Shuck and Jive

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of the congregation I joyfully serve. But my congregation loves me!

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

God Has A Special Place for Your Naughty Bits


The Busybodies have spoken. As they are wont to do.









They have words about your naughty bits.










Responding to the
ever so lame report on 'marriage, civil unions and Presbyterians doing the nasty' by a special committee to investigate same,
Add Image
a minority report declared:

Let us boldly proclaim that God has a place for sex!
It is a pure place. A special place. A place free of all homos and the "carnage of sexual hedonism."





It is a place approved by our lord and savior, Gladys Kravitz.








It's mawwiage.









But not this kind!












This kind.










Any Questions?

18 comments:

  1. Good stuff! (I still think that particular incarnation of Gladys Kravitz is actually Don Knotts in drag. Take another look.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Feeling sarcastic today?

    I approve.

    Which doesn't really carry a lot of weight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any reference to Gladis Kravitz deserves kudos.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I owe it all to Alan. He stays up late at night searching popular culture for the perfect metaphors. : )

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pop culture references are my mutant power. :) And that's a great pic of good ol' Gladys. Actually it's the precise picture I have in my mind when I think about the BFTSs in the PCUSA.

    Anyway...

    That anyone who has ever actually read the Bible can write a sentence like this without getting struck by lightning is remarkable: "Traditionalists acknowledge that the church has changed its mind previously on issues such as slavery, divorce, and women’s ordination. But they believe those revisions of doctrine came about because of fresh insight into the Scriptures—not merely out of a desire to conform to social trends. They do not see the issue of homosexuality as analogous, because the biblical texts on that topic are much less ambiguous."

    Less ambiguous than Jesus's statements on divorce? Really? Seriously, have these people ever read the Bible?!

    Nice try, "traditionalists".

    And this is quite a piece of work: "Love is never about license and, for too many years, the PCUSA has been silent as the carnage of sexual hedonism engulfs our culture"

    Ok, ignore for a second that they think love is apparently about rules, laws and order. Human relationships reduced down to legalism, engineering or pipe-fitting *cough*. But what's worse is the writing. Sheesh! Carnage ... engulfs? I don't even know what that means. Who writes like that? Seriously, in spite of the chuckle inducing Glenn Beck-esque melodrama, this is some seriously terrible writing. You'd think "People of the Word" might treat the language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible with a tad more respect. And the whole thing is like that. Ugh, it's painful.

    I still don't really get the whole thing though. Can anyone tell me what this is actually supposed to accomplish? Regardless of which of these reports passes, then what? Does anyone on either side actually think it will matter at all? I honestly don't get the point; someone please enlighten me. Are these people so deluded as to think that some dusty old busybodies and fusspots writing a report that slaughters Biblical interpretation (and the English language at the same time) is going to ... what? Cause me to divorce my husband?

    I just have to ask, "Are they actually insane?"

    Here's my take on the whole thing: With all due respect to the married heterosexual folks here, when straight people finally get their own act together on marriage, then maybe they will have the moral authority to lecture the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That 33 year old virgin sure is purty!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alan

    "Love is not about license." I thought getting a license was part of what we've been arguing about all these years. In fact I think they would say that sexual love should only occur when you have a license. A really bad pun on their part. Bet they didn't catch it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, is anyone else as disturbed as I am that they think the Bible is clearer on gay marriage than on slavery?

    Given that we're arguing a lot about gay marriage right now, it sort of makes you wonder about their views on slavery, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The whole bucket full of superstition is disturbing.

    As are the birthers, the climate change deniers, the drill baby drillers, the creationists, the death panel believers, and the flat earthers.

    They can "believe" all they want. Just because they "believe" doesn't make it so.

    I did find it amusing regarding the comparison between "traditionalists" and "progressives."

    They just have "us" nailed don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Alan but to your question. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about gay marriage.

    It appears that these two sentences are misleading:

    Traditionalists acknowledge that the church has changed its mind previously on issues such as slavery, divorce, and women’s ordination. But they believe those revisions of doctrine came about because of fresh insight into the Scriptures—not merely out of a desire to conform to social trends.

    The first sentence is fine. The church changed its mind. But the motivation was likely a bit more complex than either "fresh insight into the Scriptures" or "desire to conform to social trends."

    First, there are some prominent Presbyterian theologians (ie. Jack Rogers) who have said they changed their minds because of fresh insight into the Scriptures.

    Their neat little we vs. them falls apart right there.

