Judge Walker’s decision to strike down Prop 8 is based partly on these two findings:
- Supporters of the ban failed to establish any rational basis for singling out gay men for discrimination.
- The ban was based on animus or disgust for gays, along with a belief that same-sex relationships are simply inferior to their opposite-sex counterparts.
Some of our opponents deny any such animus exists. See, they’re not anti-gay, they’re just pro-tradition. They have absolutely no ill-will toward homosexuals, none at all, no sirree, nuh-uh, you betcha no.
Want to test that?
Tell them you think Jesus is gay.
Watch their heads explode. Or maybe not. One thing’s for sure: the more upset they get, the more animus they hold. If you want to see them twist themselves into pretzels, ask, “If you’re not anti-gay why are you so upset?”
For the record, I personally have no idea what Jesus’s romantic orientation might have been.
Wow. Some of the comments about Sir Elton John’s comment are ridiculous! Definitely a lot of animus present.
Now there is a litmus test I’d like to try out.
No, see, the problem is that the Prop 8 side over love us. They really are opposing marriage equality out of love and respect for tradition, just as they say. The tradition of marriage, they like to point out, is all about a man putting his semen into a woman, even when procreation isn’t the intention.
They love us so much, they refuse to accept that we should soil ourselves with the prosaic tawdriness of the institution of marriage. A same sex couple would never countenance having semen inside a woman unless it was specifically for the purpose of conceiving a child.
They speak to us their truth in love that we should be put on pedestals and held in respect and awe for our special spiritual purity. They recoil at the idea we should be tarnished by common matrimony.
We’re as good as Jesus to them.
While I love the idea of this as a litmus test, you’re going to get some false positives. Some people dislike the idea that Jesus had any romantic orientation at all, even with Mary Magdalene.
As the joke goes, in the 1500′s, all the prudes went to America. We don’t want to think of our spiritual leaders as having something so profane as a sex life.
Lol, this reminded me of a book called “Vampire Vow,” by Michael Scheifelbein. Jesus is gay for a hot, tan, Roman vampire in it.
I am pretty sure that Jesus was gay. Serious Bible scholars consdier this real possibility. There is a great deal of evidence in the Bible to indicate that He was gay, and none to suggest that He was heterosexual. The gospel of John claims to be told by the MAN whom Jesus loved. They are described as sharing physical (though not explicitly sexual) intimacy in the presence of and with the approval of the other disciples. While Jesus was on the cross, He asked His mother and this man to treat each other as mother and son, and they did. The story of Jesus’s love for this man was censored from the other three gospels because they didn’t think the world was ready to face the simple truth. Jesus WAS gay. Get over it.
There are structural clues in the gospel of Mark that suggest a significant passage was deleted that referred to the love between Jesus and this man. Check out the book Decoding Mark http://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Mark-John-Dart/dp/1563383748 (and no, I am not the author and I don’t have any financial interest in it).
If the Mark censorship hypothesis is correct, then the phrase “the last shall be first” may refer specifically to Jesus’s love for this man. The disciples were arguing over who should sit next to Jesus, and He said “this guy.” Their relationship permeates the gospel; when you realize what Jesus is really saying, it changes everything. You can read what may be the missing text at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark