Its the same principle as moderate Muslims allowing terrorists to hijack Islam. Except kids in the "Christian" nation are merely dying one at a time, as opposed to in a explosion of rubble.

Blaming the victim has ALWAYS been a defining Christian value. It's a fundamental part of the concept of a supposedly "just and fair" deity; the victimized must have deserved it, since [deity of choice] is (presumed to be) fair, and therefore those who are "punished" (victims) must have deserved it somehow. It's worth noting how this fits with Republican "screw the poor" philosophies...

Well done, Dan!

Well stated, Mr. Savage.

the flap of a christian whisper's wings causes a tsunami on the other side of the globe (that's if you're into chaos theory, a viable thing in my science understanding, 'the butterfly effect'). of course their will always be assholes who make a living off of WHINING "I'm sick of tolerant accepting christians whispering...."

Well put.

('Your co-religionists,' not 'You're co-religionists.')

Didn't the author say that s/he is an atheist, yet merely grew up in the United Church of Canada? Isn't there also a social/cultural difference between Canadian Christianity and American Christianity?

In a country with a socio-political system that focuses on providing a higher level of social services for its population, rather than focusing on the "every man for himself" mentality of the supposed free-market that we have here in the US, it seems only natural that those views would be reflected through religion as well.

Maybe we can chalk this one up to both:
1) Misplaced Devil's Advocatism (s/he did claim to be an atheist afterall)
2) Lack of social understanding of the American far-right Christian movement

I couldn't add a word.

I agree with this. I have some wonderful Christian friends who are pro-equality, but I must say that they don't do much to speak out for gay rights or to take back their religion from the fundies. Quite frankly, they seem to be almost in the closet about their pro-gay views.

Apathy? Tolerance?

Fuck that. I want acceptance.

Amen, brother!!!

Just to play devil's advocate, should we scorn the liberal and moderate Muslims who insist that not all Muslims are homicidal jihadists? Do regular, non-crazy Muslims need to be as big, well-funded, aggressive, and loud as the Taliban assholes before we take their viewpoint seriously?

Right on, Dan!

It's also worth noting that the investment of all of those Christian dollars going into promoting intolerance and hate has created an industry where people make a pretty good living promoting intolerance. People like George Rekers could afford to take $400/hr rent boys on trips to Europe as porters, because if all the Christian money pouring into the hate industry.

Dan has a very valid point, and in sheer numbers, the gay hating side of Christianity, the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, half the Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists and the megaphone they bring to the discussion is enormous. The gay supporting groups are really only the United Church of Christ and the Unitarians make up less than 3% at the most of the population. The Episcopalians, and ELCA Lutherans are divided on marriage equality and leadership within the church and also despite their historical underpinnings make up a tiny fraction of the population.

So, when Dan rails against Christianity, he is fairly speaking against a body of people, the vast majority of who claim to be represented in their faith by organizations whose leaderships explicitly discriminate against gays in worship, on one side condemning their nature as sin or on the other side excluding them from sacraments like marriage or leadership.

So, when you call yourself Christians, this is what you are associating yourself with--even if you are part of the very, very small minority that believe that gays and lesbians should be fully included in society, leadership, and faith.

Think about this a little more deeply: Christians who are into being aggressively and proactively pro-gay and working hard for LGBT rights are most likely to do that in partnership with people of other faiths and nonbelievers because we don't see any need to bracket ourselves off. We tend to be the kind of folks who don't want to build our political identities around our religious identities PRECISELY because it leads to unnecessary division and rancor along religious lines. So our activism is often faith-inspired but not faith-branded.

Also, conservative Christian groups will ALWAYS be more well-funded than lefty Christian groups because 1) lefty Christians tend to devote themselves to lives of service & social justice, and generally don't make much money and 2) conservative Christian groups are often funded in part
by non-religious conservatives who understand that social politics rooted in fear-mongering (as anti-gay politics are) helps them continue to sustain unjust economic structures. People like Richard Mellon Sciafe invest in things like The Institute on Religion & Democracy and the Heritage Foundation, and they push Christianity rightward.

So from a religious history POV, it's a vast oversimplification to say that progressive & moderate Christians simply ceded power to right wing christians (remember also that the rise of the Moral Majority in the 70s didn't happen because Falwell converted a bunch of moderate christians to fundamentalism, but because fundamentalists had historically shunned politics and Falwell got them to put aside their reservations and vote en masse).

@15 We are told that the terrorists ideology represent a very small minority of the Muslim faithful. So, the guilt-by-association argument is weaker when the bad-actors are associating with a better-acting majority than when good-actors are associating with a bad-acting majority.

@9 My impression is that fundamentalist churches are the exception, rather than the norm here. The United Church of Canada (the largest protestant denomination in Canada) has gay ministers, and often you'll see rainbow stickers on the doors and signs. I can see how someone (like today's LR) who grew up here, and hasn't experienced the unique hell that is the US fundamentalist Christian, would wonder what all the fuss was about. Although there are certainly areas in Canada that are small "c" conservative, and anti-abortion, etc., that is the minority. Even in the very small, backwoods town I lived in here a while ago, there was a man who came into the town's one diner every day, very large and masculine, wearing a dress and lipstick. It was always "Hey Bob! How are you!" from the waitresses. As a city transplant (snob?), this never ceased to surprise me.

Although there are some good messages to be found in Christianity (and Islam, and Paganism, and Judaism...) there came a point, for me at least, when I couldn't ignore the obvious contradictions, not to mention the hate and intolerance. Dan's right: Silence IS support.

@ 9 - Be careful not to become another Michael Moore, who idealizes Canada without actually bothering to look at facts (want to know how the health system works in Canada nowadays? Watch The Barbarian Invasions, not Sicko).

The Canadian "socio-political system that focuses on providing a higher level of social services for its population" pretty much died when Pierre Trudeau retired in 1984. Look who's in power now, look at what they are doing to that system, and note that pretty much all the social advances of the last 25 years (like gay marriage) came from the courts, thanks to Trudeau's bill of rights, not from the government.

And if religions in Canada aren't so agressively anti-anything, it's because they can be sued for hate speech.

