The Doorknob Chronicles of Dan Savage
Jul 13, 2011
Joe Carter
If you haven’t already done so, add this regulation to your rules for living: Never take sex advice from a man who licks doorknobs. The reasoning—as if a reason needed to be given—is that a man who doesn’t understand the telos of a doorknob isn’t likely to understand the telos of sex. Unfortunately, many people seem to disagree with me, which is why Dan Savage has become one of the most influential sex-advice columnists in America.
Savage’s column has been appearing next to the horoscopes, non-sequiturish comic strips, and massage parlor ads in alternative weeklies for over twenty years. Recently, though, his “It Gets Better Campaign” and a glowing profile in the New York Times Magazine have raised his name recognition.
Even those who are unfamiliar with Savage and his work are familiar with his type: the hectoring hedonist. A hedonist is merely a nihilist who likes to party. But dubstepping to Gomorrah isn’t enough for the hectoring hedonist. To Savage and his ilk, those who refuse to praise their proclivities are worthy of being destroyed.
Which brings us back to doorknobs.
During the Republican primary in 2000, Savage traveled to Iowa and became a campaign volunteer for Gary Bauer. During the trip, Savage became sick—“I had the flu in a big way”—and decided to use his illness as a bioweapon against Bauer and his staff. He boasts:
I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn't time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn't all it should be—I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had—but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn't manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary's hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.
So, much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men—we will put anything in our mouths— I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack. [emphasis in original]
Unfortunately, that is not the worst of Savage’s dirty tricks against his ideological enemies. You would quite literally retch if I were to describe the details of his crusade against former Senator Rick Santorum.
In the same article, Savage admits to lying about his residency in order to fraudulently vote in the Iowa primary. He was charged with a felony but pled guilty to a misdemeanor, making Savage a convicted liar and fraud.
Even by the low standards of alternative newspapers, Savage stands out for his incompetence. He was working at a video store when a buddy gave him a job as a sex-advice columnist. Despite exhibiting an embarrassing ignorance of human sexuality, Savage has managed to syndicate his column internationally and build a readership of millions.
Last year he garnered widespread acclaim for his “It Gets Better” campaign, an effort to prevent suicide among gay youth by having LGBT adults convey the message that the lives of these teens will eventually improve if they embrace their sexuality. The effort has been supported by dozens of influential politicians (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), celebrities (Justin Bieber, Tom Hanks) and corporations (Google, Apple). The message is a worthy one—no young person should be bullied, much less be driven to suicidal angst over it—but the inescapable fact is that for those who follow Savage’s advice, heterosexual or homosexual, it won’t “get better.”
“Our bodies are our own,” he has said, “they’re ours to use, abuse, and since we’re all going to die one day, they’re ours to use up.” Savage’s message to teens and young adults is that before they end their lives they need first to experience diseases, divorces, and drug overdoses. Your bodies are still young and supple, he implies, it would be a waste to shuffle off this mortal coil before you have a chance to trash it.
What is most depressing is not Savage’s message—that is standard hedonist propaganda—but rather the respect he is given despite being an amoral cretin. Savage is no longer just a guy who writes for the weekly tabloids. Now he’s taken seriously by political leaders, business executives, actors, and pastors. His influence extends from Hollywood to the White House.
What message is it sending young people when the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth endorses a man who believes that men should not be expected to be monogamous—even when married?
Would the president want his daughters dating men influenced by Savage? Of course he wouldn’t; whatever else one might think of Barack Obama, he is a caring father. Unfortunately, he is not as concerned about other people’s children, who will be influenced by his tacit endorsement of Savage’s ethics.
Perhaps the best counter to Savage’s message is Savage’s own life. He is a symbol of what happens when vice is embraced and virtue is abandoned. Rather than maturing into a happy, healthy, well-adjusted adult, he’s devolved into a man so filled with hate that he’ll lick doorknobs to spite his enemies.
Savage’s counsel of hedonistic sex speaks of hope but leads only to despair. We must counter it with the truth about love and fidelity. We need to send a message of true hope to the young people of America: Seek virtue and it really does get better.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Dan Savage, Stalking Gary Bauer
M.Z. Hemingway, Who is Dan Savage?
Mark Oppenheimer, Married, With Infidelities
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.13.2011 | 7:53am
Joe DeVet says:
We also must shun the sex advice of anyone who promotes contraception. Again, it's the telos thing.