    I suppose one could say that abolishing slavery was conforming "to a social trend." Although that sounds a bit cheap regarding the lives of enslaved people, a Civil War in this country to stop it, the division of every church into North and South that lasted in our case over 100 years.

    I suppose one could say that women's suffrage was "a social trend" kind of like bell bottom jeans or Pokemon cards.

    There is nothing in this report outside of good old right wing smoke and mirrors rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To spell it out further, the point of their little exercise is to put down the LGBT struggle for equality as "a social trend."

    They want to make the absurd claim that previous changes had nothing to do with the injustices in themselves (say perhaps a fresh insight into the horrors of slavery, or to insights of human freedom and democracy thanks to the Enlightenment).

    According to these "traditionalists" the church folks only changed because they read the Bible differently. Apparently, the Holy Spirit sprinkled magic pixie dust on the church and it suddenly changed its mind because it had a fresh insight into the scripture. "Oh gosh slavery is bad! The Bible says!" When in fact texts in the Bible still read: "Slaves, be obedient to your masters."

    The problem is that these so-called "traditionalists" are so blinded by their own prejudice that they don't see that people all around them are reading the scriptures with new insight because they are reading these texts in community with those engaged in the struggle for equality.

    With this report these traditionalists have done nothing but indict themselves as dullards. Everyone is getting it but you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I suppose one could say that women's suffrage was "a social trend" kind of like bell bottom jeans or Pokemon cards."

    That's it!! Roll back the vote for women -- especially women who wear bell bottom jeans. We must immediately march down to the Clerk's office and turn in our voter registration cards for Pokemon cards.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "@Alan but to your question. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about gay marriage. "

    Exactly, and yet it says that masters should be good to their slaves (it says nothing about freeing them) and that women should shut up in church, and that anyone who divorces (except for adultery) is an adulterer... But according to the traditionalists, the Bible is clearer on gay marriage than about slavery, divorce or women's ordination.

    Which means, as far as I can tell, from their point of view we can be sure that gay marriage is bad because the Bible is silent on the issue, but then here's the kicker ... they're not so sure about slavery, women's ordination or divorce!

    Yet they still went the other way about say, slavery, (even though they are, apparently, not so sure the Bible says it's a bad thing), and divorce (because they're not so sure it's a bad thing and what would you do if you were married to Gladys Kravits?), and women's ordination (because their wives bullied them into it) even though the Bible isn't so clear about those things.

    So they're happy to admit that they have no clear Biblical evidence for changing their minds about such things, but will make decisions about a topic that is nowhere ever mentioned in the Bible. Because that's clear.

    And they'll call that "scholarship."

    I think I am finally beginning to understand why some people don't find arguments for gay marriage or ordination "persuasive" when such blatant stupidity and contradiction is what passes for an argument and scholarship for "traditionalists." I guess we've been going about this the wrong way for years. If we wanted to convince them we should have just made up stupid, self-contradictory pablum if we wanted them to change their minds.

    Our bad.

    But seriously, are they really saying they're not so sure about slavery?! Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW, I would point out that one of the traditionalist's most celebrated and notable homosexual "scholars" also says that homosexuality is worse than incest, polygamy, adultery, and divorce. So we should not be surprised that their deep knowledge of Biblical "scholarship" now ranks it as worse than slavery, divorce and women's ordination.

    Because those are the arguments that "traditionalists" find persuasive.

    These are people who think gay marriage is worse than slavery and incest. This is the level of person we are dealing with. Again, I'm simply forced to wonder, are they actually insane? Because the possibility that they're sane and actually believe this stuff is even worse, it seems to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "If we wanted to convince them we should have just made up stupid, self-contradictory pablum"

    Humm... I hadn't thought of that, but you may have a point. Goes with

    "I'm simply forced to wonder, are they actually insane?"

    Yes, I think so.

    Most phobias are a form of insanity.

    To get scientific about it, the human mind has an instinctive drive to create orderly patterns. We need to make some kind of sense of the universe - both the universe external to us as well as the universe that is internal.

    They used to blame the personality effects caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and injuries to the brain "demon possession". They used to blame amorous obsession on witchcraft or even a god like creature called Cupid.

    They blame xenophobia on God.

    Its hard to deal with Neuro-chemistry. But I think sexual attractions and sexual phobias all come from the same gene, basically.
    They all have evolutionary survival functions. As does Xenophobia. We just need to learn to socialize and tame them.

    Its just not cool anymore to go around killing people who speak, dress, look or act differently then we do.

    And please, stop blaming God for everything. Jeez.

    ReplyDelete