Just wanted to point out that Unitarian Universalist churches are shouting as loud as we can: www.standingonthesideoflove.org. Of course, we're a small denomination, so short of picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, I'm not sure how we can attract significant media attention...

Dan, you are insane. All this person is asking is for you to modify the word "Christian" to say something like "fundamentalist Christians" or "the religious right" rather than accusing all Christians when you're talking about this issue. Is that really so hard?

And in case you're wondering, yes, my church had a huge NO ON 8 hung outside, and we did extensive phone banking and fundraising through the church (United Church of Christ). Is the fact that our numbers are less than the Mormons really our fault? I would say we did everything possible on this issue given our numbers - I was out there every week during this campaign calling people, giving money, waving signs - and all of the activity was organized through my church. So perhaps you need to get some facts straight before spouting off. Otherwise, you just sound like an idiot and you make it WAY less likely that anyone is going to listen to you!

I'd also add that you seem to have totally ignored the section of this writer's letter about gay Christians. From having met many (and been a bi Christian myself - although not one that was ever harmed by religious conservatives since I grew up in a liberal church) gay Christians who had terrible experiences with Christianity growing up, it is incredible to hear their stories about how amazing it felt to come into a church that accepts them 100% after years off feeling like God didn't love them. You may not need that, and that's totally ok, but a lot of people DO and I think it's pretty ridiculous for you to just totally dismiss that as unimportant. Religion is a fundamental part of many peoples' lives, and finding churches that embrace them as a full part of the community (we have a gay minister at my church, for example) is going to be incredibly important for those folks. Therefore, the existence of those places is something you should highlight (It gets better?) rather than dismiss as simply not powerful enough.

Finally, I think the reason you don't hear liberal churches being so active in the media is that, by and large, we're not fucking interested in converting you!! We believe in separation of church and state, we don't feel the need to constantly preach to everyone what to believe, etc. Now, I do think the church needs to do a better job of making sure people know that the most publicized version of Christianity isn't the only one, and I also think it's one we're working on, but your indictment is WAAAAY too harsh! Do you even know any liberal Christians - I feel like you must given where you live and the likely circles you travel in...maybe they're in the closet because they think you won't approve? ;)

@17 You're just straight up wrong about those numbers--there's pro-gay contingents among all those denominations and while there's more pro-gay Methodist congregations than pro-gay Mormon congregations things are moving further and further in a pro-gay direction every year. I'd put about 30% nationally in the pro-gay camp, though church leadership hasn't fully caught up to the laity.

Hell, the most recent Pew survey found that more American Catholics support gay marriage than oppose it.

"...stop whispering to me and start screaming at them..."

Exactly. If you want us to respect your strain of Christianity, try these:

Next time Tony Perkins spouts anti-gay bullshit-- *you* beat Dan Savage to the TV shows and denounce Perkins as an ignorant, anti-Christian fraud.

The next time Fred Phelps and his dysfunctional family show up in your state with their "God Hates Fags" signs-- get your entire congregation down there as a counter-protest.

The next time Bill Donohue puts down his Jameson's to whine about gays ruining his already-fucked-up church-- get every Catholic you know to shout him down.

And right now, today, call every citizen of New York state that you know and tell them to vote against the anti-gay thug, Carl Paladino.

Should clarify, I am from California, so No on 8 was the No on Prop 8 campaign banning same sex marriage.

Hell yeah, Dan.

Not all Germans wanted to kill Jews, either. In fact, probably most did not. So this Christian's point is what exactly? That we can just ignore the ignorant, vile, powerful Christians because they are a minority? Yeah, I Godwinned the thread, so what? More and more Christians in this country feel comfortable openly talking about executing gays. Liberal Christians can STFU about how mean the gays are.

@23 and others -- The United Church of Christ has 1.1 million members in the USA, according to Wikipedia. In comparison, there are 68 million Catholics and 16 million Baptists. You are a TINY MINORITY. It's wonderful that the UCC is enlightened and I give you props for that. But you don't represent the mainstream of Christianity and its treatment of gays. Dan is addressing the majority. That majority espouses hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals in its practices and theology. I would think you would call them on the carpet as much as Dan, instead of bristling at totally accurate, spot-on statements. Quit taking offence and grow up.

@25 Liberal Christians can't get on TV. I don't really understand why. But seriously--NO ONE EVER CALLS US, and it's not for lack of trying. Sometimes Bill Maher or some rad person in the media will have Cornel West on. Sometimes Jim Wallis (not a liberal, exactly, but a progressive evangelical). But for the most part, liberal christians are as shut out of cable news shows as anti-war activists.

The one liberal Christian voice that is always on TV and always brilliantly mocking the Tony Perkinses is Stephen Colbert--unfortunately he's always in character so most people don't know that he's actually a very devout Catholic who teaches sunday school.

@29 ...but again, about half of those 28 million catholics support gay marriage. Not a tiny minority.

I meant 68 million. whatever!

And again, I will just point out: 40 states banned SSM via direct vote of a supermajority. Do tell how "most" Christians aren't anti-gay again? I fear that this person doesn't know what "many" or "most" means.

And as Dan points out, not being politically hostile towards gays while still saying being gay is a sin, that we are defying God, and that we will burn in hell *if we don't repent for being gay* is hardly gay friendly, and to non-religious gays is as offensive as being politically anti-gay, since we can see how their beliefs influence the haters while retaining plausible deniability.

Boo hoo hoo. I can't believe the nerve of Christians who whine about how bigoted the gays are *based on mere speech* when the federal, state, and local government, plus most of the big institutional monied religious (Catholics, LDS, evangelicals) make us legally and socially unequal with the most hateful of rhetoric.

Here's a tip: you only make me more angry about fucking religious nut cases. We are in a democracy, so you can fucking see what the majority feels about gays, and you are full of shit. *You* aren't anti gay, and most of the people you know aren't anti gay. The people who are anti gay also mainly know people who are anti gay. Quit conflating your tiny world to the entire world. And then try to consider that as a straight Christian, most people don't treat you like they would treat a gay person. It is very likely the "friendliness" you believe is there really isn't.

