Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In response to a Georgia case where the state Supreme Court recently ruled that a trial judge could not order a father to keep his children away from his gay friends when visiting, Liberty Counsel goes even further and argues that children should not even be allowed to visit a parent if that parent is gay. Their statement of the facts:
Eric Duane Mongerson and Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson were married for 21 years and had four children. The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in their divorce case that the children cannot be prohibited from visitation with their now-homosexual father.The ruling would also put the children in contact with their father's homosexual friends. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the courts historically have looked to the best interests of children.
And Liberty Counsel's vile reaction:
"In this case the court, in order to somehow perpetuate and further the interest of political correctness, has taken what's in the best interest of the child and turned it on its head," he contends. Barber says there appears to be no consideration for the fact that children are very impressionable and could be harmed from exposure to a homosexual environment. "Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child to be taken by his father and introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent sexual behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent sexual behaviors and celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint -- modeling those behaviors for the child," Barber adds.
A very clear argument for taking children away from a gay parent. Because that's just what Jesus would do. Bigoted assholes.
Politics
Comments
They are a bunch of typical idiots who believe that homosexuality is contagious. Or maybe they live in a delusional little world where they think that homosexual people just have gay sex constantly, and that the father will have gay sex in front of his children. If they're so worried about children being exposed to "immoral" sexual behavior, then they should be trying to stop adulterous parents from having contact with their children. Or they could just wake up and realize that gay people won't have sex in front of their children, just like straight people won't.
Posted by: catgirl | June 23, 2009 10:02 AM
"Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child
I had a number of professors in law school who would routinely mock any student stupid enough to use the word, "obviously" in describing a case or hypothetical. Law is not obvious, nor does it deal in self-evident truths. Matt seems to have missed that bit.
He also missed the First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2009 10:05 AM
It's a pity I can't insert a sound file in the comments.
Anybody remember "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught" from "South Pacific"?
Here's a reminder:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/southpacific/youvegottobecarefullytaught.htm
Sigh, the more things change, ...
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | June 23, 2009 10:05 AM
Just one more notch in the "'pro-family' is Orwellian doublethink" column...
Posted by: schism | June 23, 2009 10:11 AM
What the hell is a "homosexual environment?" A house decorated by the Queer Eye Crew?
"Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child to be taken by his father and introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent sexual behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent sexual behaviors..."
Obviously. Which is, of course, why most parents don't introduce their kids to other adults while they're having sex, or encourage their kids to peep into other people's bedrooms. And which is, of course, also why most adults don't "model" their sexual behaviors -- gay, straight, or whatever -- while kids are present.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 10:25 AM
Hey, I have a better idea: let's take kids away from hysterical parents when they prove to the public that they can't tell real danger from hallucinations and night-terrors. Can you really trust a bigot who would push his kid in front of a bus as soon as he sees a gay guy in front of him?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 10:29 AM
Liberty Counsel? Where's the liberty in their argument?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 10:38 AM
@James Hanley #7:
Just a wild guess: they'd say they're defending the mother's *liberty* to decide whether or not she wants her children "exposed to homosexuality".
Posted by: Finch | June 23, 2009 10:43 AM
Bee - The father's house is obviously pumped full of 'GAY GAS(tm)'* - ;) DJ
*Now with extra-added "Nitro-oxyxenoargonate!" for relief of burning lungs!
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 10:47 AM
Catgirl--I don't think the Liberty Council gives a shit about the children. They flat-out hate gays and wish to punish them in any way possible, hiding behind their religion in order to appear more "charitable" and "authoritative."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 23, 2009 10:51 AM
"Gay gas?" I think I'll let DJ write that porn script...
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 10:57 AM
...except I'll just add one possible line: "Oh my god, my lungs are burning! Oh wait, now something's burning a little further down too..."
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 10:59 AM
That is one part of the reason. An other reason is to keep people ignorant of LGBT people. If children are unaware that they know LGBT people, it becomes much easier to swallow the misinformation that the pro-family have about LGBT people. Those children will have little truth to compare to the lies that they spread.
