Catholic group treats being anti-gay as the new gay in insanely offensive ad

It’s really hard to be straight and proud these days. Rights are a zero-sum game, you see, and the recent affirmation of marriage equality by the Supreme Court can only mean one thing: God-fearing Christians who don’t agree with the ruling are sent straight to the closet.

At least, that’s the theme of an ad released earlier this week by Catholic Vote, a non-profit advocacy group that, as their name suggests, fancies themselves some political Catholicism. The ad copies the theme of a “coming out” video, framing an opposition to marriage equality as the social equivalent of being gay in the first place — an aspect of one’s personal identity that isn’t readily accepted by friend, family or the public:

The message is as clear as it is offensive. Marriage equality opponents are treating being anti-gay as the new gay, which itself betrays a complete lack of empathy for the LGBT community. In an overt attempt to appropriate messaging from the LGBT movement, actors in the video spend the first minute speaking in vague terms that characterize coming out. We are told that they are worried what their friends might think of them, that they’re different, that they’ve tried to change, but that they’ve now become comfortable enough to accept themselves for who they are.

But don’t worry! They aren’t hateful people. They “know a lot of people who are gay,” and they “love them.” They just don’t think they should be allowed to get married. They aren’t bigots, they just aren’t OK with extending equal rights to their gay friends. See the difference? You should. Because, as we’re told, “You can’t have a society of hatred.” These people are here, they’re anti-queer, and we need to get used to it.

One of the lines in the ad actually scratched the surface of making a good point. Just under two minutes in, one of the actors asks himself, rhetorically, “Where can you say, ‘No, I’m not going to be a part of this,’ and still respect someone?” Of course, the answer to that question involves not starring in an ad that appropriates the experience of coming out for your own political purposes. If you don’t want to be “a part of this,” then don’t! Don’t get gay married. No one’s forcing you to. But respecting someone entails accepting them for who they are.

Perhaps the most offensive theme implied in the ad is that being against marriage equality is a non-choice in the same way that being gay isn’t a choice. As if these Catholics were born with the knowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, and to question that belief is to deny them their personal identity. But of course, Catholicism is a choice. Being against marriage equality is a choice. To claim otherwise and then wonder why the LGBT community is offended is itself offensive.

In any case, it didn’t take long before a comedy group made the perfect response video. So here’s your chaser:


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

48 Responses to “Catholic group treats being anti-gay as the new gay in insanely offensive ad”

  1. The_Fixer says:

    Mike, I did see that story. However, the priest involved is also a Fox news contributor (which makes him suspect). He also seemed to have a different attitude about it than pure outrage, tweeting that the two men who supposedly did that were probably good men who got caught up in the moment, and that he (the priest) likely deserved much worse.
    You can read about it here: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/right_wing_nuts_explode_after_catholic_priest_says_two_men_spat_on_me_at_nyc_gay_pride_parade

    So, it’s a one-off report by someone whose credibility is suspect.

  2. The_Fixer says:

    Yes, one isolated incident proves a point? No, that’s not the way it goes.

    People who don’t support marriage equality generally are bigots in the broad sense. In what way will it harm them? None. It is bias against gay people. That’s what we commonly call bigotry. If you don’t like being called a bigot, then you should perhaps think about your reasons for opposing marriage equality and change your views. If you think that’s intolerant, then you really need to understand why people don’t tolerate real bigotry.

    Certain Christians (and I stress that this is a minority these days), to the extent they are becoming demonized, have no one to blame but themselves. You are lumping all Christians into the category of being anti-marriage equality. That’s not the case – many Christians are very supportive of marriage equality and have no problem saying so. It seems to be the Christian fundamentalists and bible literalists that object to it. They are definitely in the minority. Are the Christians who support marriage equality demonizing themselves? No, they just look on the fundamentalists and literalists as outliers, “religious nuts” is what we called them when I was growing up in the late 1950s and 1960s.

    By the way, your invoking the Holocaust is both ridiculous and insulting to Jewish people everywhere. I don’t think they’d appreciate you comparing fundamentalist Christians being outvoted by polite society as being comparable to the Holocaust. It’s nowhere the same. Oh, and have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?

    This line of yours:

    ” The tables are turning in favor of secular society, but against our country. “

    Makes no sense, in light of the fact that our country was founded as a secular nation. That’s why there is no state endorsement of religion, and no religious tests for public office. That’s why the treaty with Tripoli specifically mentions that The United States is not a Christian nation. How could this be “turning against our country” when that’s one of the founding principles of the nation? Remember, one of the reasons we put that into the Constitution of the United States was because settlers wanted to escape the Church of England, a true state religion. Some colonies also had state religions, and as a condition to admission to the union, had to abandon those state religions. Why? Because of freedom of religion, and aforementioned Church of England. Again, having a state-sponsored religion was too much like what they were trying to escape.