But still, it seems most efforts of "nice" Christians is spent telling gay people to stop bitching. Fuck off, and fuck you. The problem is not that gay people are saying too many mean things about Christians. We get push back for that EVERY SINGLE TIME. But Christians who say, do, and legislate anti gay things? Get elected to office and get tons of money from their followers.

FUCK
YOU

If you want us to stop being mean towards religion, please put your efforts into stopping religion being mean to us. I think you'll find the rest takes care of itself.

@19 And most Christians insist that the psychotic anti-gay douchebags represent a small minority of the Christian faithful. I see at best a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

@31: and those Catholics tithe to the Catholic Church which spends hundreds of millions of dollars on anti-gay initiatives and many/most of which vote GOP due to abortion. The idea that they support SSM in their heads while financially and politically supporting anti-gay policies is worth dick.

The MN Catholics sent out 400,000 anti SSM DVDs during an election season but for "non-political" reasons. The Catholics only try to deny Eucharist to Democratic politicians. Never war, torture, or death penalty Republicans.

If the best you have to offer is that...

Again, quit talking about how most/many Christians aren't anti gay. We have a democracy. Most SSM issues have been decided by direct vote requiring supermajorities. Those anti-gay votes have always won, proving as best we can that "most" Christians are in fact anti-gay when given a single issue vote on gay issues.

Sorry it hurts your feelings to hang out with such hatefilled people. But the truth is the truth. Just because you hang around with gay friendly religious people doesn't mean most religious people are gay friendly. Quit projecting your immediate circle to society at large.

@25 Don't think I could put it better than you did. Thank you.

@23 No one cares if you're interested in converting people. The VERY LEAST you could do is stand up for them. By your silence you're implicitly supporting the fundamentalists by calling yourself a christian. You're not the victim here.

Dan, you're 100% right. And if a few 'good Christians' get their feelings hurt. Too bad.

Sara @23. You're pissed, and I understand that. But you're pissed at the wrong person.

It isn't Dan's fault that right wing wackos have co-opted the Christian brand, and claim to speak for all Christians. It isn't Dan's fault that Tony Perkins gets on CNN or Faux News at least once a week to trash gays in the name of God. It isn't Dan's fault that straight kids in schools think it's perfectly acceptable to bully gay kids because their parents and their preachers tell them gays are sub-human.

Direct your anger at the right target: the people who have co-opted your religion in the name of hate.

"Conservative Christians seized power because moderate and liberal Christians ceded it—moderate and liberal Christians ceded both power and their reputations to conservative "Christian" haters."

This, this cannot be repeated often enough. This is *exactly* it.

It's not all Black and White.

I read that the "Log Cabin Republicans" are the ones bringing suit against DADT.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/gays_m…

So what does that mean? A traditionally anti-gay organization, with an actively gay subgroup taking a national stance in advance of supposedly pro-Gay groups like Democrats who talk, but don't act. (TBDA?).

Meanwhile, most of us, straight, bi, lez, etc, are just trying to get laid.

Y'all should also recognize that when we lefty Christians whine about wanting to make sure that Christianity isn't solely identified with anti-gay idiots, it's not because we're concerned with social acceptance by our peers. It's because for kids growing up in religious homes and communities, it can be life-saving to know that you don't have to choose between self-acceptance and fidelity to your tradition and faith.

I grew up in eastern washington, and was lucky to have a supportive church community--even though my adolescence was kind of isolated and emo, I at least completely bypassed all the self-hatred that many of my LGBT friends describe, always trusting that God was on the side of justice, and with hard work it could get better--the other side's hearts and minds could open up in time. Having a pro-gay pastor, learning about social justice theology--these things totally kept me sane and supported.

@13 I'd be curious how you define acceptance in the context you used it - all I want, all I believe I am entitled to, is tolerance - I can't make anyone agree with me, or like me, but I can expect them to tolerate the way I am, just as I must do for those I disagree with - I think a fair bit of the blowback on the gay rights issue is people reacting to the sense that they're being asked to like/agree with the movement - and most people will resist that - rather than being shown (preferably rationally) that 'live and let live' is what's fair and appropriate. I mean it as an honest question - what do you expect as 'acceptance' from society at large?

@39: It's worse than that. The liberal and moderate Christians were very happy to go along with the idea of promoting "family values" for a very long time. They did not bother to ask themselves who they were aligning with, or what those specific values were. They didn't accidentally cede that power, they were happy to promote it until it went too far.

I gather then, Dan, you take responsibility for everything that every gay guy does, because, you're, like, gay too, so you're responsible or something.

In that case I'd like to ask you a few questions about the HRC.

Well said. It needs to be said. And, I'm of the opinion that you don't need to explain yourself, Dan.

Silence in condoning. I really wish that everyone like me would stop feeling hurt. We share the corporate shame, notice I said corporate, not individual shame. If you and your denomination are being loud, speaking out, then keep it up. Get louder. Push those individuals in your circle who straddle the fence i.e. supportive but don't want to make a scene. There is a line in the sand and we have to know what side we stand on. It needs to be obvious to all who stand around us. And, remember while it may say that the "meek will inherit the earth" it doesn't say be a doormat. Take some courage from the Yeshua found in the Gospels, as opposed to the one referenced in the letters of Paul; who voiced his convictions, welcomed those the Temple would not welcome, and entered into Jerusalem in full knowledge that crucifixion was the political punishment of the time for terrorism against Rome and the Temple politics that were in collusion with the Roman government. That is not the conviction of a person who is a doormat, but the voice of one willing to be loud and provocative. Justice is offensive, it demands a change of the status quo, expect to offend others.

In short if you can look sincerely into your own heart and know that the legitimate venting of your GLBTQ brothers and sisters doesn't specifically apply to you, then don't take it personally. Have faith that they know that despite the broadness of the their statements that they also know their are exceptions and you're one of them. Have faith in love. And, always keep up the good work.

@44: If gay people were spending hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle to legislate against some other group of Americans, using their collective strength, numbers, and finances, then I sure as hell would feel responsible and would be going after those gays, not the people they are bullying.

If you cannot see the vast discrepancy in power and influence...

@30 No excuses, please. If you can't get on TV its because your message is dull. Nobody wants to watch you sing Kumbayah slightly off beat.

