A Certain Point of Confusion
This is a curious mystery; the macguffin seems obvious, but I am still uncertain just how it is supposed to work.
What you are looking at is a comment to a blog post↱; it is worth noting the author appears to have actually read the article it points to; the second sentence makes that evident:
Because that is the punch line of the teaser quote; yes, there is a choice involved in being gay, but not quite how the anti-gay Christians think.
But from there everything just seems to get strange. The six-sentence second paragraph is absolutely mindbending:
And while there is a certain logical process asserted, the connections between each point on the curve are tenuous at best. Consider that the first four sentences, dealing with "the sanctity of sex within marriage between a man and woman" do seem to include a certain traditional sense of obligation and entitlement; note that this is only partly about procreation.
But those last two sentences are the real puzzlers. The bit about LGBT rights and indoctrination is just a matter of pathetic whining, but it is also the heart of the fear. For whatever reason that the homophobes seem utterly incapable of explaining, they seem to think that the obligation to not go out of one's way to be hostile toward other people means they must necessarily be enrolled in the program. It's kind of like the implied fears of gay people being denied the right to marry opposite-sex partners; that's not how it works. At the heart of this particular outlook of Christ Centered Teaching is essentially a complaint that people won't be allowed to be deliberately rude in the public square. Everybody saw through the mind police tinfoil; now they're just straight-up complaining that they won't be able to be rude to queers, say, at work. You know, just like people have complained the whole time about not being able to say "nigger" at work, or call female co-workers, "honey" or "babe".
Any bully losing privileges will complain of losing rights.
That last sentence, though is just perverse:
Would somebody please explain to me how this works?
____________________
Notes:
Christ Centered Teaching. "Yes it is a choice". This Is. Reader comment. 21 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 26 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1DqODBb
See Also:
Pavlovitz, John. "Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely Is a Choice". The Huffington Post. 21 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 26 April 2015. http://huff.to/1J82Paj
This is a curious mystery; the macguffin seems obvious, but I am still uncertain just how it is supposed to work.
What you are looking at is a comment to a blog post↱; it is worth noting the author appears to have actually read the article it points to; the second sentence makes that evident:
Yes it is a choice. Yes it is a choice the way we think it is. Yes it is a big deal.
Because that is the punch line of the teaser quote; yes, there is a choice involved in being gay, but not quite how the anti-gay Christians think.
But from there everything just seems to get strange. The six-sentence second paragraph is absolutely mindbending:
Damage the sanctity of sex within marriage between a man and woman and you damage the family. Damage the family and you damage society. Damage society and you damage human existence. And yes, procreation is partly what I’m talking about. The LGBT rights you want mean our children will be indoctrinated through public school with public taxes through diversity training to believe contrary to our religious beliefs. Future generations will simply not exist.
And while there is a certain logical process asserted, the connections between each point on the curve are tenuous at best. Consider that the first four sentences, dealing with "the sanctity of sex within marriage between a man and woman" do seem to include a certain traditional sense of obligation and entitlement; note that this is only partly about procreation.
But those last two sentences are the real puzzlers. The bit about LGBT rights and indoctrination is just a matter of pathetic whining, but it is also the heart of the fear. For whatever reason that the homophobes seem utterly incapable of explaining, they seem to think that the obligation to not go out of one's way to be hostile toward other people means they must necessarily be enrolled in the program. It's kind of like the implied fears of gay people being denied the right to marry opposite-sex partners; that's not how it works. At the heart of this particular outlook of Christ Centered Teaching is essentially a complaint that people won't be allowed to be deliberately rude in the public square. Everybody saw through the mind police tinfoil; now they're just straight-up complaining that they won't be able to be rude to queers, say, at work. You know, just like people have complained the whole time about not being able to say "nigger" at work, or call female co-workers, "honey" or "babe".
Any bully losing privileges will complain of losing rights.
That last sentence, though is just perverse:
Future generations will simply not exist.
Would somebody please explain to me how this works?
____________________
Notes:
Christ Centered Teaching. "Yes it is a choice". This Is. Reader comment. 21 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 26 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1DqODBb
See Also:
Pavlovitz, John. "Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely Is a Choice". The Huffington Post. 21 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 26 April 2015. http://huff.to/1J82Paj