CNN’s Anderson Cooper came out last week:
The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy with myself, and comfortable, and proud.
He also wrote, in an email to Andrew Sullivan, 
It has also become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something – something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed, or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.
There’s a lot to be said for being who we really are. Our guilty or shame-ridden hidden parts are what that destroy us. They eat away at our character from within. Sometimes they explode in public disgrace. The Bible strongly supports coming out.
Biblical “coming out” looks nothing like what Anderson Cooper did, however. In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus told of two men who went to the temple to pray. One of them was quite serenely satisfied with himself, and was sure God thought he was fine, too. The other pleaded with God in all humility, “have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said of the second one, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Cooper’s self-revelation was like the first man’s. He sees nothing wrong with himself. His coming out was that of a man admitting he was secretly right all along. His intentions are noble, perhaps:
The tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.
Again, I think he’s on to something here. I strongly support taking visible steps to help turn the “tide of history” with respect to violence, bullying, and unjust discrimination. (Not all discrimination is unjust.) But Cooper’s coming out is exactly the wrong kind. It’s the kind that establishes a new orthodoxy, a new basis for bullying and discrimination. Society is trending toward shutting down the mere opinion that homosexuality is neither good nor honorable. Dan Savage bullied Christians in his talk to high school journalists in Washington. Quebec is gearing up for much more of the same.
Cooper’s kind of coming out only supports such discrimination. If bullying, violence, and discrimination are really problems (and they are), then we need the kind of coming out that really addresses them. We need people speaking up to say, “I have been a bully and I realize now it’s wrong,” or, “I have practiced violence, and it’s wrong,” or “I have been unjust and I know now that I need to change.”
Anderson’s coming out was for the purpose of forcing change others to change. What we need instead is the coming out that looks for change in ourselves.
(There is more to be said about how that change fits in with the good news of Jesus Christ. I’ll return to that in a later post.)
Like the tax collector in Jesus’ parable, I am a sinner. I plead for God’s mercy. I plead for him to protect me from myself, for I am filled with flaws, and prone to huge moral mistakes.
Though the Bible supports coming out, I do not think this is the place to enumerate my weaknesses, for there is a wisdom-based limit to how specifically one should name one’s sins in public. Confession is best made to those who can give both truth and grace: those who will acknowledge that what’s wrong is really wrong, and yet our failures are forgiven in Christ; those who will support one’s desires for positive change. They are the ones with whom I will be fully honest. Here I hope it is sufficient to say that apart from the grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit in me, I am quite a moral mess, but God is good to me in spite of myself.
Oh, dear. Dan Savage said mean things about and to Christians. Oh, the humanity. Oh, the oppression. Yes, it is completely fair to equate this with the violence that is done against members of the gay community every day.
We need people speaking up to say, “I have been a bully and I realize now it’s wrong,”
And how exactly do you propose to do that?
Here, let me help you – it is wrong to bully homosexuals because people have the right to be homosexual. Why do they have the right to be homosexual? Either A) they have the right to choose their sexual orientation or B) they have the right because they have no choice regarding their sexual orientation.
Either way, you must admit that in some way homosexuality is okay.
Hey, actually, that’s a great step forward to you. Congratulations!
Sault,
1. I did not use the language of equating.
2. Even as you say there’s nothing to the idea of Christians being mistreated you do it with bullying language.
3. You ignored my example from Quebec. (I could have offered many more examples.)
How do I propose to get people to speak up and admit they’re wrong? I don’t know, but whatever we do, it’s better than people speaking up and creating a new orthodoxy upon which to base new categories of discrimination; an orthodoxy lacking in the virtues of loving those who disagree, by the way.
I can’t image what your language of rights has to do with the OP, or why you bothered bringing it up. If it was to prove that homosexuality is okay, all you accomplished with it was to bully your way toward a conclusion that could only be established by force, for logic certainly doesn’t support it.
Let me help you see why. Let’s start with the easy one, B. If we apply the “no choice” criterion, then everything is a right if people have no choice over it. Alcoholism is a right. Sociopathy is a right. Poverty is a right. Snobbery is a right. Does that make them okay, as you conclude homosexuality must be on that basis? Hardly.