You have to let the media know that Tony Perkins is an anti-American, anti-human, anti-Christian, liar, pervert, and charlatan who is surely bound for the eternal torment of Hell if he doesn't get his ass straight with Jesus H. Christ himself. (This message is both exciting and attractive. It has the added advantage of being true.)

Try these:

"Every time Tony Perkins chooses Leviticus over the Beatitudes, it increases the suffering at Calvary."

"Tony Perkins follows Leviticus too little to be a Jew, and too much to be a Christian."

"Tony Perkins is an idolater who is destined for Hell if he doesn't come to know Jesus-- the real Jesus, not conservative mascot."

@36 It's true that the Catholic Church institution is structurally far from accountable or democratic, and were I catholic, I doubt I'd be able to support the church financially. There is a pretty major split between the churchgoers and the church leadership (this is true on other issues such as birth control). It's also true that the church often makes those donations without the knowledge or consent of its parishioners. It's also true that a bunch of Catholics have expressed outrage at the way their contributions have been misappropriated. You might not have heard that part of the story, because, again, progressive/liberal Christians can't get on TV for some reason.

I agree with Dan. As an LGBT Episcopalian, I tend to think that actually the majority of Christians hate gays. I think the accepting ones probably are the minority.

@17 - Just a quick note on the ELCA - there are congregations who are not in favor of the resolutions passed at the churchwide assembly in 2009 (allowing partnered LGBT clergy, and, by extension, allowing congregations to bless same sex unions), but they are in the minority. Most congregations are either in favor or apathetic (which, frankly, is the majority). In fact, in some synods (including mine in the deep south), the decision to enter into a full communion relationship with the Methodists was far more controversial. There's far less division in the ELCA than there is among the Episcopalians... right now.

The bigger issue in the ELCA is apathy. The people in the pews just don't care about issues that don't directly affect them. I'm on council in my congregation, and I've earned myself the label of being a commie pinko liberal because I don't believe flags belong in a worship space and because I speak out in council meetings about issues of social justice. With the exception of one other person on council, no one even knows anyone who is gay (they think...that one person is our council president, who is in the closet at church - and it makes me sad that he thinks he has to be in the closet at church), so equal rights for LGBT people isn't a concern for them. Oh, they'll welcome you in to the church, and even welcome your partner, but they won't go out of their way to fight for your basic human dignity.

I've mentioned before that I am tired of that kind of crap, so I do fight it in my congregation when I see it, and I speak out in the community as much as I can - including writing letters to the TV stations that air ads from Tony Perkins (who lives in this little corner of paradise). It might not be much, but in this little hole in the Bible belt, it's pretty radical. If "good" Christians all over the country would drop the apathy and do what they could in their own communities, we wouldn't have to have this conversation over and over and over again.

@20, 31: Most members of the Roman Catholic and United Church of Canada churches may be pro-marriage equality, but so what? According to Wikipedia, you can be a United Church of Canada congregation and reject the equality of gays for clergy or marriage, while no RC church will marry their gay kids. Both churches tolerate the bigotry, and that message trickles down to kids. Straight members have the luxury of waiting for their church to come around, but the less resilient gay kids in their communities don't.

Don't just assume that it's the right wing and the fundamentalists. I was a teen in the 80's and our family was part of the Multnoma Monthly Meeting (Quakers) in PDX. The congregation was as orthodox liberal as they get: worked for social justice, opposed nuclear weapons, embraced pacifism, supported feminism and civil rights, etc.

And they were pretty self-congratulatory for accepting openly gay people. This was the 80's so even the concept of gay marriage didn't exist. But when the issue of supporting the union of gay and lesbian couples (the Quaker idea that the congregation has an obligation to recognize and support a married couple) there was a schism. There were a fair number of people who were bluer than McGovern, who couldn't "reconcile their faith" with formally and publicly supporting gay unions.

It ain't just the red state Christians that have a problem.

Kim @45 is my hero.

I just love it how people now refer to the "Christian BRAND" and no christian opposes that... showing all of us the truth of the matter: it's all about money and power.

@48: Oh no outrage at how their money is spent? The Church use(d) 75% public funds for outreach in DC. Thanks to faith based initiatives, a lot of their work is funded in larger or in part by tax payers. They save their money for sex abuse settlements (~$4B in the US alone) and on anti-gay politics.

It doesn't fucking much matter if they don't like it. Membership in the group, identification as Catholic, and giving the funds is support even if they disagree. And you have yet to account for the 40 states that banned SSM via direct vote. Meaning liberal Christians joined in with conservative Christians to ban our rights via legislation or constitutional amendment. Until you have an adequate answer FOR THOSE NUMBERS, I don't give a fuck what kind of nice gay-friendly thoughts are silently bouncing around in their brains.

Unfortunately, the guy is right. With the widespread coverage of the IGBP, Dan's is going to have a more national voice, and he's going to have to stop painting all detractors with a wide brush if he wants anyone to take him seriously. What makes his blog popular (profanity, take-no-prisoners in-your-face attitude) isn't what will give him any credibility on the national stage. All he has to do is say, "Not all Christians are this way, but..." Dan would just as quickly say, "Not all gays are that way" when someone points out that some pedophile is gay (or something), and yet he's willing to blame non-hate-filled Christians for the sins of their benighted coreligionists. It's unfair and weakens his own position.

If he doesn't stop doing that kind of thing, he'll remain a popular blogger, and no more.

@48: the only answer you seem to have is "but we can't get on the teevee so what can we do?" How about leaving the institutions that misappropriate your funds? If you can't stop supporting the institution because of religious ties, then religion is still the goddamn problem.

@46 All I would ask from any moral adult is that they act with parity when making ethical evaluations, i.e., moral principles that apply to one group apply equally well to one's self, and to anyone else.

For example, if members of a group behave in a morally reprehensible way, the mere fact that you belong to the same group does not /in itself/ mean you're guilty of any wrongdoing.

We have certain Democratic politicians who oppose gay equality, or work against it. Is it therefore reasonable to repeatedly denounce all Democrats for being Democrats, saying they are corrupt and evil? Is it then legitimate to insinuate that many or most Democrats are child molesters?

