Gaywalkers, Gaytards, and the Gaystapo

Let us begin, shall we, with some basic distinctions.

The first has to do with the basic sin issue, with politics not involved. When I was in the Navy, and had evangelistic discussions with whoring drunks, sin was always the issue. I was presenting the gospel to them, and the necessary response to the gospel message is “repent and believe.” I would talk with men who were ashamed of their sin, and also to men who were belligerent about it. I would confront them with their tomcatting ways, and they would confront me for being such a Jesus freak. But, to everyone’s credit, after we would have what the diplomats call a frank exchange of views, nobody ran off to tattle.

Those who are tempted with same sex attractions — both those who are ashamed of it and try to resist it and those who are given over to it — are gaywalkers. God built the road, and it is straight road, and he told us to cross at the intersection. Refusing to do so, or wavering on the point, is a sin issue, not a political issue. Let’s talk about it. As we address this kind of thing, the faithful Christian is dealing with the homosexual on exactly the terms as he deals with adulterers, gamblers, liars, drunks, and so on. Sin is sin, and Jesus is the only way out of that death trap. So let’s talk about it.

But then there are the gaytards. These are the people — homosexual, straight, and whatever Justin Bieber is — who are the ideal receptacle for the cultural propaganda served up by our duly appointed thought managers. They believe in “gay rights” for the same reason that they believe in climate change. The cool kids have decreed what is “in,” and the wannabe cool kids will enforce it on the unconvinced with a ferocity that can scarcely be credited. They do this in the hope that the cool kids will notice them, and promote them to better things. These people amuse themselves by taunting people ten times shrewder than they are as “low information voters.” Low information voters are those who believe that you can’t spend money you don’t have, that climate that doesn’t change isn’t climate change, and that men should marry women.

But then we come to those who are the driving force behind all this. They are in the grip of the libido dominandi, the lust for power, and they have combined it with their lust for flesh just like their own. They are the pink mafia. They are the gaystapo, as one observer put it. They want to establish their sodomite sharia law, starting in Portland, say, and working its way out.

Unless you take their tolerance tattoo, either on your right hand or on your forehead, you will not be able to buy or sell (Rev. 13:16-17). Why should such an enemy of humanity be able to buy or sell? But the problem with taking that tolerance tattoo is that the space is reserved. Everyone who serves the living and true God is called to reserve that space on the hand or forehead for the law of God (Deut. 6:8). And the law of God says to confuse male and female is a root confusion. Someone that confused might wind up having sex with someone just exactly like himself, and then calling it “diversity.”

But the collision here is not over whether or not the anus is a sex organ — that is reserved for the first category above. Our controversy here has to do with who defines love and hate for the public square, and what those definitions are. If they hear you witnessing to an apolitical homosexual in the first category above, and they declare you to be guilty of “hate speech,” what are we to say about this and why?

Behind these efforts of the gaystapo is a false view of history. They are marching, or so they think, from Seneca Falls to Selma, and from Selma to Stonewall. They want this battle to be exactly parallel to that which overthrew Jim Crow, in which the “old white guys” go down in ignominious defeat once again.

But — quite apart from my age and color, which some might consider irrelevant in discussions of morality — there is a stark difference between the two scenarios. The ardent defenders of principled segregation were defending sin. The ardent defenders of biblical marriage are opposing sin. “Sin? Sin? What is this babbler trying to say?”

Compare these passages. The first two address the segregationists, and the last one addresses the sodomites.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:9–10)

“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2 Pet. 2:4–11).

What this means, in brief, is that in the civil rights movement, the liberals were trying to accomplish a good thing by a false means. Statist coercion cannot create racial harmony, but racial harmony is at least a good thing. The goal was noble, even though their confidence in the saving power of their compulsions was radically misplaced. And those who opposed them had, in the same moment, the task of opposing the murmurings of their own conscience.

In this instance, the liberals are trying to accomplish an evil thing. And when they start cracking heads in order to compel the corruption, they have fully earned their right to the name of gaystapo, and anyone with a Bible and a willingness to read it submissively can tell what they are up to. Their opponents in this one have a clean conscience, which makes all the difference in the world.

91
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
91 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
32 Comment authors
Tim MulletReeRFBPeter OuldGervase Markham Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jane
Member

Just a tech note: when I load the blog, “All Stove In” is the most recent post showing up on the page. I’m getting subsequent ones in my feed, but the main page isn’t displaying them. I’ve cleared my history so I think it’s you, not me.