Posted by: Janine | June 23, 2009 11:09 AM
3) '..abhorrent sexual behaviours..'. Abhorrent to whom? What behaviours would they be referring to, specifically? Would heterosexuals engage in the same or equivalent behaviours?
4) '..celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint..' could they offer hard evidence that any of these claims are true? Do they have any peer reviewed scientific papers from and published by creditable sources?
5) '..modeling those behaviors for the child.' What does this actually mean? Could they prove that this is the case, and if so, how would they do this?
Why won't they just come out and admit the truth of their anti-homosexual arguments:
"But, but, but - it's just icky! (but I sure would like to do it myself!)
Hypocrites - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 11:12 AM
Bee - Now if I can only blend FoTF*, 24 & GAY GAS(tm) into the same porn script...I'm on a winner!
Hollywood here I come (if you know what I mean) - ;) DJ
*Fallen on the First - for legal reasons.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 11:19 AM
I especially love the pretense that, in reinforcing the worst part of divorce for kids--the partial loss of a parent--these dirtbags are "acting in the children's interest."
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who run their yaps about "family values" actually valued families?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | June 23, 2009 11:20 AM
I have a theory about why right wing xians hate homosexuals, and it isn't about sex, even though that's all they harp on.
No, the sex is "icky", but what really threatens them is that gays have absolutely no use for traditional patriarchal structures. What gay man wants to get married so he can be the authoritarian ruler of his family? What lesbian wants to hook up with a partner so she can submissively make a nice home and get started on her "quiver" of young 'uns?
Whatever gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't really the problem. Outside the bedroom, most gays model egalitarian gender roles and relationships, and that's what really freaks out your average christofascist.
Gender equality: won't somebody think of the children?
Posted by: Rick R | June 23, 2009 11:23 AM
DJ: you're adding "24" into it?! "Omigod, they're pumping gay gas into the submarine when the missiles are already armed! The pressure is making the sub expand! Can we pump hard enough to get it back out in time before our blood starts to boil?" The possibilities abound, but since you've already trademarked it, maybe I should just let you "pump" more lines out, ifyouknowwhatimean...
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 11:28 AM
Its not usual to see this stuff in print in the regular news, but honestly anyone who has been dealing with the Reich Wing, knows this is ultimately their goal. And it won't stop at Homosexuals. These people would like to upend laws that would protect different cultural and religious groups from assimilation--read Cultural Genocide. Remove the children and raise them in a proper Christian Home and the behaviors this bunch of nutters finds offensive {for whatever reason} will no longer be normalized.
The First Faith Based Initiatives program in this country was the removal of Native American Children from their homes where they were forcibly entered into Boarding schools and forcibly assimilated and converted to Christianity. When that was, they weren't being raped and beaten for "fun" by their so-called care takers.
As shocking as this story is, be thankful these jackoffs were dumb enough to show their hand. It will be harder for them to deny their true motivations in the future, when you smell this emerging again.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 23, 2009 11:29 AM
Wait wait wait, aren't these the same people who always claim that children need "both a mother and a father?" Yet here they are, saying that they outright want to deprive this particular child of this 'right' they're so quick to invoke much of the time.
Ah well, no hypocrite like a social conservative.
Posted by: Bachalon | June 23, 2009 11:34 AM
I tried to post the following comment, but it doesn't appear to be going through. We'll see if they have the courage to post a dissenting opinion.
"What a disgusting and degenerate load of nonsense. Matt Barber and the so-called "Liberty" (what a truly reprehensible misrepresentation!) Counsel are nothing but a bunch of delusional idiots masquerading as "moral police". There is absolutely no evidence - NONE - that placing children with gay parents harms them in any way and there is in fact positive evidence that it has no deleterious effect on their development. It's truly disgusting to see how this evil and immoral mindset (fundamentalist christianity) can pervert otherwise rational individuals to advocate stealing children away from their loving parents. I urge you to seek some type of therapeutic counseling immediately in the hopes of curing your moral insanity."