If you take a step back from the specific circumstances, it's clear that such tactics are bogus. To further extend the rather simple moral principles I advocated earlier -- principles that seem so simple to me that even a small child can grasp their validity -- we can simply say "Two wrongs don't make a right," and conclude that however legitimate one's feelings of being wronged may be, and however much one can understand anger, neither being wronged nor being angry do not justify any counterattack one wishes to make.

Reading "Youth Pastor Watch," it seems pretty clear that what's really important to Dan is to yell at those bad Christians. Of course, this will drive moderates out of the middle -- they will not mistake his tone. No one who enters this debate with an open mind will be persuaded.

I'm not a Christian, for what it's worth.

The other thing I would say is that anti-gay Christians aren't "a small minority".

I'm not even sure they're a minority at all. Sure, not all of them are hateful people who think that gays are evil and we should beat them up - but they do think that gays shouldn't get married.

Given that the polls that have broken things down have shown that atheists/agnostics/non-religious people and Jews support gay marriage at a considerably higher rate than the general population (the exit polls in California showed that 90% of atheists had voted to keep gay marriage by voting against Prop. 8), and support for gay marriage nationwide is in the 40%s, the only conclusion is that most Christians (at least in the US) are anti-gay to at least some extent.

And to a higher extent than the general population, since the 16% or so who are irreligious (and the couple percent who are Jewish or Wiccan or Buddhist or something like that) support gay marriage at a much higher percent, meaning that Christians have to be more anti-gay to make the numbers fit.

So Dan, it's OK to lump all Muslims in with terrorist Muslim fundamentalists, right? And it's the fault of all the non-terrorist Muslims for not somehow shouting down the terrorists, right?

Got it.

@42: In the sense of having my existence not be a matter of debate. In the sense that I would like not to be thrown in jail or subjected to corrective rape because someone thinks I'm "unnatural". In the sense of not having to be subjected to relentless propaganda about how I'm actually just longing for a good deep-dicking, lol.

You (general you) tolerate what you consider to be unnatural, disgusting, horrific. You accept what you consider to be natural/necessary, if not your preference or your ideal. In that sense, you could say I tolerate batshit crazy racists who never physically assault anyone, or hooting men in the bus station calling out HEY BABY HEY BABY...while I accept the right to free speech (even for the most hateful fucks Dan's covered in SLOG), my duty to pay taxes (which get me and other citizens the services we need), and other people's right not to have someone tell them they're wrong and hateful and doomed just for existing, but it's okay because their presence will be "tolerated" like a wart in the swimsuit area.

Or, to put it differently...tolerance is something that people choose to give you, and may be taken away at any moment if their mood changes. Acceptance isn't agreement, but it at least acknowledges that I have a right not to be discriminated against, instead of leaving my rights up as a matter of personal debate. I accept the rights of war criminals and murderers - people who have committed actual crimes. Why should my own rights be a matter of people deciding not to burn me on the stake - today, anyway?

Please understand, I'm not trying to provoke you. Your defintion of tolerance is very close to mine of acceptance, except for the last point I made. This is just months - years - of pent-up frustration, and yes, it is very idealistic, so...

I do think it's important to note that not all Christians are our enemies, but you people are delusional when you act like MOST Christians aren't against gay rights to some extent.

Most of them are more pro-gay than the Family Values Council or American Family Association and for sure, Phelps is way out on the fringe. But most Christians are not on board with the "gay agenda".

Most Muslims are not terrorists, and in fact, terrorists make up like, <1% of the Muslim population. (Muslims who *support* terrorist tactics, on the other hand, are probably quite a bit more numerous.)

So, no, not all Christians are that way, but don't act like it's a small minority giving Christians a bad name. Being a Christian vs. other in the US significantly increases the likelihood of holding anti-gay positions. It's simply true.

Gendum, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The point of youth pastor watch is not that all youth pastors are monsters, it's that religious people are *assumed* to be better people. There's no need to be suspicious of this adult stranger you leave your child with.

All of this is not about the specifics of any one church or religious person, it is about the social positioning of religion and religious people. There is social capital in those groups that is generated by the collective of the group and used to advance a specific view (Christian, which I acknowledge is varied amongst denominations).

In addition, every person in those religions chooses to join a church, go and associate with those folks, and tithe money to the institution. They do not have to.

And you, like every other apologist out there, have not commented on the 40 states that voted down SSM on a single issue vote, meaning liberal, moderate, and conservative Christians were all on the side of the super majorities.

None of you apologists seem to know what "many" or "most" means or are just saying that because of your gut feelings. Whereas I am pointing out a measurable fact related to only voting on a gay issue and drawing supermajorities in a nation populated mostly by Christians.

Quit looking to your feelings or how you want things to be, and look at how they actually are. I see no evidence that a significant number of Christians aren't anti gay.

Do you think Obama is anti gay? Because maybe there's the issue for us. I think someone who publicly advocates for separate but equal because his religious beliefs privilege straight unions over same sex unions is just as bad an example to these suicidal teens as Tony Perkins.

Perhaps our definition of anti-gay is different. I'm with Dan, and anyone who thinks being gay is a sin or is lesser in any way is anti-gay enough for me, no matter how nice they are about it. I'm sure it is different for you, since you don't have to live with it. You can define anti-gay as the most extreme of the anti-gay behavioral subset. But then, you never feel like putting a bullet in your head because of the constant religious messaging that gay people hear.

@61 I'm not provoked at all... it's as I thought, we're using two different words to mean more or less the same thing - in this case two words we take rather different meaning from - ah, language...

More generally to come of the comments here - I agree that Dan kinda wants it both ways in that he wants to paint Christians with a broad brush (I'd call that prejudice) while he wouldn't tolerate (or is that accept?! :) ) the same broad-brush depiction of "the gays" as all being like some gays are... (and he shouldn't). you can't have it both ways - and you'll do better in the long run with your advocacy

Give 'em hell, Dan!

