Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Gay martyrs


(UPDATE: Considering a criticism of this post (link), having had time to think about the claims made, I have decided not to change a single word of this post in its current form. While I considered his critiques, and challenged myself as to the validity of his claims, I believe the blogger has erred on several points, concluding that I am right in my complaints here, and that he is wrong. I'm sure he disagrees.) 


Birch is referring to my post:

Since he is digging in his heels, I will simply take the occasion to elaborate on one of his allegations: 

So, conservative Christians have no excuse whatsoever for refusing to stand up and against the bullying, mocking, violence, hatred and killing of gays, no matter their personal opinion of gay sex. 

i) Homosexual activists, with the complicity of the liberal media, have been very successful in popularizing a narrative of persecuted homosexuals. The Matthew Shepard case is the grandaddy of this narrative. However, it turns out that was bogus. Even homosexual outlets now admit that was bogus. And it's revealing how they respond to the corrective:

By the time he died, five days later, the question had been firmly settled, as news reporters and gay organizations like GLAAD rushed in. As JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in a brilliant 1999 piece for Harper’s Magazine, “Press crews who had never before and have not since lingered over gruesome murders of homosexuals came out in force, reporting their brush with a bigotry so poisonous it could scarcely be imagined.” 
Add to that a president who needed to expiate his sins against the LGBT community, still recoiling from the double whammy of DOMA and “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and Shepard’s posthumous status as gay martyr was sealed. The defendants didn’t aid themselves by claiming they’d lured Shepard into their car and then flipped out when he came on to them.   
Not everyone is interested in hearing these alternative theories. When 20/20 engaged Jimenez to work on a segment revisiting the case in 2004, GLAAD bridled at what the organization saw as an attempt to undermine the notion that anti-gay bias was a factor; Moises Kaufman, the director and co-writer of The Laramie Project, denounced it as “terrible journalism,” though the segment went on to win an award from the Writers Guild of America for best news analysis of the year. 
There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness. In his book, Flagrant Conduct, Dale Carpenter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, similarly unpicks the notorious case of Lawrence v. Texas, in which the arrest of two men for having sex in their own bedroom became a vehicle for affirming the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private. Except that the two men were not having sex, and were not even a couple. Yet this non-story, carefully edited and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, changed America. 
In different ways, the Shepard story we’ve come to embrace was just as necessary for shaping the history of gay rights as Lawrence v. Texas; it galvanized a generation of LGBT youth and stung lawmakers into action. President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him “passionate” about LGBT equality. 
There are obvious reasons why advocates of hate crime legislation must want to preserve one particular version of the Matthew Shepard story, but it was always just that — a version. Jimenez’s version is another, more studiously reported account, but he is not the first to challenge the popular mythology. Way back in 1999, Wypijewski rejected what she called the “quasi-religious characterizations of Matthew’s passion, death, and resurrection as patron saint of hate-crime legislation” in favor of what she called “wussitude” — a culture of “compulsory heterosexuality” that teaches young men how to pass as men, unfeeling, benumbed, primed to cloak any vulnerability in violence. 
So the Shepard case was a lie, but a useful lie. And unfortunately, that's not an isolated incident. There's an epidemic of fake hate-crimes to bolster the politically expedient narrative:
ii) As a result, members of the LGBT community have shot their credibility. When a homosexual or transgender claims to be the victim of bullying, violence, or harassment, there's no presumption that the allegation is true. Absent independent corroboration, Christians are entitled to be skeptical. Gullibility is not a theological virtue. Allowing yourself to be manipulated by a cynical political strategy is not an intellectual virtue. 
iii) Some students have always been bullied. Straight students are bullied. Smaller students are bullied by bigger students. If a school is predominantly one race, then students of another race tend to be bullied. 
So we need to distinguish between a bullied student who happens to be homosexual and a student who's bullied because he's homosexual. Given all the special protections accorded homosexual and trans students, I suspect they are less likely to be bullied than other students who don't belong to the protected class. 


  1. My two cents:

    Since violence against homosexuals for merely being homosexual is wrong, I think Christians should discuss the topic. But what's even worse is human trafficking of children for the purpose of pedophilia. This is SOOOOO MUCH WORSE than violence against homosexuals since the children are much more innocent. I'd rather Christian bloggers talk about that 50 times for every single time homosexual violence is mentioned.