Posted by: Bill Snedden | June 23, 2009 11:45 AM
Bee - If only they pumped "USS Alabama" & the Typhoon Class "Red October" with GAY GAS(tm) - Now there would have been two fabulous movies (pumped full of seamen, ifyouknowwhatImean)* - :D DJ
*Tim Curry doing a reprise of "Sweet Transvestite"? Sam Neil singing ABBA's greatest hits? Yes the possibilities would have RRR wetting their collective nappies (between begging to be spanked by Big Fat Fanny [she's such a naughty nanny!])
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 11:46 AM
Shouldn't the Liberty Counsel worry more about what these parents are doing to their children?!
http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2009/06/carl-kiilsgaard-the-white-family-epf-finalist/
Posted by: Dekkar | June 23, 2009 11:58 AM
Yes, the root of homophobia is misogyny. The fundies don't like the idea of someone else have an egalitarian relationship, but it is so much more than that. Extreme conservatives have a "complimentarian" view of genders, and they insist that women must submit to their husbands because God/nature made men and women just plain different from each other, and if women get equality in marriage, the world will explode or something. There certainly can be power imbalances in same-sex relationships, but it's not based just on their reproductive organs. And yet, the world doesn't explode. Fundies are terrified that their wives will realize they don't have to play a certain role and they'll either demand equality in marriage or they will find a better guy. I once saw a comment on a blog (I think it was at Pharyngula), where a guy objected to gay marriage by saying who will mow the lawn and who will be the stay-at-home mom? Who will cook the dinners and who will support the family financially? Who will take care of the kids and who will repair the car? And this guy was completely serious. In his world, the idea that a woman could support her family financially and a man could take care of his very own kids is just too frightening.
Posted by: catgirl | June 23, 2009 11:59 AM
If they were so worried about exposing the child to "immoral" thoughts/feelings/situations/ect.. (aka. Life Experience) the parents should have never gotten a divorce because those are the most "immoral".
But then they are blocked by the religious cloud and they hold society to a dynamic double standard, so no one can really "win". Whatever "winning" means anymore.
Posted by: Adam | June 23, 2009 12:08 PM
"Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child to be taken by his father and introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent religious behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent religious behaviors and celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint -- modeling those behaviors for the child,"
Matter of perspective, I guess.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | June 23, 2009 12:21 PM
But they love the idea of children - you know, those wide-eyed, adoring, credulous little blank slates who can be programmed with all your dearest opinions. It's stubborn adults that they really can't stand.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 23, 2009 12:53 PM
Bill is right. Liberty Counsel's reaction is lying when it puts forth the falsehood that being with gay parents harms children.
I've seen this falsehood put forward year after year on message boards, forums, wingnut news articles, and even by politicians. But when pressed for scientific studies that show what they say to be true, none are forthcoming. And when scientific studies which conclude there is no harm done are shown to those who perpetuate the harm myth, no correction or retraction is ever conceded.
Posted by: Ken | June 23, 2009 12:55 PM
OK catgirl, I'll update the RRR's (missionary) position:
Is that closer to their psychology, do you think? - Dingo
_________________
*As long as I can still be the hetro hero at home to my
house-slave, no,sex toy, I mean 'little woman'.Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 12:56 PM
Posted by: WScott | June 23, 2009 1:05 PM
One of the main reasons why Christianists/right wing extremists hate gays so much is that many believe God will stop loving America more than the other nations if we start accepting gays. To them, hating gays is the job of a special God-loving nation.
Posted by: Paul S | June 23, 2009 1:05 PM
This is further evidence that the religious right's idea of homosexuality = butt sex.
How else can you explain their apparent belief that the father would be introducing them to people in the midst of sexual activity?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 23, 2009 1:36 PM
Why is it that groups of right-wing zealots include constitutional language in their names (e.g "Liberty Counsel", "Liberty University") when their core mission seems to be to remove said liberties from others?
But I agree with Catgirl 100% - these morons are still living under the delusion that homosexuality is an airborne virus.
Posted by: CHV | June 23, 2009 1:38 PM
I wonder what parents would be good enough for the Liberty Council. I think back on the role models of my youth, beamed into my living room via that touchstone of American culture, television. Who makes the grade?