    However, freedom of religion is also guaranteed. Freedom of religion means that you can believe (or not believe) what you want to on the subject of God. It does not translate into “I am Christian, most everybody that I know is also, and we get to run the show based on our beliefs.”

    You continue your slide toward victimization by saying that only Christians will read and agree with what you say. I might remind you that not all Christians will agree – just a minority, those fundamentalists and bible literalists who, like you, think that we should run the show according to their particular interpretation of not only the Bible, but of the Constitution.

    It is painfully obvious that not only do you not read what LGBT groups have to say with an open mind, but also perhaps need to brush up on your history.

  3. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I don’t agree with you, but I did read your comment. You are approaching this as if Christians and LGBTs are two different groups. Were you to draw a Venn diagram of the two groups, you would see there is much overlap.

    You say Christians have become demonized. Many Christians have caused a lot of that. Let’s first assume that the Westboro Church congregation is just stone cold crazy and doesn’t deserve to be discussed. The cardinal here in the Twin Cities is a good example. He spent well over a million dollars sending out DVDs in hopes of having his “flock” vote for the Marriage Amendment. His “flock” was outraged that the church’s money was used for that instead of helping people. He was finally removed from office because of his aid to pedophile priests. Some things that have been preached from pulpits is the need to kill LGBTs, beating children who do not conform to gender stereotypes, and the rather constant assertions that gays are pedophiles. If we are still being called pedophiles or carriers of disease, that is discrimination and taking away of our identity of respect. It’s nice that you think this only happened in the past, but it happens all the time in the present.

    Most people who don’t support marriage equality do so from animus. NOM proved that when they changed their rhetoric as they realized marriage equality was going to be. People may say they don’t support marriage equality because of sincerely held religious beliefs, but they usually keep on talking and prove otherwise. A couple examples that come to mind is the body shop is Michigan and the hardware store in Tennessee. They were saying they were acting that way because of their religious beliefs, but neither had anything to do with marriage, just hatred. I also believe those two things can be considered intolerance.

    Let’s return to the beginning of my comment. Many LGBTs are Christian. If there is a lack of communication, that may be a big part of it. Many Christians just cannot accept that or do not hear it.

    I have a request of you. Would you please supply a link to the news story about someone spitting on a priest. I don’t believe I saw that.

  4. Lenie Lenape says:

    You’r eblind sir. A Catholic priest was spit on the other day. People who don’t support Gay marriage, get called a bigot when they voice there views, if that’s not intolerance I don’t know what is. The problem lies in a lack of communication. Christians are become demonized which is what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, taking about away people’s identity of respect is the first step toward true discrimination (it happened to gays in earlier times, and now in other countries. The tables are turning in favor of secular society, but against our country. Chances are only those who agree with me will actually read this. Other’s will simply call it “Christian BS” that they say they have a thousand times before. That’s fine. But keep in mind I read what LGBT groups have to day with an open mind.

  5. rmthunter says:

    I’m afraid gender identity is a lot more complex that deciding what particular religious belief, or lack of it, to adhere to. In the former, biology ties in to psychology in ways we don’t fully understand. Many areas of human behavior, including identity and some purely biological characteristics, are the result of a series of “if/then” circumstances: if there is a particular set of genes, and if they are expressed in a certain way, and if the prenatal environment contains certain elements, then you have a particular result. It’s not only genetics but epigenetics. One can be raised in a particular religious tradition, but one can also choose to leave it at any time — there’s no discernible genetic basis for being a Roman Catholic or a Southern Baptist.

    As for “equity,” as you call it : Caitlin Jenner is not demanding that everyone change genders, but has had to deal with a lot of crap from people who should learn to mind their own business. The “Christians” in this video are whining because their increasingly unpopular ideas are getting negative feedback, mostly because they’ve insisted that everyone else agree with them.

    Please learn about false equivalents.

  6. The_Fixer says:

    There’s a lot of shifting sand under the foundation of his arguments. I figure that anyone who looks at this exchange will see that. I’ve given up because this will never end, and he doesn’t respond to logic. Not to mention that I don’t have time to refute all of the stuff he’s said.

    I violated that rule of not feeding the trolls. Shame on me.

