would say thump, but that would just descend to his moronic level. However, the opportunity to hug him to a bloody pulp would be quite satisfying.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Nothing discomfits these guys like helping them get their own message out with an unexpected virtual megaphone. Then watch them backpedal. Gotta love it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Surely this brings the question of how being gay fits into the Christian scheme of things to a new level of discussion . . . ?

I'd say that it answers that question, and in more or less the same way (but with more violent overtones) as the usual answer given under what's generally understood as "the Christian scheme of things". Here's a less violent example from a more mainstream denomination.

quote:
When Dominic Sheahan-Strahl found out he couldn't speak at his alma mater's graduation because he is gay, he didn't get mad or upset.

He wanted to let the whole world know about the discrimination and spread a message of love and equality.

"We are all equal individuals," he said. "Growing up in a Catholic school, I was taught that God is love. Right now, this is contrary to that."

The school invited the 32-year-old former Mount Pleasant resident, an actor in New York, to return May 20 and deliver the graduation address, but when officials found Sheahan-Stahl's engagement photos in his Facebook, rescinded the offer.

In short, the approved place for gays in "the Christian scheme of things" seems to be lifelong celibacy and, preferably, closeting. It's just the details of enforcement (violence vs. shunning) that seem to vary from sect to sect.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If children are beaten, they are likely to turn out as beaters. So far from beating the gayness out of boys, parents will encourage their children into S & M in addition to being gay.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Actually, children who are abused grow up to abuse their own children according to the statistics, not get into S&M which has things like safe words to make the beatings stop when it becomes too much.

I found this article pointed out something I hadn't really thought deeply on-- every single child in that church had to sit there and hear that God sanctions violence against them.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If children are beaten, they are likely to turn out as beaters. So far from beating the gayness out of boys, parents will encourage their children into S & M in addition to being gay.

Dude.

That's not how s&m works.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I used to know a guy who could hardly get off unless he were spanked. It seemed rather sad.
Are you trying to tell me either that (1) this isn't masochism, or (2) he just happened to pick up the taste from lovers without being beaten as a child?

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I used to know a guy who could hardly get off unless he were spanked. It seemed rather sad.
Are you trying to tell me either that (1) this isn't masochism, or (2) he just happened to pick up the taste from lovers without being beaten as a child?

(1) It might be masochism, sure.

(2) He might have picked it up from his lovers, or it could just be a thing that he is into.

I am reasonably certain that compared to you, I know a lot more people who are into being spanked. (Although maybe your friends who have happy spanky sex lives are simply not tell you about it.) It's almost an even divide between those who were beaten as children and those who are not.

It tends to divide along age lines, btw. The older ones tend to attribute their kinks to being beaten at school. The younger ones who were never beaten at school and/or only mildly smacked by parents, tend to say it makes no difference.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I used to know a guy who could hardly get off unless he were spanked. It seemed rather sad.
Are you trying to tell me either that (1) this isn't masochism, or (2) he just happened to pick up the taste from lovers without being beaten as a child?

Are you trying to tell us that this one guy is meant to represent everyone who is into spanking?

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

I think this one anecdote may tell us all we need to know about Alogon's attitude to people who likes things that he doesn't.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Maybe we should get said pastor to read "Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay" published in the NYT a week or so ago (article includes link to Journal of Psychology article)

The study also looked at possible causes for the divergence between public profession and private/unconscious inclination, and found (surprise!) that parental influence in forcing behaviour patterns on their children was a significant contributor.

So spanking the gayness away may lead to negative speech/behaviour towards gays from people who cannot allow themselves to accept their own orientation/desire.

ISTM that this is hardly news, except that there is now clinical research to back up the common opinion.

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :

Is there anything wrong with S&M? Masochism doesn't mean something is wrong with you having to do with one's past, I can totally relate, and it's not enjoying pain, or feeling like I deserve it. It's very complicated. And even if there is a history of abuse, giving your partner the trust to dominate, even in small ways, it is quite liberating for some people.

I know this isn't the point of this thread but I have a hard time keeping this sort of thing to myself. It's an important subject to bring to light I think.

Feel free to yell at me for being off-topic though.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But then there is nothing inherently "wrong" in being gay or lesbian. It happens as a "natural" part of growing up for many, probably most, GLs (I'm not sure about the development of a proclivity to S&M and I wouldn't want to derail this thread on that topic. I'd suggest starting a new thread)

And there certainly is nothing wrong with a child doing childish things. The "wrongness comes in making innocent play into beating offenses.

The problem isn't the actual "wrongness" of GLBTs so much as it is the need on the part of some people to MAKE a wrongness of something that isn't inherently wrong.