    While it's wrong to target homosexuals for violence because they are homosexuals, the REASON why they are being targeted is right and good (ISTM). Homosexuality is evil (as is other forms of sexual sin like adultery, fornication etc.).

    Also, I advocate continued and predominant use of the word "homosexual/homosexuality" over the word "gay." Because 1. the word gay seems less wicked and more acceptable. It also brings with it other connotations that the gay agenda has attached to it. 2. Homosexuals don't like the term because it's too clinical. They claim that it was coined by heterosexuals when it considered it deviant. Well, it is deviant, and it often is an accurate description the mentality of such people. Terms like homosexuality and heterosexuality still affirms the binary nature of normal human sexuality (without denying the reality of abnormalities like hermaphrodites etc.). The term "gay" can refer to either sex.

    Speaking of words, I think Christians should avoid (or stop) using the word "fag" because it seems overly disrespectful (especially if said in a certain way and context). IMHO, it borders on or actually commits the sin of calling someone "raca" (cf. Matt. 5:22 KJV). The word "fag" not only condemns homosexuality, but it also denigrates the person to a point of virtually or actually (depending on use) denies that the person is made in the Image of God. All homosexuals deserve at least THAT amount of respect. At the very least it can damage one's Christian witness and so makes it more difficult to reach out evangelisticall toward all non-Christians (whatever their sexual preference).

    I'm not so sure about the word "sodomite." I don't mind the use of the word myself, but it might cause needless offense in some contexts.

    1. Though, I can understand why Christians are hesitant to discuss pedophillic child trafficking. It's an example of something in the world that is SOOOO EVIL that it's one of those evils in the world that really brings up issues of theodicy. Personally, I'm all for capital punishment for any kind of human trafficking, but especially for the sake of pedophilia.

      I don't know the ethical permissibility of mercenaries for hire from a Biblical perspective. But sometimes I wish there were a website which rewarded the assassination of top criminals (including major pedophiles). I can imagine how with proof people can be paid using Swiss bank accounts. One way to provide evidence for being responsible for a killing is by predicting the week on which an assassination will take place. If it comes to pass, then the account that made the prediction should be transferred the money. The website shouldn't allow predictions near each other. Keep multiple predictions away from each other by requiring at least a week in between multiple predictions. That way making it less likely that the money doesn't go to the wrong party. This could be turned into a movie. And the movie might inspire some billionaire to secretly fund such an operation.

    2. typo correction:

      "2. Homosexuals don't like the term ["homosexual"] because it's too clinical. They claim that it was coined by heterosexuals when it [was] considered it deviant. Well, it is deviant, and it often is an accurate description [of] the mentality of such people."

      evangelisticall = evangelistically

      "...[While] The term "gay" can refer to either sex. [Thereby hiding the binary nature of human sexuality]."

    3. typo correction:

      "That way making it less likely that the money doesn't go to the wrong party."

      Should be

      "That way making it [MORE] likely that the money doesn't go to the wrong party."

    4. Thinking about it, I can think of at least one movie where something like the above scenario takes place. The movie Smokin' Aces. Some bad guy has a price placed on his head. Other bad guys try to kill him in order to claim the reward. I guess then that in my hypothetical website it's possible that such prize money might go to other evil people. So, maybe instead each website account can choose which charity the prize money will go to. That way the money can't be claimed by another evil person. Also, people can add to the pot and not just make predictions. I can imagine 1 million Americans contributing $5 for the capture or killing of someone especially evil. There are cash rewards for the capture of the FBI's most wanted. But, in my scenario, there would be a way for the people claiming the prize to be able to do so and avoid U.S. taxes. Or, if the money goes to a chosen charity, that's fine. But either way, the capture or killing of the (unquestionably) evil person need not require the informant or the mercenary to reveal who he/she or they are to the FBI or any other government. It would be a form of cyber-vigilantism. The only danger would be for an innocent person to be killed or that of collateral damage (killing of nearby innocents). But that's why the list of the most wanted should only include those who are clearly and extremely evil.