  7. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    “I did not infer, nor did I say, that LGBT people (or black people, or women, or name your grieved community) currently have power. You made that up to fit your argument. What I wrote was that they are attempting to obtain power.”

    I suppose it looks that way from the point of view of your white, male, straight privilege. These minorities only want enough power to equalize the power between all the groups.

  8. protip says:

    Please see my response to Fixer below. Thanks.

  9. protip says:

    Oh gosh, ok. By sentence:
    — I did not infer, nor did I say, that LGBT people (or black people, or women, or name your grieved community) currently have power. You made that up to fit your argument. What I wrote was that they are attempting to obtain power.
    — I also did not write or infer that equality under the law automatically brings power. Again, you are assuming without factual information.
    — Won’t argue with the third sentence. It is factually correct, but…so?
    — There are no roving gangs of black thugs forcing white people to be black. The roving gangs are mostly killing each other. What we have instead are race hustlers like Jesse and Al, and voices on progressive sites (both black and white and gay and straight), who find racism and homophobia in every sentence, every action. And, they come up with the most convoluted rationalizations and counterarguments to justify their positions. Just one example. We deride a bakery for refusing
    to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs, getting
    almost apoplectic…while we look favorably on those who claim
    conscientious objector status, avoiding the military for the same
    religious beliefs. And…in the former case someone doesn’t get a
    freaking cake…in the later case someone maybe dies in your place. Another example…there are pro football players who are sitting out part of the season because they were charged with physically abusing a spouse/partner/etc…While Solange Knowles does the same thing to Jay Z in, for christ sake, an elevator, and we are later gushing over her wedding. Or, Hope Solo charged with a disgusting past of abuse and she ends up playing for the American soccer team…and is valorized. She should have been forced to sit out the games.
    –Instead of making stuff up, why don’t you respond to what I actually wrote. Those who have formerly been powerless and oppressed, when they achieve power, become the oppressors. The grievance movements are about power, not equality. It is also true in the academy in regard to postmodern/poststructural philosophical ‘studies’ programs, their methods adopted by progressive scolds…many, many published papers and books accurately expose their obscure prose as nothing more than a will to power.

    –I will state again…your straw man argument ending in an acknowledgement of my point…makes my point. Thanks for playing.

  10. protip says:

    He/she verbally vomited Plato. There is a difference.

  11. Palto says:

    The fixer already verbally castrated you posts ago. Time to pick up your balls and go home.

  12. The_Fixer says:

    I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion. It’s a fear on the part of Christian heterosexuals, who would deny gay people equality, of losing power. How does that validate your point? I didn’t say that they have power to lose (clearly, they are in the minority these days). I said that they fear losing power.

    Now, what about the other 6 sentences in my post?

  13. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I don’t see how that sentence validates your point. Can you explain your thinking?

  14. Don Chandler says:

    Nice trolling. First, nothing you have said is consistent nor pertinent nor philosophical. Secondly, you don’t understand the difference between identifying as black, female and Christian: two are born that way. Try to figure it out which. Third, as an atheist, you’ll find that in order to understand the motivations of religious people, you’ll have to understand the bible to some extent. Most Atheists know the bible better than religious folk. So it’s good to take a passage from the bible and hold the religious people to it…but you don’t know this trick….

    As a forum poster, you should reply to folks comments to some extent. So…I’m going to respond to yours…gays aren’t apoplectic over the cake issue or flowers or the indiana pizza issue. It’s religious folk that are apoplectic and highly invested and terribly self-righteous. Most folks I know will go to another cake maker before ordering a cake from some self righteous asshole. Very few will bring a lawsuit. This is why the issue is so ridiculous. Gays aren’t threatening the livelihood of religious people as a whole. And in the few places that they are, they do so individually. So the courts will settle the issue one way or another with minimal damage to religious concerns. So don’t get too upset on behalf of religious folk, you are an Atheist afterall….

  15. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Are you in a time warp? People haven’t claimed conscientious objector status for about 40 years. There has been no draft for all that time. Being a conscientious objector doesn’t make sense in a volunteer military.

  16. protip says:

    Wel first, I am an atheist. Second, I have no problem with a person identifying as female, black, or Christian. Third, it is consistency of philosophical arguments that concern me with progressives these days. For example, we deride a bakery for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs, getting almost apoplectic…while we look favorably on those who claim conscientious objector status, avoiding the military for the same religious beliefs. And…in the former case someone doesn’t get a freaking cake…in the later case someone maybe dies in yor place. I’m tired of the lame rationalizations to support a grievance.