And before anyone starts on abusiveness or promiscuity, I'd suggest they think about the amount of abusive and promiscuous behaviour on the part of heteros, who certainly as a group do not set a good example for those rare people who are choosing between hetero and homo. There are lots of real people of any persuasion or orientation who misbehave. That's not a reason to beat up on one (small) group.

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :

I've never understood people thinking that it's not just innate. Although I can't talk, because I ID'd as straight until age 24 when I decided I rather liked dating women. And when I see children doing things that aren't in their traditional gender roles, it makes me very worried that someone will squash their desires, not letting them be who they really are, especially for boys.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh yes. Because all men with feminine characteristics are gay, and all gay men are effeminate. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Oh, gender essentialism, how do I hate thee, let me count the ways.

What kind of miracle would it take for a Baptist pastor in north Carolina to read Judith Butler on the social construction of gender?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I think this one anecdote may tell us all we need to know about Alogon's attitude to people who likes things that he doesn't.

That attitude would be what? I never enjoyed being spanked <surprise!>, and I believe in the Golden Rule. The anecdote says nothing other than compassion about an attitude to people.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I think this one anecdote may tell us all we need to know about Alogon's attitude to people who likes things that he doesn't.
That attitude would be what? I never enjoyed being spanked <surprise!>, and I believe in the Golden Rule. The anecdote says nothing other than compassion about an attitude to people.

Golden Rule, huh.

So you'd prefer that your friends judge your personal preferences as sad then, yes?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

You are astonishingly defensive about S&M all of a sudden. First you condescend to Orfeo and then you pile on me for essentially asking a question, for crying out loud.

Admittedly, my experience is very limited, a fact that I don't regret. You, evidently with more, inform us that it isn't always associated with childhood violence. Fine. I buy it. Live and learn, and to each his own.

Trouble is, I made the mistake of suggesting rather the opposite association a year ago and was, um, corrected with even more fury. So a little reading and listening on the Web acquainted me with plenty of cross-cultural research suggesting a correlation between rough child raising and various violent customs, sexual and otherwise, in the society as a whole-- up to and including a propensity for warfare. Anyone uncomfortable with the prescriptions of the Rev. Mr. Harris in the O.P. ought to welcome any and all evidence of the harm they do.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You are astonishingly defensive about S&M all of a sudden.

Now, now. I'd like to think that I'm astonishingly defensive about s&m all the time!

quote:
First you condescend to Orfeo and then you pile on me for essentially asking a question, for crying out loud.

It's not the question mate, it's the way you asked it.

And where did I condescend to Orfeo?

Actually never mind. Whatevs, blah. I'm bowing out. It was a tangent anyway.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
First you condescend to Orfeo and then you pile on me for essentially asking a question, for crying out loud.
It's not the question mate, it's the way you asked it.

In the interests of improved goodwill, it looks to me as if Alogon meant "I feel sorry for this person because he seems damaged" whereas you heard "I have contempt for him because he's different".

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I'd like to point out this did get a little derailed, because the preacher didn't advocate spanking.

His exact words were, "Give them a good punch".

And again, if an adult consents to being punched (which in my mind, drawing mostly from legal precedent, is being hit with a closed fist, while spanking is with an open palm) whether that consent is in a boxing ring or the bedroom, that's completely farkleptin' different from PUNCHING YOUR CHILD.

As in, you go ahead and get punched in any way your heart desires if you're an adult, but if I find out you're hitting your child with a closed fist, I will do everything in my power to get that kid away from you and to hell with the consequences to my self.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In the interests of improved goodwill, it looks to me as if Alogon meant "I feel sorry for this person because he seems damaged" whereas you heard "I have contempt for him because he's different".

That is exactly what I meant, Eliab. Thank you. I apologize to everyone if it was misunderstood. Peace to Ecumaniac and all she loves.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
First you condescend to Orfeo

I haven't got the FOGGIEST idea where this assertion comes from.

[ 05. May 2012, 00:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Sorry, Orfeo, I should have said Leo.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Sorry, Orfeo, I should have said Leo.

Ah. I see.

In which case I'm 100% behind ecumaniac.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You are astonishingly defensive about S&M all of a sudden. First you condescend to Orfeo and then you pile on me for essentially asking a question, for crying out loud.

Why single her out? A lot of people were calling bullshit on your comment.

I am (fairly) vanilla, but I know the damn difference between rough play and abuse. Just like I know the difference between schoolboys play-wrestling and when they are about to kill each other.

And also-- everything Spiffy said.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Now I don't know where you are coming from. I nowhere suggested that S&M=abuse, only (like Leo) that it can result from child abuse. This is by no means established, but it's not as though the suggestion is just prejudice.

I, too, can distinguish between rough play and abuse. You wouldn't be suggesting that the Rev. Mr. Harris was just talking about the former, would you?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Sorry I mentioned S & M. I don't really know anythimg about it.Nor do I want to really.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Can we get off the S&M tangent and have a real discussion about the OP?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is by no means established, but it's not as though the suggestion is just prejudice.