Ian Columba
Guest

I appreciate your incisive analysis here.
You touched on something I’ve been thinking about as well and trying to frame for my blog. One of the key reasons for the situation you described because we have elevated the “cool kids” to be the final authority in our culture. I’m currently doing some research into how this notion of “coolness” developed.  If you could point me to any resources or thoughts you have shared along those lines I’d be grateful. 

Jane
Member

Oops, sorry, cleared the history again and now we’re fine.

Jon Swerens
Member

Jane: It was happening to me, too. Must’ve been some WordPress engine rendering database something or other problem.

Jane
Member

Jon, I was hoping someone would come along and say that. :)

Spenny P
Guest
Spenny P

This article clearly defines  3  groups of gay people. That is fine. But referring to these groups with words that are rooted in “retard” or “gestapo” is simply unnecessary. However great this post might be, non-conservative readers will instantly be turned off without actually reading the context behind the words. To me, a silly joke is not even close to being worth sacrificing potential readers (with context).

Roy
Guest
Roy

@Spenny P, pretty sure that only the first group is exclusively necessarily homosexual.

Roy
Guest
Roy

Apologies for the repetitive redundancy.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

At the risk of generating new accusations of pharisaism and political correctness, I too have trouble with gaytard. I can’t think of an interpretation of gaytard that does not at its foundation suggest that “gay” is being conflated with stupidity. I don’t think any of us here would be comfortable with referring to a mentally disabled person as a retard. That is not being PC; it is being humane. It is having ordinary human compassion for God’s innocents and the parents who love them fiercely and protectively. The entire point of words like libtard and gaytard is to suggest that… Read more »

Grumpy
Guest
Grumpy

<sigh> I read comments like those of Spenny P, and Jill Smith, and the first thing into my head is, ‘ You’re new here, aren’t you?’ 
 

Daniel
Guest
Daniel

Using words like Gaytard and gaystapo is appreciated. I’m so proud of you for using wordplay and cleverness. We need strong a strong, unapologetic defense. Tired of preachers dancing around the topic like they were at their last charismatic revival.

Tim
Guest
Tim

“Gaytard” does not associate “gay” with “retard”.  It associates “those who say gay is good because the cool kids say it is good” with “retard”.  It’s accurate.  

delurking
Guest
delurking

“…Gaytard and gaystapo is appreciated. I’m so proud of you for using wordplay and cleverness.”
Seriously?  You think that kind of thing is clever?  You must not get out much.  My nephews have been making these sorts of mean-spirited comments since they were seven.   

Tom
Guest
Tom

delurking, just a guess, but I would imagine that Doug has made a much broader point than your nephews ever did.

mikebull1
Member

Gaytards. And climidiots.

nick e
Guest
nick e

Not to nitpick, but your characterization of the civil rights movement sounds off. The legislative focus of the movement all seems fairly unassailable. What’s wrong with voting rights, freedom of assembly (without dogs, firehoses etc.), the ability to purchase a home without restriction, the ability to receive equitable access to public services (transportation, schools, swimming pools), the right to protection from the police and a fair trial. What’s wrong with those things? I might be mistaken, but weren’t those the crux of the civil rights movement in the 1960s?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

“Gaytard” has been around the Internet for quite a while now.   It is a portmanteau word for “gay retard” and is defined by the Urban Dictionary as “an insult for someone who is gay and retarded; or it could be for someone who is lame and stupid. ”  I totally understand the prevailing sentiment here that maximum levels of disrespect should be shown to gay people at every opportunity.  I am wondering why this must be done in a way that also shows maximum levels of disrespect to people with intellectual disabilities. 

Matthew Becker
Guest

Doug  I will start by saying I have never posted anything on line in my life.  I barely graduated high school and up until 3 years ago I had never read a book.   So my writing is poor and I apologize for my inability to communicate properly.  Doug Wilson is no doubt one of the smartest people I know.   In a debate on any biblical topic he would slaughter me.  I don’t want to argue with anyone but I am ok with  upsetting a few people who I care a great deal for.   I have no doubt… Read more »

David R
Guest
David R

@NickE – it’s not those things you listed that are the problem. Those things are unassailable because they were examples of the government (state and federal) violating the rights of assembly, due process, and the like. It was the provisions of the Civil Rights legislation that violated the private property rights of businesses and individuals via state coercion that is at issue here. Racial discrimination is sin. It is wrong to do it, but using the state to coerce, in this instance, is also wrong. And now that this precedent has been set, that the State can violate your fundamental… Read more »

Moor
Guest
Moor

Perhaps Doug could have used: Developmentally DisGAYbled?