7.13.2011 | 9:12am
Jacques says:
@Andrew:
I agree with you when you write that Savage is advocating open communication with partners regarding adultery. That is, perhaps, the main point of his article.
You wrote, "It is flatly false that Savage believe 'men should not be expected to be monogamous.'" I'm not so sure on that point.
Savage wrote, "Some people need more than one partner". If some men "need" more than one partner, we obviously should not expect them to be monogamous. Thus, at least some men should not be expected to be monogamous.
From there, is there any accurate way to tell which men should be expected to be monogamous and which men should not be? If there isn't, then men in general should not be expected to be monogamous.
On love, I recommend reading C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves. You may find it interesting.
Peace.
I agree with you when you write that Savage is advocating open communication with partners regarding adultery. That is, perhaps, the main point of his article.
You wrote, "It is flatly false that Savage believe 'men should not be expected to be monogamous.'" I'm not so sure on that point.
Savage wrote, "Some people need more than one partner". If some men "need" more than one partner, we obviously should not expect them to be monogamous. Thus, at least some men should not be expected to be monogamous.
From there, is there any accurate way to tell which men should be expected to be monogamous and which men should not be? If there isn't, then men in general should not be expected to be monogamous.
On love, I recommend reading C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves. You may find it interesting.
Peace.
7.13.2011 | 9:47am
Mike Melendez says:
@Andrew, I've been around awhile and I've got news! Love and sex ain't the same thing.
7.13.2011 | 9:57am
Michael M says:
Mr. Carter, It is disingenuous and below the belt to try to work President Obama into the narrative of this unsavory person.
7.13.2011 | 10:12am
Joe Carter says:
@Michael ***Mr. Carter, It is disingenuous and below the belt to try to work President Obama into the narrative of this unsavory person. ***
Why is it below the belt to mention that Obama has helped promote Savage? Obama not only a made a video for Savage's project but posted it on the White House website.
See: Obama Joins ‘It Gets Better’ Campaign; Dan Savage Says: Make It Better
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/
Why is it below the belt to mention that Obama has helped promote Savage? Obama not only a made a video for Savage's project but posted it on the White House website.
See: Obama Joins ‘It Gets Better’ Campaign; Dan Savage Says: Make It Better
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/
7.13.2011 | 10:29am
MJ says:
@ Andrew
Embracing death leads to death. Simple as that.
I will now post a better alternative (which I'm sure has been mentioned on first things before)
http://couragerc.net/
Peace
Embracing death leads to death. Simple as that.
I will now post a better alternative (which I'm sure has been mentioned on first things before)
http://couragerc.net/
Peace
7.13.2011 | 10:57am
Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ says:
This column misfires, I think.
The story is not Dan Savage himself. The story is the fact that millions of people can apparently read him and still eat their lunch.
The story is not Dan Savage himself. The story is the fact that millions of people can apparently read him and still eat their lunch.
7.13.2011 | 11:33am
irksome1 says:
If the aim is to counter Savage's message, the answer can hardly be to point to Savage's life. For a man who has "an embarrassing ignorance of human sexuality," Savage has parlayed his message into an extremely successful and lucrative business, one that has garnered him a societal influence comparable to anyone you might point to on the other side of the ideological aisle. Indeed, by every empirical measure, Savage could demonstrate that it does, indeed, "get better." Pointing to Savage's ruthlessness in confronting his enemies to substantiate an image of Savage as a pathological, moral degenerate is, in this day and age, an aesthetic judgment that can't appeal to anyone who is ready to excuse a CIA operative's use of an "enhanced interrogation technique." Savage, like his CIA counterpart, is willing to do what it takes to "win."
The appropriate response to Savage, indeed everyone who plies the message of permissive hedonism that he does, is to engage the argument. Believing that you've won your argument because you've managed to pen a wonderfully florid, ad hominem piece about how your opponent is a bad man is about as smug, deluded and self-serving as anything Savage himself could concoct.
The appropriate response to Savage, indeed everyone who plies the message of permissive hedonism that he does, is to engage the argument. Believing that you've won your argument because you've managed to pen a wonderfully florid, ad hominem piece about how your opponent is a bad man is about as smug, deluded and self-serving as anything Savage himself could concoct.
7.13.2011 | 11:40am
Joe Carter says:
@irksome ***If the aim is to counter Savage's message, the answer can hardly be to point to Savage's life.***
In the original version I wrote, my point was focused on the fact that Americans are now so obtuse that they don't understand the role ethos plays in rhetoric. I decided to change the entire thing because I thought readers of FT might assume I meant that *they* were not well-enough versed in rhetoric (or at least have read Aristotle) to understand the role of ethos.