  17. protip says:

    Do you not understand that your final sentence validates my point?

  18. Don Chandler says:

    If you believe we are all god’s children, why would you turn away the “least” of us in the name of “jesus”? That’s the message from Matthew 25:35-46. Seems very apt when talking about this so-called religious freedom to discriminate bullshit. I think some Christians are getting tied up in their own convoluted twists.

    Since you express the belief that gays are biologically gay, why is it so hard to accept that there are people that could be mistakenly identified as one gender when later in life feel otherwise? Doctors use an old criterion to make their decision on what is the gender of a newborn. It’s well known that there is unseen variance between the sexes that can make a doctors assessment wrong. Thus later in life, a person discovers that they were born with a gender different than the doctor’s assessment. Doctors are not gods. I don’t think you should confuse gender identity and sexual orientation with choosing to believe in a particular religion.

    You might be right on the NAACP leader that relates to being black and the Christian that relates to being … say fundamentalist. But don’t go any further with it, nobody is fooled around here.

    So tell me why the Matthew stuff is unrelated to say selling a wdding cake to someone?

  19. The_Fixer says:

    Oh, that’s ridiculous. There aren’t enough LGBTQ people to exert the kind of influence you fear. And if you think that equality under the law brings power, and the abuse of it, then I’d like to acquaint you with the African-American experience.

    Legally, black people are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as white people. However, they are nowhere near equal economically and socially.

    There are no roving gangs of black people forcing white people to become black and there are no roving gangs of rainbow-wielding gay thugs forcing people to become gay.

    That is just plain paranoia, and baseless fear.

  20. The_Fixer says:

    Oh, I think I understand just fine, and am making sense. And you have changed the subject – I specifically mentioned gay people, which is the subject of the ad in question. You’ve made it about transgender people. There is a difference, but the basic principle holds – people are born a particular way.

    People are born with a gender identity. It’s been demonstrated repeatedly, with even very young children insisting that they have a particular gender identity. I always knew I was a boy, and my physical appearance matches my gender identity. However, some people’s gender identity does not match their physical sex. It’s not a belief that someone persuaded them to adopt. It’s as a result of a person’s brain “wiring.”

    Christianity, or any other religion, is an adopted belief. Usually, it’s as a result of upbringing, and sometimes as a result of “conversion” to a particular way of thinking. In other parts of the world, notably the Middle East and parts of Asia, people are raised as Muslim. In others, Bhuddist and in still others, Judaism. It’s an environmental thing, you are “raised into” a particular belief system, rather than being born with a particular religious belief. And it’s changeable; I was raised into Catholicism, I am no longer a Catholic – I don’t believe in that any more. While being gay (or transgender) is an immutable characteristic not subject to change, either external or internal, my religious belief (or lack of it) is not.

    Even though a transgender person may be raised in a certain environment (that which supports a gender identity that matches their physical appearance), they are still living in a situation where their own gender identity does not match their physical appearance. And they are miserable when forced to live their life as, say a male when their internal gender identity is that of a female.

    Your assertion is faulty and not based on what science knows of transgender people, and far from what transgender people know about themselves.

  21. protip says:

    Don’t tie yourself in knots trying to rationalize the differences to fit your particular beliefs. Because that is what we are talking about…whether we can believe we are a woman, or black, or Christian. While I agree that being gay is biological, a man believing he is a woman or a white person believing she is black, or a person believing in Jesus Christ are not biological imperatives, they are all social constructs. If we allow it for Bruce Jenner, we must, must allow it for others even if we don’t agree with their politics. Please try to understand what ‘equity’ really means and apply it consistently.

  22. rmthunter says:

    We’re talking about people (and an institution) whose beliefs, at least on morality, are firmly rooted in Leviticus (at least, those parts that are not inconvenient) and who, when backed into a corner, use Jesus as a smokescreen. My reply to them is “Matthew 25:40.” The classic example is Baronelle Stutzman, the florist who turned away a gay couple because of her “relationship with Jesus.” She obviously doesn’t get it.

    “Christians” of this stripe have piled onto the victim bandwagon in droves, and I’m not buying it — persecution my skinny little butt. If they’re that afraid of criticism, maybe they should rethink their position: there are a number of Christian denominations that welcome gays and approve of same-sex marriage. They can join one of them. I can’t join another sexual orientation.

    As for this ad, it could have been produced by The Onion.