As for A, you move from a simple tautology—people have the right to be homosexual because they have the right to choose their sexual orientation—to a conclusion that homosexuality is therefore okay. But in order to move from that tautology to that conclusion you would have to show that having the right to choose one’s sexual orientation means that there is no wrong choice. You haven’t done that.
All you’ve done is to crow over your own victory in what amounts to a pushing battle (on your part, not mine; I’ve employed logic instead). Congratulations to you for that. You thought you were showing how I had to agree with your point; instead you demonstrated mine.
Having a right to do something legally is not equivalent to it then being moral, so A) does not lead me to the conclusion that I must accept homosexuality as moral. Your argument under B), applied to other human proclivities, then means that nothing is immoral, just do whatever your selfish genes tell you to do.
Neither compels me to see homosexuality as okay. Besides, it isn’t even clear what is meant by bullying that you mention. If failing to acquiesce to the secularist version of morality is bullying, then so be it, but then secularists are every bit as guilty of the same charge.
Bullying language. Hmmm. I think that you’re laboring to draw that conclusion, Tom.
How do I propose to get people to speak up and admit they’re wrong? I don’t know,
Maybe you should think about that.
I can’t image what your language of rights has to do with the OP, or why you bothered bringing it up
Do people have the right to be homosexual? If they do, then bullying someone who is homosexual is wrong.
If someone does not have the right to be homosexual, then on what basis do we conclude that bullying them is wrong?
Having a right to do something legally is not equivalent to it then being moral,
I don’t care whether you agree if it’s moral or not. If they have the legal right to be homosexual then bullying is absolutely wrong. If they don’t then it’s harder to make the case.
One might say that bullying is always wrong… but that point hasn’t been made, because homosexuals have been persecuted, oppressed, discriminated against, and murdered. And oh yeah, they still are.
So please, if you have a justification for people to not bully homosexuals, then please advance it. If you don’t, then maybe we should try something that hasn’t been tried before – like letting people publicly announce their sexual orientation.
Besides, it isn’t even clear what is meant by bullying that you mention.
Apparently it means using strong language. Not swearing, or being physically threatening, but just speaking assertively. Because, after all, that’s the criteria that Tom has used against me.
Because when I’m talking about discrimination, I’m talking about actual discrimination…. like firing people because of their sexual orientation. Or physically beating them. Or killing them. That’s why Tom’s example of Dan Savage “bullying Christians” is just ludicrous.
For the record, I don’t agree with the Ontario registry… I generally take the position that you should prove that someone committed a crime before you treat them like they have.
I am. I do know this: that Christianity specializes in helping people face our own faults, be forgiven, and move forward in new and better directions.
On the basis of their being human beings, and the fact that it’s wrong to bully human beings.
It’s harder to make the case, yes, if you’re trying to convince people who don’t buy the answer I gave above. There are some people for whom “this is a fellow human being” is insufficient as a reason not to commit bullying.
Dan Savage is one of them.
There is only one orthodoxy that has ever been proposed that contains within it the preventive against violence against other orthodoxies: it is the message of Jesus Christ and the whole Bible, which says we are all equally the creation of God, all equally in need of God’s grace because of our sin, and all called to love all others including even our enemies.
It has not been consistently practiced. Where it has been, however, it has been very, very good. And where you see that kind of love practiced, I think it’s very likely you will be able to trace it back to Jesus Christ.
You were speaking assertively with no logical justification. That’s being pushy. It’s an incipient form of bullying. Obviously there are degrees of forcefulness and violence in bullying, and obviously I’m not saying you’ve mugged me or kicked me. Unjustified verbal pushiness is, however, typically regarded as bullying.
I know people who have been fired for their Christian views on sexuality. I know Christians who have been jailed for peacefully voicing their beliefs in a public place. I could tell you of thousands of Christians around the world who are being imprisoned, stripped of their livelihoods, and killed today.
Your disagreement with the Quebec registry ought to cause you to think through why you agree with the mindset that leads toward an outrage like that.
Sault,
Suppose you are right that homosexuality is a right for those who choose it. What makes it a right? What makes it right to be a right? From where do you derive those categories of thinking and speaking? The democratic tradition places its source in our Creator.
I’m of the mind that one ought to be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they choose, from slacking on the job to wearing an ugly dress or tie. Eventually, people will gravitate toward those with hiring and firing standards they can live with, homosexuals and ugly tie owners included.
Because those are the traditional responses to homosexuals when we Christians find them. And because beating someone to death and not recognizing their right to marry are exactly the same? The red herrings are extra smelly here.
So his comments, in your opinion, were appropriate? I like good polemics, but come on, his rant didn’t even have the air of intelligence, and the audience was captive (or so he thought). I mean, sure, he didn’t kill any Christians, but still…. if his comments were appropriate, then school sponsored prayer and teaching religion in school are fair game. Is that what you would prefer?
And I’ll second Tom’s question. What makes something a right?
Tom, the difference between us is that I accept that some people are born homosexual. As long as their sexual acts are practiced between consenting adults, then I’m just fine with it.
If I remember correctly, you disagree with me, but thankfully not everyone ignores medical evidence. I mean, c’mon, even gaydar is actually a real thing!
There is only one orthodoxy that has ever been proposed that contains within it the preventive against violence against other orthodoxies: it is the message of Jesus Christ and the whole Bible,
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
It has not been consistently practiced. Where it has been, however, it has been very, very good.
My, my, my, I haven’t heard blatant of whitewashing since I was a Mormon.
Perhaps you’ll enlighten me as to when this orthodoxy of yours has been practiced on any significant scale, because I sure can’t think of any. Lutherans vs Catholics, Catholics vs Anglicans, the rest of Christianity vs the Mormons… or we could go back in time and revisit what happened to the Donatists, or the Arians, or the Gnostics, or the ongoing (!) conflicts between the Christians and the Muslims, or Christians vs atheists, for that matter. The whole concept of Manifest Destiny comes to mind.
I mean, seriously, Tom? Really? “It has not been consistently practiced.” Good Lord, Tom.
So his comments, in your opinion, were appropriate?
I didn’t say that. They don’t rise to the standard of bullying. But then again, we’ve already established that we have different standards of what constitutes “bullying.”
Omg, I made a statement that in your (and/or Tom’s) view didn’t meet rigorous logical standards… so I’m bullying. Oi vey!
if his comments were appropriate, then school sponsored prayer and teaching religion in school are fair game.
You’re absolutely right – schools should never mandate prayer or teaching religion, just as they should never mandate listening to Dan Savage.
Because those are the traditional responses to homosexuals when we Christians find them.
Why yes, it has. Not “consistently practiced” (*chuckle*) but common enough.
And because beating someone to death and not recognizing their right to marry are exactly the same
Don’t cross the streams. We’re not talking about marriage, we’re talking about bullying. Accusing me of red herrings, sheesh!
No, I think you will need to support that assertion. If so, then atheists, likewise, are similarly guilty of murdering Christians, since it’s “common enough” (facepalms).
But, you never answered the question. What is then bullying?
Sault,
I don’t have time here to re-run all of history for you. Goodness knows I’ve gone over this often enough.
Christianity has not been consistently practiced by its putative adherents, but those who have genuinely lived according to Jesus’ way have done great good in the world. That’s not a whitewash, it’s a fact. You can laugh all you want (that’s a form of bullying, too) at the way I phrased it–maybe I didn’t give an appropriate percentage for “not consistently practiced”?–but what I said is nevertheless true. I tire of saying it over and over again. I don’t think that one who laughs like you do cares anyway.
Sarcasm is a lot like laughing at a person. Plus you missed the point. You made a forceful assertion that could not be supported with reason. Doesn’t that bother you, too???
Good for Anderson.
I think his coming out has value… If it can rightly be said to be “for the purposes of forcing others to change”, I most definitely applaud it!
Tom needs to be changed. G. Rodrigues needs to be changed. Holo, perhaps is beyond hope, but who knows.. maybe not?
Right on, A. Cooper!
What do Tom and the others need to change, d?
Stevek,
Their obviously morally abhorrent stance on homosexuality.
@d:
Note the not-so-subtle “Needs to *be changed*” (emphasis mine) instead of “needs to change”. We already know about your totalitarian streak — and that is all you have on your side, the logic of force as Tom’s post makes it abundantly clear — it hardly needs cheerleading.