First to spring to mind is the Brady Bunch. Oh, but they’d never do. The entire basis for the show is that they were broken families from the start. It might be forgivable for Mr. Brady. He was a widower. But Carol was divorced according to the show’s creator. Plus the show often displayed the parents sharing the same bed. How indecent, and on prime time television to boot.
How about the Bradford’s of Eight is Enough? Nah, they’d never do. They were always courting controversy. Heck, Dianne Kay was nearly fired for refusing to do an episode where her character poses for a Playboy style centerfold. We can’t look to a show that promotes pornography!
Maybe Family Ties and the Keaton family are a better model. Alex was certainly a good conservative. But didn’t his father work for one of those evil liberal public television networks. Come to think of it Alex was most often comedy relief or used make conservatives look bad. The more I think about it the more I realize that show was pure liberal propaganda. Bad, bad ,bad.
Perhaps we just need to go back further, to a simpler time. Surely Leave it to Beaver is a good template. Perhaps Ward and June Cleaver are what parents should be. Then again Ward was always out chasing Beaver. Obviously the show was a covert celebration of male infidelity.
When even the family sit-coms of the 50’s fail us, what hope do today’s children have for being raised in a good and proper family?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 23, 2009 1:39 PM
So its "in the interest of political correctness" to allow a law abiding father to see his son? Good to see they've been pushed so far they've even begun using their codewords in a blatantly bigoted fashion. Silver-lining and all that.
Posted by: Julian | June 23, 2009 1:48 PM
Posted by: llewelly | June 23, 2009 1:56 PM
What I should have said is that misogyny is a root of homophobia. It doesn't rule out other causes, and homophobia is complex.
I never said that one causes the other simply because they are correlated. If you read my entire comment, you will see that I explained why I think they are connected.
Posted by: catgirl | June 23, 2009 1:59 PM
My parents split up when I was 11. My dad moved in with a man. I have had wonderful relationship with my mom, dad, and dad's partner my whole life, with the usual ups-and-downs of family life. I am now 42. I am happy, college-educated, and well-traveled. I am not an alcoholic, have no addictions, and I even own my own home with no debts to speak of. I am happily married with one son. I see my 3 parents every week, together. My father, my mother, and my father's partner are wonderful people and often take my son out for evenings, dinners, and other outings. Articles like this hurt me deep inside. They make me realize how bigoted, short-sighted, and small some people can be. We have a loving, close family. We are an example that your ideas are simply wrong, get over it.
Posted by: Maria | June 23, 2009 3:18 PM
Bingo.
Indeed. That's something I've noticed before.
Posted by: Skemono | June 23, 2009 3:24 PM
-introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent religious behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent religious behaviors and celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint-
Can anyone say "projection". praying instead of taking children to doctors, brainwashing, frightening children with hell, child rape by priests.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 23, 2009 3:44 PM
...a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent sexual behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent sexual behaviors...
Oh, Christ on a pogo stick, y'all. The twits mean aberrant but they're too ignorant and hate-filled to stop spewing vomit long enough to consult a dictionary.
Posted by: speedwell | June 23, 2009 3:49 PM
Ed,
Before claiming to know what Jesus would actually do in this case, you ought to send off a quick prayer or read a little Gospel first. Jesus would *most certainly* support keeping the kids away from the parents, as evidenced by his own words on the matter.
http://www.openjesus.org/2009/why-fags-shouldnt-have-kids
Your Savior,
Jesus
Posted by: Jesus | June 23, 2009 3:56 PM
I know a guy who waited for the kids to grow up before coming out and living the alternative lifestyle, and his son came out very straight. And this was here in Georgia, too. I'm sure there are many other similar stories across the nation.
I guess Liberty Counsel objects to The Birdcage being shown on the Family Channel, too, but the film's premise is not unrealistic at all.
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 23, 2009 4:05 PM
It could also be that this guy is one of those who thinks that gay = pedophile, and that of course daddy's going to shop the kids to his pedophile friends. Or, at least, that would be the rationalization....