Gabriel Rench
Guest
Gabriel Rench

I think one of the deeper issues here, is that we as Christians need to get better at discerning wolves from sheep, or as Doug has put it before Apostles and Refugees.  Christians need to distinguish between militant homosexual apostles & refugees who need ministering too. Fight the wolves, gather the sheep.  Our language should clearly distinguish these two categories, because it is a gospel imperative.  In the end failure to distinguish is a failure to protect, which means an impotent gospel.   I think people give Doug a hard time on this topic, because you think he is talking too the refugees.  But… Read more »

Gabriel Rench
Guest
Gabriel Rench

what.  no paragraphs.  argh. 
 

valerieab
Member

Gabe — One return per line break. Two if you want a space between paragraphs.

John
Guest
John

I’m curious if Doug, or anyone applauding him here, would be willing to answer an honest question. Is there any way you differ with Westboro Baptist Church in methodology? I am sure you would say that you disagree on some points of theology, but in methodology? Their approach is to be as inflammatory as possible, mostly for publicity and rhetorical purposes. If asked why, they respond that they are using words that are perfectly fine in English to demonstrate a filthy act. Furthermore, they claim that their approach is the most loving thing they can do and they won’t fall… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Gayiety aside, the same totalitarian, evil, intolerant impulse Pastor Wilson exposits in his post  is at work across all the Christian virtues–thrift, honesty…life. On the virtue of Life, for example, Deathwalkers, Deathtards and the Deathstapo* are the agents in this   J.C. Wright post discussing the mozilla-esque response of Kickstarter to deny the attempt by decent people to fund an independent movie exposing the evil killer (“Doctor” in PC speak)  Herman Gosnell. Is there any doubt that had the Kickstarter clients attempted to fund a movie about intolerant bakers hurting the feelings of sexual perverts that there would be no qualms… Read more »

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Regardless of one’s opinion of homosexuality, I would not think that the use of gratuitous slurs against the mentally retarded w0uld comport with either common decency or with good public relations.  It would not surprise me to learn that people who agree with Doug’s views on gays simply stopped reading when they hit “gaytard”.  Or is mocking the mentally slow now considered Christlike?
 

Tim
Guest
Tim

Maybe somebody could point out the phrase where Doug “mocked the mentally slow”.   Just quote the phrase, please,  for those of us who are too retarded to figure it out.  

timothy
Guest
timothy

eric The Red.
 
In Pastor Wilson’s March 13 post entitled “Preparing for the Refugee Column”  he discusses his principled use of language in addressing apostles of the world vs. refugees from it. 
Hard language aside, It is interesting that your attack is not directed towards the gaystapo tactics on display at Mozilla and the deathstapo tactics employed at Kickstarter, but rather at those who point out the totalitarian nature of the evil at the root of it all. Maybe I missed your denunciation of it. Do you care to do so now?

John
Guest
John

Tim,   When I was 12 I was enrolled at a small private Christian school. At that point in our lives my friends and I felt that we had learned about as much as there was to learn of the world. As a result, we decided to proclaim our knowledge to our superiors and have some fun doing it. Now I should warn you, this is a one-of-a-kind fun that mostly kids at Christian schools know about. It’s not for the faint of heart. One day after recess, we were to give an oral report as a group. When it… Read more »

rungeeric
Member
rungeeric

Doug, thank you for writing the way you do. It is very encouraging.

rungeeric
Member
rungeeric

Matthew Becker, seriously? Uttering a curse upon…your friend? Do you give your enemies flowers?

Roy
Guest
Roy

John, fairly sure the metaphor doesn’t match the OP. I get no sense of DW trying to “put one over” here. Not saying I agree 100% of the time, but I believe he is thoughtful and sincere on the subject.

Jane
Member

Because Pastor Wilson is a 12 year old trying to shock and offend his elders, which is childish and disrespectful, and doing something that had been specifically forbidden by those in authority over him, which is why you were punished?
 
If it’s not that, then, no, I don’t get it.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Yet another topic derailed due to this ridiculous “serrated edge” theory and the inevitable backlash.  When will you just admit that it doesn’t work and abandon it?  

melody
Member
melody

Apparently, quite a number of mentally challenged folks read this blog.  Who knew?

Gervase Markham
Guest

“Those who are tempted with same sex attractions — both those who are ashamed of it and try to resist it and those who are given over to it — are gaywalkers. God built the road, and it is straight road, and he told us to cross at the intersection. Refusing to do so, or wavering on the point, is a sin issue, not a political issue.”   Can you expand the analogy? What does “cross at the intersection” mean, particularly given the existence of celibate people? Do you recognise the category of “person who finds themselves attracted to others… Read more »

RFB
Guest
RFB

I am consistently unimpressed with the heart on the sleeve mentality cultivated by such a prevalent cross section of those who visit this site. Regarding the word retarded: are most of the people who find the word offensive simply unaware that it was a completely acceptable word not that really long ago?  Retarded was the appropriate term to describe someone who was mentally retarded. I do not remember what decade it was that all of the newer terms came into being, but I always wondered how it all happened. People were retarded, crippled, blind, deaf and dumb. People were stupid,… Read more »

Moor
Guest
Moor

RFB — It’s the difference between a terrorist and someone who simply performs “acts of terror”.  The former is damned while the latter can still be saved with self-esteem education.