How times have changed. I am not a native English speaker, but my understanding is that “morally abhorent” (something d does not know what it is, it is a mere word he parrots) or “moral abomination” were reserved for, well… moral abominations, the strongest crimes against the shared understanding of what constituted human morality. Now it is reserved for those that dissent. With not a shred of argument. Just the loud angry voice of the irrational mob.
d,
Do you think your anti-Christian stance needs to be changed?
What about smoking?
Here in Australia, the law (reluctantly) allows people to smoke, but strongly penalises the activity in a wide variety of ways. Media frequently displays government-sponsored ads trying to both reason and scare people out of smoking. Tobacco products are even required by law to prominently display ads urging consumers to not buy or use the product!
Is the law morally abhorrent at this point? If not, why not?
SteveK,
If by “anti-Christian stance” you mean “belief that Christianity is false (and Islam, and Judaism, and Wicca, etc)” then no, I don’t think I need changing there, though I’m sure I do hold many other beliefs that need changing.
But I don’t mistreat Christians through political force by preventing them from taking part in institutions like marriage or desire to marginalize them in other ways (so it’s ironic how G. Rodrigues alludes that I am the one with the totalitarian streak). If you mean something like that by “anti-Christianity”, then that’s simply not me.
d,
You are marginalizing marriage and are attempting to water down, or make insignificant, what Christians hold to be significant. And you’re attempting to do this via political force.
Do you think your anti-Christian stance needs changing, d?
@d:
small correction: it is not an allusion, it is a claim based on what you write here.
SteveK,
No, of course not. The implicit premise in the above is that *any* law which does not conform to YOUR Christian ideals is to water down and make insignificant what Christians hold to be significant. And that’s an obviously bad premise from which to govern. (And let’s not forget, we can find, in many instances, Christian’s who support legal SSM).
Furthermore, legally recognizing SSM does not place any burden upon Christians or infringe upon their liberty. This is not true, in reverse. SSM prohibition DOES place a burden on homosexuals, and DOES infringe upon their liberty.
Oh, the naivete.
well, putting aside just how pathetic this is, and why no one should really care about what a person who can write something like this has to say (sorry, Tom), one of the things that pisses me off about Christianity is precisely this twisted vision human beings as base “sinners”, who are desperate for God’s cleansing and forgiveness. I mean, no otherwise decent person would simply walk to a perfect stranger, of whom he knows nothing, and begin assuring her that she is a sinner and needs to accept Jesus as her savior (or else…), unless that person thinks he has a divine authorization to do that
To my experience, btw, people are generally too nice and patient with such nutcases, and basically treat them as sick people in need of medical attention, especially in case they believe God really talks to them.
In any case, the appropriate response to such babble(assuming one is in a mood for talking, as opposed to just slapping that moron around), is to say ‘don’t be so presumptuous as to think that everyone is like you and just because you’re a “sinner” (maybe a thief, liar, sociopath?), others are as well.’
Besides, didn’t Jesus say that those who are healthy do not need a doctor, but only those who are sick?
Rant. Nothing but a rant.
d,
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Tom in #24 is right.
Well, that settles it then!
It does, actually. Settling it isn’t equivalent to getting someone to agree.
Thank God.
Re the naivete:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/brad-pitts-mom-bullied-into-silence/
The doctrine that it right to condemn people to everlasting torment for homosexual behavior may be far more vicious that a fundamentalist can allow himself to acknowledge. Watch out fellas. Be aware of your resemblance to the Pharisees of old.
No one is condemned to everlasting torment “for homosexual behavior,” but rather for living a life in active rebellion or passive indifference toward the sovereign, good, loving, creator God; for not accepting his salvation in Jesus Christ with all that that includes.
But that does not mean that homosexual behavior is right. The same applies to all outward acts of rebellion, including hatred, greed, self-centeredness, theft, covetousness, murder, adultery, …
@Martin — Well said. Tom’s response is theological (and accurate) but fails to recognize the practical reality to which you’re pointing. LGBT people are harassed & told routinely that indeed they will be condemned to everlasting torment (or some variation thereof) precisely as a consequence for homosexual behavior. That this claim is perhaps theologically inaccurate or incomplete is beside the point when this is the claim that a great many gay people have in fact been deeply wounded with.