  23. protip says:

    You really don’t understand. Just as Caitlin Jenner, born a man, believes she is a woman, Christians believe in Christ and his teachings. Yet we valorize Caitlin and criticize Christians? You are not making sense.

  24. The_Fixer says:

    I’m pretty sure that they are actors, that’s why I phrased it as “the people who made this ad”, it was directed to the people who wrote and produced it rather than the actors. I’m pretty sure that it was actors, and we have no idea what they really think. I’d suspect that most of them agree with the premise, or at least are ambivalent on the subject, though. Nobody with any sense would associate themselves with this crappy ad if they were strongly opposed to it – unless they were starving and really needed the money that bad.

    I’m with you on this not representing the mainstream Catholic attitudes regarding Marriage Equality. It’s pretty clear, based on polling data, that the Catholic rank-and-file don’t agree with the church leadership on this, and some other issues (such as birth control and abortion). This is going to be a real challenge for this, and other religions as time goes on. How are they going to keep members who don’t agree with what they say?

    Which I why I say that in the next 25 years, you are going to see a great confrontation with religion. This confrontation may not be a big, newsmaking event, and may be a a collection of individual, personal confrontations. Regardless, we won’t be religious in the future to the degree that society is now. It will be part of an evolutionary thing, much like we don’t believe in witchcraft any more.

  25. Don Chandler says:

    Are they actors or whiny Catholics? Either way, the ad isn’t representative of Catholics world-wide or same-sex marriage wouldn’t have been approved in Mexico, Ireland, Argentina and France, Spain or even in the US by the expressed opinion of the predominantly Catholic SCOTUS. There must be Catholics that have gay friends and understand that people are born gay and marriage equality shouldn’t be denied to anyone. If 92% of the Irish have Catholic leanings, then over 50% of those Catholics support marriage equality. The ad is unrepresentative and thus disingenuous even from a Catholic standpoint. Of course, the Catholics that support Marriage Equality are not sobbing Today, they are celebrating.

  26. The_Fixer says:

    Apparently, the people appearing who made this ad just don’t get one important distinction: They weren’t “born this way”, as gay people were born the way we are.

    They had a choice in believing what they believe. They could have chosen to affiliate themselves with another branch of Christianity that has no objection to gay people marrying, and does not find their brand of sex to be “sinful.”

    So, the whole premise on which the ad is based is faulty, and as a result, so is the ad.

    Give it up, people. This does nothing to erase your image of being a church led by a hierarchy of judgmental idiots with multiple skeletons in its closet.

  27. protip says:

    You miss their real point. That is, all of this diversity stuff, all this equity stuff, all the affirmative action and set asides, all of it…is not about getting to equal…it is about getting power. And as soon as the other side has it, they will start doing to the newly powerless what had been done to them. To ignore that fact is to ignore history and what currently happens in areas where minorities have been empowered.

  28. Ernest Bowen says:

    Thank you , I learned something from your reply. Went to Wikipedia and read up.

  29. goulo says:

    Sadly their deceptive rhetorical trick is NOT plain to all. (If only that were true!) :(

    Too many people seem to sincerely believe that “My particular understanding of the Bible implies X” then implies that “X should be the law of the land for everyone” and also “It’s anti-Christian religious persecution when someone disagrees with me about X”.

  30. BeccaM says:

    A clearer example of Christian heterosexual privilege on parade, I have never seen.

  31. Ernest Bowen says:

    I saw this and swore it was satire

  32. kartski says:

    There is now the Eastern Rite, Roman Rite and the Westboro Catholic Rite.

  33. EbolaJenkins says:

    I’m not a same-sex pedophile if I “identify” as a 15 year-old Scout Master, you bigot! Look, nature discriminates against us enough already, and we need to educate ourselves about medical-science to prevent attrocities against human-rights-activities like the image i provided. Do YOU think it is fair? No… This is proof that God and Nature are phobic bigots!!!!!

  34. Indigo says:

    Interesting as the pope’s encyclical on the climate is proving to be, the bigotry of American Catholics undermines his effort. He’s the head honcho there and, to all appearances, allows that sort of malice as an expression of public policy. Okay, done. But you know, Pope Francis could be a voice of reason. Not with that kind of chorus behind him, though. Too bad.

  35. emjayay says:

    When actors in commercials pretend to be happy families going to McDonald’s or liking Campbell’s soup or whatever, we get it. Just like we know Friends are portraying friends or Modern Family is actors portraying a modern family. But when (I’m assuming) actors portray regular people testifying about their real feelings on camera, shown in black and white so we know it’s a good old time documentary, it’s deception.

    Besides, the Supreme Court ruled. Game over. What’s the point exactly? It’s a free country. Anyone can have any opinion about anything they want. They just can’t practice discrimination in a business or government setting any more.

    Also, the Indian appearing guy (if he were a real regular non-actor person actually saying what he thinks) knows what marriage is. Like his parents taught him, it’s where two families make a match they both feel is advantageous, a dowry payment is agreed on, and the two kids get married without having to even meet each other first.

  36. 2karmanot says:

    Not to mention the Emperor Julian.

  37. Houndentenor says:

    I was never Catholic but I used to work for them. What a bunch of assholes. Oh the congregants were fine, but the priests? Douchebags with very few exceptions. A colleague got fired for taking communion (he was Lutheran). That after getting the glare of death every time we walked past the communion line without partaking to get to the place where we sang during communion. I’ve only seen that look when racist neighbors saw a non-white person walking down the street. I now refuse to work for them. I’d rather eat ramen noodles all week than take a gig in a RCC.

  38. Houndentenor says:

    Well they can do what most gay people do and keep their mouths shut. Most gay people are NOT out at work. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/hrc-study-shows-majority-of-lgbt-workers-closeted-on-the-job it’s too risky. Even in states or cities with nondiscrimination policies, the risk of being passed over for jobs or promotions is too great. They don’t risk it.

    Personally I take this on a case by case basis. In most of my work I am a contractor and jobs are not that easy to come by either in music or in corporate work. I can’t risk giving someone a reason to pass me over for someone else. Now for professional music gigs I’m out. For music gigs at churches and temples? Sometimes but usually I just keep my mouth shut about anything personal. For the rest, it’s not that hard to read the atmosphere. Republican boss? Nope. Not risking it.

  39. nicho says:

    Actually, he did. The Christians did set the fires — or at least helped them to spread. They thought the Apocalypse was coming soon, and this was their way of helping out. They were trying to rush things along.

  40. Thom Allen says:

    That ad has a decidedly creepy feel to it. Full-blown passive-aggressive: Gays are wonderful, but I’m going to do whatever it takes to keep them unequal to me. And now the gays are calling me names.

    The theme seems to be that the Catholic wingers can’t voice their bigotry openly without being called bigots. It seems to upset them even more that, even though they have tons of gay friends (and they just love them to DEATH), that isn’t a “Get Out of the(ir self-imposed) Closet Free card.

  41. Indigo says:

    Apparently, Nero had it right about that crowd.

  42. 2karmanot says:

    Rise Christian martyrs! Home Depot is having a sale on lumber and nails—-free 60% off coupons. Be the first in your parish to go, like, totally, I mean Totally, Jesusey.

  43. UncleBucky says:

    Ah, as a former member, Ski Roo the RCC.

  44. nicho says:

    Wow, child rapists are an oppressed minority. Who woulda thunk it?

  45. Don Chandler says:

    Took gays a long time to come out of the closet. I mean, there actually were laws that could put gays in prison. Gays actually do get beat up. They do get disowned. Even Today, gays face discrimination. And we all know how gays are go to hell. Yeah, It’s a very offensive ad.

    Another spoof ad could be made with Catholics feeling oppressed after Lawrence v Texas struck down laws criminalizing homosexuality. Everytime they lose a political fight, they can jump into the closet and pop out and whine their tax-exempt ass off about being historically oppressed.

    I mean, really. Poor defenseless Catholics. These anti-gay Catholics have that plank in the eye when they ignore their own checkered past–talk about crocodile tears.

  46. FLL says:

    The professional actors in the Catholic group’s video are portraying people who really do feel that way. People who repeat the phrase “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” are misrepresenting themselves, by which I mean that they are giving a false or misleading account of their beliefs. What bible-based Christians are allowed to believe clearly isn’t their bone of contention because they are still free to believe what they want (absent some as-yet-undiscovered technology of thought control). Could the malcontent bible-based Christians be referring to being able to speak and write freely? No, the First Amendment functions just the same now as before. What is missing is what bible-based Christians really want but won’t say and certainly don’t say in this Catholic-produced video: same sex marriage should be illegal.

    When people misrepresent themselves like this, their project of deception fails because their genuine motive is plain to all. The moral is you may as well say what you really mean because people will catch on in any case. If people avoid telling transparent lies, at least they’ll get credit and respect for that much.

  47. goulo says:

    Wow. Well, that sure fits in with the all-too-frequent crazy narrative of Christians being a persecuted powerless down-trodden group in USA these days…

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS