Someone had commented, objecting to Getreligion's coverage of the event, and explained in crystal clear language exactly what was wrong with Robertson's words:
What really happened here is this: the guy compared two women who love one another with a guy humping a donkey.Man, that's a terrible thing isn't it. I won't mince words, because everyone can tell from the previous post - it's not true. Not at all. Robertson didn't say this at any point. He didn't mention women, or 'two women loving each other', period. Not even indirectly. What he did talk about was sex. Acts.
But, here's the thing: the entire advancement of the LGBT cause has largely come from getting way, way the hell away from any talk of 'acts' at all. Instead, the focus is on people and 'love'. Rather abstract love at that. Very clean, very crisp. Perfect for a Hallmark card.
So when someone criticizes same sex acts, it's treated as important to get the hell away from that subject ASAP. And if that means you lie about what someone said, well, then you damn well lie.
I point this out:
I made an error there, by the way, which you'll see in a moment. But still - Robertson did not say that. He was talking about acts, and GLAAD and HRC are lying about what he said. Just as this person is. Their reply?
Um, yes. That's right. He compared same-sex relations to bestiality as you said. There's the problem. Don't worry about my rephrasing. That comparison is about as demeaning as you can get regarding someone else's lover.What I love: 'Don't worry about my rephrasing.' Honest to God: does this work on people? This kind of jedi mind trick of 'Okay, so I lied, but let's not talk about that anymore.'
And there's the nice, sterilized reply. 'He compared same-sex relations.' Pardon my french, but does anyone fuck anymore? I mean it's weird how I go through my day talking to people - they talk about their porn, the fucking they saw on a TV show, the fucking they're looking forward to later that night... but somehow when the cameras come on, no one's fucking. They're having relations with their significant other in a way that gives them both a sense of self-fulfillment and encourages an emotional bond between them. Turn the camera off and the lights down and they're talking about fucking again.
But, I digress.
So, okay, he's backing off. But it's STILL terrible. Because Robertson compared 'same-sex relations' to bestiality. Obvious problem, so I reply:
Don't worry about my rephrasing
No, let's worry about your rephrasing because it was dishonest. The issue was not 'two women who love one another' and how that is equivalent to having sex with a donkey. Also? Two women loving one another is not condemned in Leviticus, and it's not condemned in the CCC of the Catholic Church.
Sexual acts, are. Which is what Roberston zeroed in on. GLAAD and the HRC is dishonest in their portrayal of what Robertson said.
That comparison is about as demeaning as you can get regarding someone else's lover.
No, because it's not 'the lover' that's being criticized but 'the act'. Particularly, sexual acts.Like I said - minor event on a minor blog, but it's instructive. Pay attention to what was done here - not just the fact that Robertson's words were warped, but HOW they were warped. Because that provides a microcosm example of the LGBT's campaign, and it illustrates how to handle this when you discuss it with others.
They want to avoid talk of sex acts at all costs. They want - they desire - for the conversation to be an attack on persons, not an attack on acts. The moment the conversation is 'It's the acts, not the person' and 'It's the sex, not the love', things get vastly more complicated for them. Keep this in mind, be attentive, and respond accordingly - if you're at all the sort of person given to debate.
There are other pitfalls to watch out for here too as far as language goes, but this is one of the key tricks that are both absurdly common yet ignored by quite a lot of social conservatives.