To a hurting people then, what Good News do Christians like Tom & others have to offer that makes them fundamentally (pun intended) different from the fundamentalists? Why should wounded gay people listen to any of it?
I’ll look forward to hearing more about this in the later installment that Tom mentions at the end of the original post here.
I’ve blogged on that specific question already. Please see the whole series that goes with that post.
Coming out is the process of taking pride in what others have determined should be a cause for shame. It’s a renunciation of shame. When a well-known, successful person comes out as gay, it’s a way of showing others–especially young people who may be experiencing shame and/or bullying–that there is no shame in who they are. It has NOTHING to do with what you are suggesting, that people who HAVE committed immoral acts take responsibility for them.
The good news is the same no matter what sinful proclivities one has to struggle with. This point seems to get lost when the homosexual issue comes up.
@ordinary seeker:
You may want to rephrase that, or soon enough we will be hearing about pimps, drug addicts, gamesters, sharks, paedophiles, etc. “coming out”. The whole social fabric will be disrupted because there is no social norm that is binding on *any* behavior.
note: the invocation of paedophiles and similar moral classes is *not* an implicit comparison, just replace with whatever you disapprove of morally. If you bring out the issue of mutual consent, I invoke sexual acts with animals — if I can eat a cow without its consent, there can be no consent problem about sexual acts with cows.
G. Rodrigues:
The difference is that most people would continue to regard some of the things that you mention (eg, pimping and pedophilia) as immoral even if some of the people who engage in those activities did openly claim their practice of them. That is not so with homosexuality; instead, by coming out, homosexuals have been able to demonstrate to a great many people that what they practice is not immoral at all. This has also been true to a significant degree with addiction, despite the fact that you include it among your list of immoral behaviors: many people now recognize alcoholism and other addictions as a physical vulnerability or disease, rather than a moral failing.
@ordinary seeker:
You missed the thrust of what I tried to convey. But it is good to know what you deem as “immoral”: what “most people” (translation: those that agree with you) would claim (translation: I do not have a single argument why things would not go the same course as the general attitude towards homossexual acts, but let me just make this unargued claim anyway) even if such activities were out in the open (translation: whether they are wrong or not as a matter of objective fact seems to be irrelevant or meaningless to you).
I suggest you reread what I wrote, since clearly you have not understood it.
GR,
I do not fail to understand you; I disagree with you.
Yes, I believe that what is immoral is what a group of people agrees is immoral; ie, society determines morality; morality is relative; there is no objective morality, etc. etc.
Of course what you say is possible: our society could decide that pimping or pedophilia is moral. (In fact, that has been the case in other societies and is currently the case in some segments of our society.) However, I think that it’s unlikely that a large number of people here will come to believe that those activities are moral, because the ways in which those activities cause harm to others is clear to most people in our society.
I understand that many of those who comment here believe that homosexuality causes harm to others, but the point is that a significant number of people in the larger society disagree.
Historically, many societies actively practiced paedophilia, public prostitution, kidnapping into slavery, child sacrifice, bestiality and/or rape, and even approved of them. Even today, killing of female children is tragically common in several asian societies, while in other family members execute women who are raped and are exonerated by court and culture.
One might argue “but that is other cultures”. Beyond the breathtaking hubris, can I point out that western society by-and-large approves of both abortion and divorce / childbearing out of wedlock, despite the obvious moral issues with the former and well-documented social dissolution caused by the latter?
There is a difference between approving of something and tolerating it.
@ordinary seeker:
So you concede everything I pointed out; you have nothing to back you up but the opinion of a “group of people”.
Then please do us all a favor, and stop with all the moral posturing about bullying and shame and what-not, as according to you morality is not an objective given by merely the result of *opinion*.
My opinion? You are wrong, dead wrong. Since you have no arguments at all, the matter is closed.
I cannot believe the intolerance of my government at work here. I thought people had the right to get married without the government interfering and , you know, killing off their spouse?
@SteveK – if she marries a private residence, will her spouse be a ‘house-husband’? LOL