@41- Your point about growing up in eastern WA with "a supportive church community" & pastor makes it clear to me.
I was also raised east of the mountains, but I had a homophobic father/step-mom and a church that preached we burned in hell for choosing to act on the sin of homosexuality. Tough gig as a gay teen- in *my* world, all I learned were that those closest to you didn't like who you were, wouldn't accept that you couldn't help who you were, and most definitely were not there to support you.
I think that's what most GLBTETC kids grew up with. Your experience seems decidedly abnormal.
Today- I cannot understand (or tolerate) the average christian. As pointed out by Dan and comments above- at best they're appathetic in support for anything that matters to a queer person. And still they donate big bucks to a church hierarchy that pours those dollars into anti-gay hate campaigns.

Face facts, folks. There will NEVER be big, well-funded, aggressive, and loud progressive/liberal Christian groups, because liberal/progressive Christians are the tiny minority with little money and conservative Christians are the huge majority with millions of dollars and media access.

Liberal/progressive Christians in America are a tiny, embattled minority within their own religion. As loud as they yell, as aggressive as they will ever be, they will never be an effective counter. The conservative evangelicals have the money, the media, the politicians, and the sheer numbers.

I was raised Catholic, then attended a Baptist Church in high school, before leaving because I refused to worship with a congregation that supported bigotry.

I joined UCC, which does care about gay rights, and does actually do things. http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

But I'm as frustrated as you are, because it seems like the religious right has hi-jacked religion. I think maybe the problem is the religious left's opinion is

"Separation of Church and State, what I believe religiously shouldn't matter politically." The liberals and moderates aren't the screaming hypocrites who carry signs. They're the Christians who stay in their churches and reach out to those who want to worship. They aren't shoving their ideologies down other people's throats, including other Christians.

I'm a college student, and we get the crazy people preaching hate, and the liberal/moderate Christians do yell at them. But you can't really talk to these people or change their minds.

Also, the religious left doesn't put it's funding into TV shows or mega churches that get attention, but put money into working to help people.

The problem is, most of the moderate/liberal Christians follow Jesus's words about it being better to pray in your closet than make a show of praying. They're the quiet Christians who make their faith between them and God, not a flag to wave around. They're not on TV, or telling other people what to do on the streets.

And the question is why do the religious right get more attention? And I don't think they're a minority. I think a lot of people are conservative. So how does the religious left stand up. How do the Christians who are against this bigotry stand up to the other Christians.

We can leave bigoted churches and denounce what people say, but I have no idea how to get liberal religious leaders into a national spot light. Maybe someone should try to launch an campaign and get the religious left together, but I don't know who. I don't think I can, I'm just a college kid. I'm not a religious leader, or even a regular church goer. I consider myself a Christian and want something to be done to undercut the religious right, but I have no idea what could be done.

"Alternative sexualities"? Go fuck yourself, JLGAHF.

Note the person is Canadian.

Canada moved on decades ago. It's only here in America that we're still stuck on stupid.

This is kinda like how black people steal my car.

But in seriousness, liberal Christians are less likely to be evangelical, spread fear and propaganda, put money into attention-drawing schemes. To speak to some points herein, maybe they should more on that last one, but those points are really why they aren't as big, loud and organized. That's partially their fault, and partially just a shame. They're also usually involved with non-religious organizations from wherein they do their campaigning.

A friend helped organize the Angels group for Pride in my town by way of her church. The others I know who hold viewpoints I can respect are busy working in shelters, working in other liberal organizations and so on.

You're right that they shouldn't be whining, they should be doing. But many are. And in the realm of "should", people's feelings get hurt, and this gets compounded when Dan whines further about receiving some emails from people who are hurt. How many articles are you going to dedicate to this apparently mega-insignificant minority. We get it - you're tired of it.
You've fucking said so. Move the fuck on. Thanks for what you're doing, but the effort you're putting into this is more than any one person writing one email, however annoying.

Note: not a Christian.

Let try another analogy:

Americans have done a lot of stupid, hateful, destructive things throughout the world, particularly under our last president. As an American, am I required to actively donate to and participate in liberal/moderate American organizations to show the rest of the world that we aren't all Bible-thumping, redneck idiots?

@57 I don't support institutions that run or fund anti-gay campaigns. My church is pro-gay. But it hasn't always been (though wisely, it never let itself get involved in anti-gay politics). If everyone who disagreed with the church's old anti-gay position left it instead of sticking around and fighting for change from within, my adolescence would certainly have been a lot more miserable.

@66 Your story is a very familiar one. I don't think it's wise to universalize my experience or to universalize yours. There is no "average Christian" just as there is no "average gay person". People are complicated, and their views can easily change over time. American christianity is such a huge social phenomenon that it's really diverse in terms of beliefs, practices, politics. That said, the statistical data shows there are clear trends in the pro-gay direction, especially among the youngest generations of Christians.

Of course the data also shows that the #1 factor in how someone feels about gay marriage is whether they know any LGBT people. So that's another good reason for LGBT folks (who feel safe enough, anyway) to stay in community with people who harbor ignorant views---it's the #1 most effective way to change minds. I wouldn't blame any gay person for feeling anger about abuse of religion. But I also wouldn't blame any progressively-minded christian for staying put, even in an anti-gay denomination, and working to transform it from the inside.

Blame, guilt, penance, redemption....round and round it goes. I don't believe all Christians are haters, but I do think all Christians put up with way too much hater bullshit from other Christians. Why would you want to identify with a group that can't even get its story strait regarding who they welcome? But please Christians, don't welcome me. I don't want to be invited to your weird party.

@ 73 - No, you're not required to do so. It wouldn't help, at any rate, since the rest of the world will only believe it when the US, as a nation, starts acting like it actually understands and means what it says when it talks about democracy, equality and justice for all - inside and outside of your country.

In other words, probably never.

Hey Gekko,

I'm not following you. How is this a response to my position?

Let me briefly recap -- my view is that membership in a group in which some (or even most) of its membership is immoral is not in itself necessarily immoral, nor are Christians responsible for "the Church" any more than registered Democrats are personally responsible for Eric Holder defending DOMA. What exactly do you disagree with?

I don't take issue with Dan being harshly critical of the actions of many Christian churches -- what I reject is that his response is in itself ugly and counter-productive ad hominem.

