Spong's latest...
I should stop reading Bishop Spong’s Q & A column because it makes me so mad. In his latest, Spong touts the heroism of Governor McGreevey and decries the presumed fact that homosexuals can’t be comfortably out & open about their sexuality. At the same time, he claims that the way McGreevey will handle the fact that he’s married and has children is a personal matter and not the business of the public.
What??
OK, let’s see if I get it: it’s OK to be public about what ought to be a guarded and private affair, i.e., one’s sex life, but when it comes to honoring a spouse and raising one’s children, well, we just shouldn’t talk about those things because they’re private.
Excuse me??
Of course, how McGreevey handles it is his business, but there is certainly nothing wrong with public concern for wives and children. Nor is there anything wrong with public concern for sexuality; it's the relationships themselves that ought to stay private.
Oh, but don’t forget that homosexual relationships are “often unwise and exploitative” merely because they must be entered into in a “clandestine manner” due to society’s intolerance! Because of society’s “fear and ignorance,” homosexuals “believe themselves forced to hide, to lie, to act inappropriately and consequently to live in dishonesty.” In other words, if homosexuals weren’t forced to live “in dark corners of deceit and fear,” they’d be paragons of virtue!
If only McGreevey could've been out & open about being gay, he wouldn't have felt the need to "use the public payroll to support (his) partner in secrecy." Spong states that this act of McGreevey's is "finally not excusable," yet blames society and not McGreevey for it!
Spong, of course, doesn't bother to explain why deceit and adultery and other “clandestine” heterosexual behaviours occur with such frequency despite the fact that heterosexuality is the cultural norm.
How can anyone possibly believe Spong’s statement, or take him seriously? How has he become such a leading representative of supposedly reasonable, rational, contemporary "Christianity"? It's more like "if-you-don’t-think-like-I-do-you’re-a-hopelessly-ignorant-old-fashioned-schmuck" Christianity. He doesn’t even try to hide his haughtiness and patronizing disdain.
To be fair, Spong acknowledges that McGreevey’s wives were “poorly served by his cover-up activities,” yet he claims that the real tragedy is that McGreevey felt the need to try to deny his homosexuality by getting married. Twice. I guess the wives and daughters are just collateral damage...
Ugh!!
addendum: I'm seeing now that Spong means that if gays could openly partner and "marry," their relationships wouldn't get scandalous, gossipy attention. But would complete societal acceptance of homosexual relationships completely eliminate sexuality confusion? I doubt it; there'd probably be even more confused marriages if this were the case. Besides, whatever happened to respect for marital vows and protection of children?
What??
OK, let’s see if I get it: it’s OK to be public about what ought to be a guarded and private affair, i.e., one’s sex life, but when it comes to honoring a spouse and raising one’s children, well, we just shouldn’t talk about those things because they’re private.
Excuse me??
Of course, how McGreevey handles it is his business, but there is certainly nothing wrong with public concern for wives and children. Nor is there anything wrong with public concern for sexuality; it's the relationships themselves that ought to stay private.
Oh, but don’t forget that homosexual relationships are “often unwise and exploitative” merely because they must be entered into in a “clandestine manner” due to society’s intolerance! Because of society’s “fear and ignorance,” homosexuals “believe themselves forced to hide, to lie, to act inappropriately and consequently to live in dishonesty.” In other words, if homosexuals weren’t forced to live “in dark corners of deceit and fear,” they’d be paragons of virtue!
If only McGreevey could've been out & open about being gay, he wouldn't have felt the need to "use the public payroll to support (his) partner in secrecy." Spong states that this act of McGreevey's is "finally not excusable," yet blames society and not McGreevey for it!
Spong, of course, doesn't bother to explain why deceit and adultery and other “clandestine” heterosexual behaviours occur with such frequency despite the fact that heterosexuality is the cultural norm.
How can anyone possibly believe Spong’s statement, or take him seriously? How has he become such a leading representative of supposedly reasonable, rational, contemporary "Christianity"? It's more like "if-you-don’t-think-like-I-do-you’re-a-hopelessly-ignorant-old-fashioned-schmuck" Christianity. He doesn’t even try to hide his haughtiness and patronizing disdain.
To be fair, Spong acknowledges that McGreevey’s wives were “poorly served by his cover-up activities,” yet he claims that the real tragedy is that McGreevey felt the need to try to deny his homosexuality by getting married. Twice. I guess the wives and daughters are just collateral damage...
Ugh!!
addendum: I'm seeing now that Spong means that if gays could openly partner and "marry," their relationships wouldn't get scandalous, gossipy attention. But would complete societal acceptance of homosexual relationships completely eliminate sexuality confusion? I doubt it; there'd probably be even more confused marriages if this were the case. Besides, whatever happened to respect for marital vows and protection of children?
posted by Bonnie at
11:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home