Posted by: cicely | June 23, 2009 4:42 PM
Sadie Morrison #10 wrote:
While there are of course plenty of homophobes in the Religious Right, I suspect that for many who embrace this style of Christianity it isn't so much about hating others as loving the idea of being both humble and righteous, and "loving God." The instinctive "ick" feeling is part of the drive in this particular case, but the general urge to show oneself as more spiritually 'sensitive' and 'obedient' than Those-Who-Are- Of -the-World may be the real vehicle here. Claiming that homosexuality is spiritually damaging is a way to set oneself apart and stand out against those who do good, but have false religions, or none. As one who is humbled and therefore exalted, you've got inside information on what's good and bad which other people don't (and can't) have. It marks you as an insider with God.
Not all of them are hiding behind their religion in order to use it as an excuse. My guess is that many are being swept up in their religion, and what it's able to do for them.
Maybe not THE main factor, but perhaps a big factor.
Posted by: Sastra | June 23, 2009 5:04 PM
speedwell:
Since you're being a pedant, let me pile on: While aberrant would probably work for Barber's point, abhorrent isn't inappropriate, and it may very well have been what Barber intended to say - that he abhors "homosexual behaviors." That he probably finds them to be deviant doesn't negate the fact that he finds them immoral, disgusting, etc.
Posted by: Mr. B | June 23, 2009 5:28 PM
Rick at 17
That comment made me laugh; most gay couples I know have very distinct "gender" roles, at least as distinct as in my regular acquaintances. But then, neither are truly fitting the conventional mold.
Posted by: Mu | June 23, 2009 6:49 PM
Kids are impressionable, they might "catch the gay." Disgusting argument to keep kids away from their gay parents.
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | June 23, 2009 6:54 PM
Oh brotherrrrrrr! Will these idiots stop at nothing? What about the right of the kid to be in contact with his father. Okay. He has a boyfriend. So what? Don't these people recognize fellow human beings when they see them?
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 23, 2009 6:56 PM
I wouldn't want my kids around a house full of perverts either. It's the job of that mother to teach her kids that homosexuality is wrong and it is a sin and that they can see their dad, but they should reject his lifestyle becuase it is immoral and not Biblical. They should know this.
By the way, the friend of that dad ever touched my kids in an inapproprate way, I would personally give him a sex change operation with my Mtech pocketknife. Actions first, lawyers and cops later!
Posted by: Not Mr. Tiller | June 23, 2009 8:11 PM
Dear Not: Among those perverts is a man the children call, "Dad." They deserve a relationship with him, indeed, it is both their right and his to have such a relationship. It really doesn't matter who he consorts with otherwise, be they gays or Hell's Angels or the KKK; we trust that he will do the right thing to expose them to positive influences and protect them from evil: That's what parents do.
The fact that circumstances may make it more difficult to accomplish are irrelevant.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2009 8:25 PM
Libtard Enemy
What rock did you crawl out from under? Your fear of the gay contagion(tm) is palpable. Please keep your noisome opinions to yourself.
The children will not be swayed toward or away from homosexuality but with their father's influence, they will be more open and welcoming and far better adjusted than you are.
Posted by: MikeMa | June 23, 2009 8:31 PM
They are right: the kids will indeed be exposed to "abhorrent sexual behaviours". Fucktards like these would certainly consider such things as holding hands, hugging and casual hello and goodbye kisses to be abhorrent when between men. Of course I hope the kids do see that. Signs of affection in an adult couple are good, as long as your world view values love rather than hate.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 23, 2009 8:35 PM
Not:
"By the way, the friend of that dad ever touched my kids in an inapproprate way, I would personally give him a sex change operation with my Mtech pocketknife"
We get it - you're tough, therefore not gay. No one would ever think you might be gay. Nope, not at all. No sir.
Oh, BTW - what would you do if 'the friend of the wife' touched your kids in an "inapproprate" way? You didn't mention her and her friends. Would that be ok with you? But then, we all know that the new boyfriend of the wife would never, ever, not a chance, do anything inappropriate with the kids.
Maybe we should just forbid all divorced/separated parents from ever having new partners, or any friends at all. Just to be sure.
Posted by: Lee | June 23, 2009 9:13 PM
In Iowa, we have Bob Vander Plaats trying to take the title of Iowa's Biggest Asshole from Steve King, and I think he has a pretty good chance of gaining the title. The asshole is running with the promise to write an executive order nullifying Iowa's Supreme Court ruling striking down the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act.
Not only is Bob Vander Plaats an asshole, he's an idiot that doesn't understand Iowa's Constitution. Listen to the asshole's speech if you can stand the stupid.
http://www.teamvp2010.com/
Posted by: Owen | June 23, 2009 9:25 PM
Not Mr. Tiller @ 50:
(My bolding.)
And here, ladies and gentlemen, re my comment @ #44.....Exhibit A.
Posted by: cicely | June 23, 2009 9:28 PM
What is amazing here, the whole premise of this argument to remove children from Homosexual parents because the children might be exposed to "deviant Behavior" is that Homosexuals will indeed fuck in front of the children. That being a homosexual {male or female} means that one is incapable of discerning age appropriate behavior, and then modeling that behavior in front of children.
But then past documents I have read about Christian Supremacist's views of what it means to be a homosexual, is that homosexuals lack any moral ground at all. That Homosexuals are capable of any kind of degenerate behavior, even towards or in the presence of children.
However, as I stated previousl, this attack on Homosexuals is the attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent. Because when you institute laws in a theocracy, all infractions against the law or the state, are moral ones, and they are therefore sins against God and the cosmological order of things. So it wouldnt be too long before these Christian Supremacists started going after other groups of people they consider to be sexually deviant.
GLBT would be first.
Then the Leather Community.
Then people with Sex Toys
People who practice any number of poly-lifestyles from polyamory, polyandry {being the two most offensive} to polygamy.
Then Single Parents, esp women with children by multiple fathers.
Then Serial Monogamists/divorce`s
And then it would time to start going after different religions.
Yes it appears the children of Rushdoony are alive and well.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 23, 2009 9:51 PM
Bravo bigoted fucking morons, Bravo!!! Thank you so very much for providing us with lovely examples of what hate filled, neanderthal morons have to contribute to this discussion.
You do a grand job of encouraging people who aren't really sure about Teh Gay, that they most certainly do not want to be associated with the anti-gay.
Thank you ever so much for helping foster an environment in which gay rights are becoming more and more reasonable to more people.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2009 9:52 PM
Don't bother to reply to Libtard enemy, he won't be posting here anymore. He has every right to be a fucking idiot but I don't have to give him a forum to do so.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2009 10:01 PM
Who mentions the brand name of their pocket knife? How fucking pathetic is that?
Posted by: Taz | June 23, 2009 10:12 PM
It's the FUN that fundies hate. They just can't stand people having FUN. Whether it's boozin', gamblin', fornicatin' or anything else--if it's fun, it's forbidden. Humorless fucks.
I was at a little house party across the street from my home tonight. My neighbor, who is about 80, invited me and, with the exception of her son, I was at least 10 years younger than anyone in the room. Every person there, when we got around to the subject of gays--yeah, it's hard to keep that out of a conversation--said they could give two shits about gay people, gay marriage or dogs carrying on with cats. Their sole concern was whether people are in love and happy. Of course they were almost all retired university professors.
Posted by: democommie | June 23, 2009 10:28 PM
I think you're onto something, demo. That hardwired Puritan revulsion to pleasure runs deep in today's descendants of the tricorned religious right.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 23, 2009 11:44 PM
In relation to the "Not Mr Tiller" poster's comments. Women newly divorced are often targeted by pedophiles through the dating scene to gain access to their children.
I would be worried about who is dating mommy, than who is dating the father at this point--his gay-ness notwithstanding.
Most Gay Men I know of are very mindful about how they interact with children in general, because of the false impression that Christian Supremacists promote which is to say that being gay equals being a pedophile.
This serves several purposes. It allows the Christian Supremacists to demonize a hated enemy {Homosexuals and other Sexual Deviants-- and I use the word Deviant in the Sociological sense, not in a perjorative sense} but it also allows the Supremacists to define themselves against this stark monster image they project on Homosexuals.
No Gay Person could be a Good [read Authentic] Christian. And All Gay People are Nympho-Pedophilic-Perverts. Therefore, no [Authentic] Christian could ever be a Nympho Pedophilic Pervert. This cycle of demonization feeds on itself, until every imaginable social ill can be projected onto Homosexuals or the favored target of the day, while Christian Supremacists preen in the absence of the sin that has been heaped on the Scape Goat, which is to be run off into the wilderness, Old Testament Style, far enough away that it cannot infect others with it's perversions.
On another note, that username "not Mr Tiller" is in extremely poor taste. SSDD it seems.
As far as Education plays into it. Definitely it has a part to play. However don't be thinking that college degrees are a good indicator of a person's actual intellectual capacity or open mindedness. With the accredation of Bob Jones University, Liberty, Oral Roberts U. and other places of "higher" learning, you get plenty of graduates brainwashed into a closed minded world view.
The best book I have read on the subject of Anti Intellectualism and the subject of NeoConservatism and Theocratic Nutjobs would have to be "Whats The Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank. Its a bit dated but still relevant to this discussion of understanding the mentality of the *Other side. Lakoff did some great stuff too in Moral Politics.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 24, 2009 12:34 AM
Posted by: WScott | June 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Posted by: WScott | June 24, 2009 8:37 AM
But if the State threatened to take away their kids, the (totally hetero) Christian Right would yell, "Keep the Government out of my family!"
The State, you see, exists to screw over the other guy.
James Hanley "Liberty Counsel? Where's the liberty in their argument?"
"Liberty", like a lot of words (justice, love, mercy, etc), means something different to "them" than it does to "us". Liberty, you see, is the freedom to do God's will.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 24, 2009 9:29 AM
And what would you do if a friend of that mother touched your kids inappropriately? I suppose you'd be OK with that, huh? Oh wait, you made the mistake of believing that propaganda that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia. What's it like to live in a world where you don't believe in reality?
Posted by: catgirl | June 24, 2009 9:58 AM
Seeing Eye Chick said:
Women newly divorced are often targeted by pedophiles through the dating scene to gain access to their children.
Too true. I'd be a lot more worried about that then the father.
Posted by: PennyBright | June 24, 2009 10:12 AM
Hmmm... so given what we know about conservative xians, does this mean that the Liberty Counsel would also oppose custody of a child being granted to a parent who used condoms, or whose friends used condoms?
Posted by: James Sweet | June 24, 2009 11:15 AM
Of course they were almost all retired university professors.
-----------------------
Of course. Colleges have been brainwashing this socialist do not evil mentality on youth from the 1930s. Except then, it was called communism and it was illegal. Thanks ACLU.
Posted by: FUN LOVER | June 24, 2009 8:04 PM
I would like to join FUN LOVER in thanking the ACLU for the terrific work they've done over the years.
Posted by: Taz | June 24, 2009 9:02 PM
Fun Lover: I hardly think that anyone from the 1930s can honestly be called "youth".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 25, 2009 2:24 AM
FUN LOVER:
You're new here? I don't recognize you, your blognomen has that "all caps" thing goin' on. But for the moment, supposing that you're saying that "tongue in cheek" try using something like /s so that folks will know. If it was a genuine sentiment, well, you probably still think there's one (commie) under every bed.
Posted by: democommie | June 25, 2009 7:14 AM
" If it was a genuine sentiment, well, you probably still think there's one (commie) under every bed."
No, democommie, thanks to the ACLU "FUN LOVER" now thinks there is one in every bed.
Posted by: dean | June 26, 2009 9:47 AM
Modus - Ah you forgot the most famous 'youth' of the 1930's: The Hitler Youth.
demo - Get the hell outta my bed! (it's warm enough now}. :D -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 26, 2009 9:56 AM
I ain't been in nobody's bed 'cept my own! I'm a good boy, I am!!
Posted by: democommie | June 28, 2009 6:59 AM
My parents are trying to take custody from new because they found out I'm gay. I live in Texas. We go to court Friday.
Posted by: Just me | October 13, 2009 11:59 PM