Allow me to quote a blog post I stumbled on today, First, let's hear from Savage:

"The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from lips of "faithful Christians," and the lies that spew forth from the pulpit of the churches "faithful Christians" drag their kids to on Sundays, give your straight children a license to verbally abuse, humiliate and condemn the gay children they encounter at school."

Benjamin Dueholm replies:

"The wild free-associating Savage is doing here--between traditional views of marriage and Christian sexual ethics, children's attitudes, bullying, and suicide--surely sounds plausible to his apparently quite credulous readership. But plug in just about any other religion or group and see how it sounds to you. Would you want to see some evidence for the bolded statements above? Are the bullies who cause so much high school trauma devout and practicing Christians? Are average churches writing licenses to abuse gay kids? If so, I'd sure like to know."

full post:
http://tpi.blogspot.com/2010/10/dan-sava…

If you don't agree that "Youth Pastor Watch" is an ugly and insinuating smear on Christians, then I can only respond by questioning your objectivity, and I would echo Dueholm's belief that many of Savage's readers only accept this kind of vitriol because they share his sense of outrage at the church.

But Dan will never change. He'll never apologize. He never even gets involved in these discussions. Like the time he said that that HIV+ guy had no responsibility to disclose his status before sleeping with someone (unprotected?), and everyone in the comments called him out on it. Total silence from Dan. He does a good job of arguing his positions in his posts, but he's incapable of responding to criticism from commenters.

But the point is moot, because he'll never say sorry or change his mind or reconsider his positions. (Except under the excuse that he was sick or stoned or something.) That fuck-the-world bravado is what makes him an entertaining blogger, but he's just not going to make it any further than that.

@77: I agree. It seems like many posters are allowing their dislike of churches to bias their thinking. I would be quite upset at the notion that I'm required to take time out of my rich and busy life to address the asshattery of people who happen to fall into one of my many demographic groups.

To add a (sadly necessary) disclaimer: I am an atheist, and I'm not exactly a fan of Christianity. But I've noticed that intelligent people will accept bad arguments if those arguments lead to a conclusions with which they agree, so I force myself to be extra critical of anything that attacks Christians.

@73--yes, you are! At least if you want to object to the characterization.

Let me put it this way then. There are indeed religious people I meet who are not anti-gay. But every person I meet that is anti-gay is religious. So from a practical standpoint as a gay person, safety requires this association. Religious people are the only ones who can change this state of affairs. I'll concede that religious != anti-gay. I'll concede that not all Catholics are anti-gay. But Christians in this country as a group have the power they have over gays because of ALL the people who identify themselves as Christians. And politically and policy-wise there is only one Christianity, and it is the kind that views gays as not equal to straights.

So fine, it's not all Christians. Just a supermajority of them in 40 states. Feel better?

@74: if every Christian who opposed the anti-gay policies of their church left, you'd be lonely, but those churches would be robbed of money and power to oppress me. I'm certain your loneliness is more important.

Some people here don't seem to understand politics and power. Membership in a group is a way of giving that group power. Christians have power because of the numbers they have. And like it or not, the Christian message on gays is that we are lesser, sinful, hellbound, etc. I'm not the one who conflates all Christians, it is our political system that does. Your membership, your money, your self-identification as Christian is all used to promote the antigay policies that are, at this point, the main thrust of Christian thinking on gay issues.

No amount of yelling at gay people for being mad about that is going to help. Go yell at Christians.

Does that make any sense?

How about this. I will be convinced Christianity isn't antigay when this country that is majority Christian stops changing constitutions to specifically state that I am lesser. Until A SUPERMAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS stop supporting antigay policies, Christians are to me, effectively antigay.

I'm sorry if that bothers you. But that doesn't change the fact that if I want to talk generally about people who are anti-gay "Christian" or "religious" map quite nicely onto that group.

Pro gay christian need to simply not be silent talking here does you no good speak at your church.
If anyone questions if god loves homosexuals argue it with them be it your decans preachers pasters or just a guy sitting in the pews. The vast majority of christians would be pro gay if the pro gay and pro christian message was seen. Sure it doesn't get the TV time easy way too change that is by saying "no you're wrong" when ever anyone uses the bible to demonize a person!

I have to disagree, Dan. Us breeders don't get to ignore the Right Wing Christians either, because they are actively trying to take away our rights too. Our right to science based education in the public schools, our right to elect leaders without a de facto religious test for office, our right to birth control and stem cell related advances in medicine, etc etc.

Religion is the problem.

Crap, my comment disappeared. Hello cyberspace, can you give me back my words please? Where are the tech saavy youth or I.T. guys when you need them? I posted it like 5 hours ago. And honestly, now I can't even remember what I wrote! LOL

"Yes, the malice, influence, and impact of the religious right are all things you can ignore—if you're straight. Because the religious right isn't attacking you or your rights." To be fair this isn't exactly true. You yourself have pointed out repeatedly that the fundie right wing wants to attack "straight rights," too. I'm not gay, but I am a woman, and the right wing would love to take away my right to abortion, make birth control/morning after pill harder to get, & subject my future offspring to abstinence-only sex ed. So I can't really ignore this stuff, even if I were blase about gay rights.

The church the letter-writer cited isn't ignoring the issue; it's broadcasting its gay-accepting stance pretty aggressively. And this isn't a case of a few Christians wailing "but *I* don't agree with my church's bigotry, so I'm still a nice person!" -- in many denominations the anti-bigotry folks are setting the policies and speaking out. Clearly these churches should figure out how to get more media attention. But complaining that any time a church makes an attempt to get a pro-gay message out, it's too little too late because the fundamentalists still get more press, just seems unhelpful. Encourage them to get pissed off and get their message out there, sure. But don't blame them for the media's infatuation with right-wing fundamentalist Christians.

@28, what is YOUR point? The argument against the "ordinary Germans" is that they disliked what was going on but didn't speak out or do anything to stop it. Liberal Christians dislike anti-gay bigotry, and in many cases are willing to speak out, vote and act against it. The fact that they share a few beliefs & the label "Christian" with bigoted asshats doesn't make them guilty of complacency.

@87 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox…

It's a Firefox addon (appropriately) called 'Lazarus' that stores everything you write in text boxes and online forms (cache can be deleted) for later restoration if needed.

Thanks luke1249, I'll look into it.

@ 30, 48 Well, if you pro-equality Christians can't get on TV, maybe you can start your own Youtube channel or website, to collect and highlight your views? Or maybe tag your videos better? Some of the IGB videos I've seen support LGBT people from religious backgrounds without obviously being labeled as such.

I just think Christians get off on it. You look at their scriptures--especially the ones they tout as being the very apex, the height, the absolute cream of Jesus' love (and you see how absolutely gross and lacking it is), and they STILL scream about how unfair you are being. As if I WROTE the sermon on the mount. Hey, dude, yell at Jesus, not me. HE'S the one whose talking about how we're all going to burn in hell. It's not MY fault.

Dan's viewpoint on this issue is more valid than that of non-gays, or of straight-but-tolerant-Christians, because HE is the one who has had the discriminative experiences. I COULD tell him to feel differently about his experiences, but that would be MINIMIZING them. Trying to make a person feel differently about their real-life experiences seems cruel and arrogant; it's forcing your viewpoint onto their thinking. Just like I can't tell my black friends to "stop whining" about racism (because their viewpoint is more valid than mine), I can't tell Dan to "suck it up" or "focus on the good" merely because he gets discriminated-against slightly less than a few years ago. Pleas from a few "good Christians" don't change the experiences that many gays have, that of persistent discrimination which is hurtful and personal.

Catfish?

Actually, Dan, as you frequently point out on the podcast, they're NOT just coming for the gays, they're after straight people, too, who do anything except have unpleasurable missionary-style procreative sex. They're not coming after us with anywhere near the same venom as the gays (although straight women aren't THAT much better off), but they are coming.

Also, from the letter: "For someone who is gay and Christian (or any other religion with some element of anti-gay rhetoric,) I can't even imagine how heartbreaking it would be to feel you have to choose between two strong aspects of who you are. Wouldn't knowing that there are churches that believe that it's normal and okay to be both be more beneficial than reinforcing the need to choose?"

More beneficial for whom? Those churches? The individual being forced to choose? It would certainly be easier, but given that organized religions demand that their followers cede their reason, curiosity, and critical thinking with respect to certain tenets (different depending on the church), I don't think it's more beneficial for anyone. If being gay means someone has to confront the bullshit that is organized religion and ultimately reject it (along with all the other associated baggage), all the better. We have much better ways of gaining knowledge than "I'm a prophet and I say so" nowadays; there is no reason (plenty of unreasons) for anyone to cling to ancient demagoguery, particularly when said demagoguery is associated with such a pernicious, repressive tradition as is Christianity. There may be good CHRISTIANS, but that's in spite of their religion, not because of it. Seriously, have you READ the Christian Bible?

@23: See above. The problem with liberal/moderate churches is that by claiming the Christian brand, they help normalize and reinforce all of Christian tradition, which is despicable in nearly its entirety. Grab a spare Bible some time and go through it, crossing out everything that has either been flat-out disproved or is unconscionable. It winds up looking like something the DOD released for public viewing. Then wonder why you need the book or the Christian label at all, and what exactly it is that you're validating by proclaiming it. As I said above, there are good Christians, and even good, progressive Christian churches, but it's always in spite of the religion, not because of it. There are no good moral directives in the Bible that people can't come up with on their own (help the downtrodden, do unto others, don't murder, don't steal); there are a LOT of bad directives (stone your children if they mouth off to you, stone your daughter is she's raped when she isn't married and her rapist doesn't wish to buy her, keep slaves in exactly this way, kill the heathens and burn their land and possessions and slaughter their livestock and salt the earth, kill the gays, kill masturbators, follow the directives of voices no one else can hear even if they tell you to do something like ritually-sacrifice your child) and some that are just plain silly nowadays (don't wear mixed-fiber clothing, don't eat pigs or shellfish). I cannot say for certain that there exists no figure that might be considered a god by contemporary humans, but I can say with absolute certainty that Yahweh is not real and that the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth are exaggerated at best and fabricated at worst.

I'm sick of tolerating mass-delusions that enable oppression and mass-atrocities (e.g. the Catholic Church's current pro-AIDS crusade in Africa, the ongoing Christianity/Islam/Judaism religious war) because people are unwilling to accept that they don't exist forever. Get over it and face reality, or fuck off, but don't expect coddling and sympathy.

Batshitinsane Christians in Canada failed to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal and failed to get anti-discrimination laws turned down (I honestly have no idea how much effort was put in).

In the US, batshitinsane Christians actually prevent equality for LGBT people. Their effect is actually quite substantial.

I find it hard to believe that the writer os an atheist. @1 hit it right on the head...all religion is hurtful to humanity, and a good atheist understands this. The letter writer is an apologetic pussy.

Sorry, Dan, but it's not going to happen. Good Christians don't do things in groups and under the banner of their religion. They just don't, because it's antithetical to *being* a good Christian. They keep their religion personal and private and participate in this fight on a secular level.

Interesting thought experiment: replace "gay" with "Christian" and vice-versa in the above.

What surprises me about the Christians who are making this or similar arguments to Dan of late is that it seems to me to betray an uneasiness not with the fact that they are openminded nonjudgmental Christians and feel included in the criticism, but that it truly is the majority of Christians that are giving the whole group a bad name.

When my children argue with each other, or their friends about false accusations, my response is 'If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it!'. In fact, openminded accepting Christians? If the anti-gay shoe doesn't fit, stop trying to cram your foot into it like an evil stepsister. He's not talking about you! Opinion, especially in written form, can't possibly be amended and codiciled to the point where all of planet Earth is happy and comfortable with every sentence.

If you're not one of the anti-gays, you're not one of the anti-gays! Right?

"if you're upset that all Christians everywhere are increasingly viewed as anti-gay, your beef is with conservative, right-wing, sex-phobic, and homophobic "Christians" who claim to speak for all Christians everywhere, not with me."

Nail. On. Head.

@47:Hmmm, yes. I do like that old time, fire 'n brimstone religion. Preach it, brother.