If it's not established, it seems to me that it quite literally is pre-judged.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Is there any faint chance that we could see some discussion about the OP?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Well, we can try.

I don't know who to feel sorrier for: the misguided pastor who has deluded himself into thinking that he is following Christ's example; the adult members of that congregation who have deluded themselves into thinking that such sentiment epitomizes Christian values; or the innocent children in the congregation who were forced to listen to such hateful remarks.

It grieves me to think that so much hatred is promulgated in the name of our Blessed Lord, who is Love Itself.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there any faint chance that we could see some discussion about the OP?

I honestly can't see anything to discuss, other than to say, as I've already effectively said, that it's ludicrous to equate effeminacy with homosexuality or vice versa.

What else is there to discuss? The idea that beating a child is an effective way to change their behaviour in ANY area?

Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :

My guess is that this pastor is advocating violence towards a feminine acting boy b/c violence is seen as masculine. He (the pastor) has this messed up idea that a feminine boy will grow up into a feminine man and that all feminine men are gay. So it seems like he's thinking that if you can literally beat some masculinity into him, you might 'save' him from being gay.

At least that's what I *think* he's trying to do.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

The pastor is also working with a caricature of masculinity in his own mind. And part of his understanding of masculinity is that hitting people when you don't agree with them is a solution. His idea of fathering is that you hit children who don't act as you do, so they are frightened enough to act differently, so that to all appearances they are acceptable as heterosexual boys or girls.

The same violent and warped thinking that advocates corrective rape for women (and not just in South Africa). Here's a man in Ohio arguing that men should allow their lesbian daughters to be raped, to set them straight.

Ohio DJ says man's gay daughter should be raped

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The only saving grace (such as it is) in all of this is that it makes one's own sins seem trivial compared to the enormous evil that surrounds us. (I know that's a sin of pride, but so be it.)

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

it might make someone think "No, I don't want to be associated with a mind that can think this way and come to these conclusions." It does show a certain mind set after all that isn't very attractive.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I'm afraid, though, that what draws people to congregations such as that one is the notion that "That pastor thinks just the way I do."

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
it might make someone think "No, I don't want to be associated with a mind that can think this way and come to these conclusions." It does show a certain mind set after all that isn't very attractive.

Between the pastor and the idiot DJ there are times I really don't want to be known as a Christian. To think that other people think that this is what being a Christian means both saddens and angers me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

How did this story get into the media? It must be because someone in the congregation thought the sermon was reprehensible. If they'd all felt it was perfectly okay, we'd never had heard about it. This suggests that not everyone who was present is inclined simply to accept everything this man says. According to the second link, some parents walked out of his sermon, so he might lose some church members as a result.

Is it a big congregation? Small? Is it a neighbourhood with not many other churches to choose from? Maybe there aren't even that many children in the church. Maybe he knew a journalist would be there and he started to play up to that. All these and other factors would tell us how much influence this man actually has.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I think it's more likely that he wasn't counting on a journalist (or mystery worshipper?) being present.

Croesus recently pointed out the GLAAD Commentator Accountability Project, which is basically a repository of such statements made by a whole rogue's gallery of career homophobes. If they were willing to stand behind their own words, they would welcome the publicity. But no, the thanks GLAAD gets from some of the speakers for its helping hand in getting the word out is a charge of censorship. [Ultra confused]

They carry on because they think they're preaching only to an amen corner. When this proves not to be so, they are embarrassed.

[ 07. May 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I think it's more likely that he wasn't counting on a . . . mystery worshipper being present.

If only! Is there someone in the area whom we could dispatch posthaste to cover the fallout from this incident?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Might have been interesting enough to travel to it. I imagined that such a funeral, had it been wanted, would have been quite, how shall i say it(?), flamboyant.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Nothing discomfits these guys like helping them get their own message out with an unexpected virtual megaphone. Then watch them backpedal. Gotta love it.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Alogon's comment about the GLAAD list is emphasised by the speech by Dan Savage , describing the problems with Biblical teaching to a group of journalism students.

Once he started to mention the Bible, a small number of students walked out, presumably too uncomfortable to hear what "the other side" had to say.

As he points out, it is easy enough to preach active hatred (which he had experienced first hand) but the "other side" is not supposed to make "real Christians" feel uncomfortable or think about consequences.

I notice that the majority of the students enjoyed his speech.

Sorry, forgot to add link

[ 19. May 2012, 21:27: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

It must be something in the water in NC as here is another nutjob preacher advocating violence against gays & lesbians: Pastor Calls for Electrified Fences for Gays He also seems to be quite ignorant of the fact that gays and lesbians are born to heterosexual couples.

"Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., made the suggestion during a May 13 sermon, according to a video posted Monday on YouTube.

“I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers,” he says.

“Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.

“Feed ’em, and you know what?” Worley continues. “In a few years they’ll die. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.”

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ Wow. That is just SO amazingly dumb.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It must be something in the water in NC as here is another nutjob preacher advocating violence against gays & lesbians: Pastor Calls for Electrified Fences for Gays

It's not the water, it's Amendment One. It doesn't seem to matter where it happens, but whenever one of these anti-gay ballot initiatives comes up the local Spokesmen for God seem to feel free to say the things they usually only think.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Alogon's comment about the GLAAD list is emphasised by the speech by Dan Savage , describing the problems with Biblical teaching to a group of journalism students.

Once he started to mention the Bible, a small number of students walked out, presumably too uncomfortable to hear what "the other side" had to say.

As he points out, it is easy enough to preach active hatred (which he had experienced first hand) but the "other side" is not supposed to make "real Christians" feel uncomfortable or think about consequences.

I notice that the majority of the students enjoyed his speech.

Sorry, forgot to add link

Well played, Mr Savage. Pansy-ass is right.

Anybody else get the sense that that moment was staged, like someone got a hold of Dan's notes and gave participants a cue to get up? Because they really didn't seem to have time to be offended by what he actually had to say, he just said "Bible!" and folks started jumping up.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Anybody else get the sense that that moment was staged, like someone got a hold of Dan's notes and gave participants a cue to get up? Because they really didn't seem to have time to be offended by what he actually had to say, he just said "Bible!" and folks started jumping up.

There's been speculation along those lines ever since the event. It's not even necessary to postulate anyone getting ahold of Mr. Savage's notes. Just the fact that he's Dan Savage pretty much guarantees that there'll be something in any of his public speeches to get the typical Bible Thumper's panties in a bunch.

This event inspired Brian Brown of the National Organization for [Certain Types of] Marriage to issue this challenge:

quote:
Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I'm here, you name the time and the place and let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It's easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let's pick on someone our own size!

So yesterday Mr. Savage picked a time and a place:

quote:
So, what I’d like to do is invite you to dinner. Bring the wife. My husband will be there. I will hire a video crew and we will video sort of an after dinner debate. You have to acknowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality, and I have to acknowledge your by extending my hospitality to you.

Well played, Mr. Savage! New York Times writer Mark Oppenheimer will also be attending in the role of neutral observer/dinner guest.

No word yet on whether or not (that I've heard) on whether or not Mr. Brown will accept.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

When Cleve Jones offered the same thing to Falwell back in the'80's, Falwell totally turned chickenshit. Didn't even offer his regrets.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
When Cleve Jones offered the same thing to Falwell back in the'80's, Falwell totally turned chickenshit. Didn't even offer his regrets.

Looks like it's playing out differently this time. That's one YouTube video I'm looking forward to.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

and along the same line of child abuse here's a child singing "Aint no homo going to go to heaven" to the applause of the church.

Aint no homo song

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and along the same line of child abuse here's a child singing "Aint no homo going to go to heaven" to the applause of the church.

Aint no homo song

As I noted elsewhere Greensburg, Indiana, the town identified as the home of this congregation, has an unfortunate history in the area of anti-(perceived)-gay persecution.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and along the same line of child abuse here's a child singing "Aint no homo going to go to heaven" to the applause of the church.

Aint no homo song

Boy, are THEY in for an embarrassing time at the pearly gates.

It's terrible that a child is singing this, but... why would anyone think that this material needed to be turned into a song?!?!

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
When Cleve Jones offered the same thing to Falwell back in the'80's, Falwell totally turned chickenshit. Didn't even offer his regrets.

Falwell was very jealous of his own celebrity. To allow anyone who disagreed with him to bask in his limelight for even an hour would be to "lift them from their obscurity." That is how he once declined a similar challenge from Bishop Spong.

It's like how once you've become the chess champion, it's in your interest to play no more chess than absolutely necessary.

[ 05. June 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

For those who are interested, the Savage-Brown debate has taken place and can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I saw the debate a few days ago and Brown not only had very flawed arguments but he didn't even address much of Savage's actual points. I think Brown really wants to push the "Christians are being persecuted" angle instead of actually explaining why he feels that same-sex marriage should not be legal.

It's sad when the self-proclaimed atheist (Savage) can do theology better than the self-proclaimed Roman Catholic.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It's sad when the self-proclaimed atheist (Savage) can do theology better than the self-proclaimed Roman Catholic.

It should be remembered that Savage was raised in Catholicism, so it could be argued that even though he's left the fold it comes more naturally to him than a convert like Brown. Just because you stop believing doesn't mean you cut out that part of your brain.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0