Moor
Guest
Moor

Other suggestions: Gaydiots, The Gaynorant.  I’m wondering what more politically correct term Doug could have used?  Any of those condemning his use of Gaytard have some other alternatives?

RFB
Guest
RFB

  Mr. Markham,   At what juncture is even the desire for the prohibited considered sin?  In reading Romans 1:24-27, it seems as if God is saying that their actions start first with the unclean desire. Does avoiding the natural function through celibacy fulfill what God has created? Since it is not good for man to be alone, and that God created them male and female (not for any other grouping), and that He created them to be one for godly offspring, why is not the proper action not just not doing the wrong also include actively doing the right?… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

Retarded was intended to replace words seen as worse.  Then over time, retarded took on all the connotations of those words.  So now it is offensive in its own right.  That’s how the language merry-go-round goes.  You might as well protest that gay once meant happy and carefree, therefore no one should take it in its modern sense, rendering this entire post nonsensical.  Basically, anyone using retarded today is either a kid or a shock jock. 

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Even when “mentally retarded” was the term of choice, there were few who would have called someone a “retard” without feeling some sense of shame.  If a person is incapable of distinguishing between “He is mentally retarded” and “He is a retard,”  I don’t suppose they will even comprehend,  let alone appreciate, the discomfort some of us feel about “gaytard” and its many cousins such as libtard, demtard, conservatard, and even f***tard.  Unlike the character in Alice in Wonderland, we don’t get to claim that a word means whatever we think it should mean.  Gaytard means gay retard.  Maybe a… Read more »

Ben Bowman
Guest

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. -Ephesians 4:29
I’m not insulted by these words used. But I would like to hear from Doug how a term like “gaytard” could be used to minister grace. 

Ree
Guest
Ree

I’m not a fan of the word “gaytard” myself, but I am struck by the irony of the fact that the people who consider “retarded” a cruelly offensive word are so often the same people who take no offense at the idea of killing a child in the womb for actually being mentally retarded.

Moor
Guest
Moor

Jill Smith — You are, as always, very eloquent in your statement, but I think you’ve missed the point of my question, or perhaps just chosen to deal with it at face value rather than seeing beyond the sarcasm (which would be understandable since sarcasm translates so poorly on the internet).  The point of my question is that those expressing opposition to the word seem to really be opposed to the sentiment, so that Doug could have chosen another word but probably still faced the exact same criticism (“how insensitive to conflate the defense of the gay lifestyle and agenda… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

The Bible does equate sodomy with stupidity.  Sodomites are those:
 
1) who “suppress the truth,” i.e. what is clearly known (Rom 1:18).  
2) who become “futile in their thinking” and whose “foolish (without sense) hearts are darkened” (Rom 1:21)
3) who may “claim to be wise” but are actually “fools” (Rom 1:22)
4) are given over to a “debased mind,” i.e. a worthless mind (Rom 1:28)
 
Like all sin, Sodomy is stupidity.  

Gervase Markham
Guest

“At what juncture is even the desire for the prohibited considered sin?”   Good question. Certainly not immediately, because considering the possibility of the prohibited is the definition of “temptation”. And Jesus was tempted in every way, as we are, but was without sin.     “Does avoiding the natural function through celibacy fulfill what God has created?”   Are you saying that everyone needs to get married, otherwise they are not fulfilling what God has created?   “Do not burn in your desire, seek your own God ordained vessel.”   You seem to be arguing that those with same-sex… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Gervase,   The expressions: 1) “those with same-sex attraction;” and 2) “those with cancer” are roughly equivalent in terms of etiology.  If you smuggle in a biological etiology into your expressions, then you also smuggle in victimization.  You do not fault people for “having cancer.”  They cannot help it.  In a similar way, it is difficult to fault people for “having ssa.”  Are we speaking about a disease which “afflicts” people, or are we speaking of a sinful desire?   The Bible not only holds sinners responsible for their desires: ESV Proverbs 13:19 A desire fulfilled is sweet to the… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Clearly it is heartless to command someone to put to death cancer.  Yet, the Bible is quite comfortable commanding sinners to put to death evil desire.