Apparently I was wrong. The fact that some people still trot out "ad homimem" as if it were a fallacy shows that I had presumed too much knowledge on the part of some readers.
In the original version I wrote, my point was focused on the fact that Americans are now so obtuse that they don't understand the role ethos plays in rhetoric. I decided to change the entire thing because I thought readers of FT might assume I meant that *they* were not well-enough versed in rhetoric (or at least have read Aristotle) to understand the role of ethos.
Apparently I was wrong. The fact that some people still trot out "ad homimem" as if it were a fallacy shows that I had presumed too much knowledge on the part of some readers.
7.13.2011 | 11:49am
Douglas Johnson says:
This quote...
Our bodies are our own,” he has said, “they’re ours to use, abuse, and since we’re all going to die one day, they’re ours to use up.”
Just goes oh-so perfectly with this post from one of the New Atheists, Sam Harris.
Our bodies are our own,” he has said, “they’re ours to use, abuse, and since we’re all going to die one day, they’re ours to use up.”
Just goes oh-so perfectly with this post from one of the New Atheists, Sam Harris.
7.13.2011 | 11:53am
Douglas Johnson says:
Ugh...why do some First Things blogs accept HTML and others don't? Anyway, here is the link to the Sam Harris quote I meant to attach in my previous comment:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life
7.13.2011 | 11:59am
J.Sadkovich says:
I suspect that had Mr. Carter focused solely on Savage, this would have turned out to be a better column. His "professional" history of offering miserable advice, geared in large part simply to shock, as well as his own sordid personal adventures which he seems to think deserve some sort of public approbation (such as licking doorknobs to spread disease) provide more than enough material to paint a rather damning portrait of the man. Attempting to portray figures who have jumped on board with his rather irritating (I apologize, I have little patience for anyone, anywhere, spouting self-help, feel good nonsense, regardless of their preferred cause) recent campaign to make teens feel better about their sexual proclivities as complicit in the above mentioned doorknob licking is problematic. It distracts from the issue at hand: Dan Savage.
Still, I think Mr. Carter touches a nerve, in fact given the reaction in some of the comments here I'm fairly certain of it. Savage began as a symptom, but has rapidly promoted himself to a cause, of much of the idiot thinking that goes on in our country today about relationships and sex. Perhaps, in the future, someone at First Things would be so good as to publish a more thorough take down of the fellow. A guy can dream.
On a very different note, as a vaguely unsuccessful DJ, "dubstepping to Gomorrah" made my day. Of all the things to happen to dance music in the last decade, dubstep is easily the worst. ;-)
Still, I think Mr. Carter touches a nerve, in fact given the reaction in some of the comments here I'm fairly certain of it. Savage began as a symptom, but has rapidly promoted himself to a cause, of much of the idiot thinking that goes on in our country today about relationships and sex. Perhaps, in the future, someone at First Things would be so good as to publish a more thorough take down of the fellow. A guy can dream.
On a very different note, as a vaguely unsuccessful DJ, "dubstepping to Gomorrah" made my day. Of all the things to happen to dance music in the last decade, dubstep is easily the worst. ;-)
7.13.2011 | 12:26pm
Chuck says:
Oh, it would be pretty obvious that this is all ad hominem and really does not get to the matter of Dan Savage's ideas. (Assuming that Dan Savage actually has ideas)
The truth is that any take-down of Savage is not going to matter very much. I doubt many of his readers read First Things and they simply are not going to care what is said about him here or anywhere else for that matter.
The truth is that any take-down of Savage is not going to matter very much. I doubt many of his readers read First Things and they simply are not going to care what is said about him here or anywhere else for that matter.
7.13.2011 | 1:29pm
Therese Z says:
True, DS's readers aren't here, but this serves as a good reminder and light education on what Savage is about these days, because we live next to people and watch TV with people who think he is doing an admirable thing with the commercials and when they see him interviewed.
7.13.2011 | 1:43pm
Jerry Beckett says:
"To Savage and his ilk, those who refuse to praise their proclivities are worthy of being destroyed."
As is to be expected. To borrow Wesley Smith's line, the culture of death brooks no dissent.
As is to be expected. To borrow Wesley Smith's line, the culture of death brooks no dissent.
7.13.2011 | 2:29pm
Ben Embry says:
This is the first time I have ever heard of Dan Savage. Sounds like I'm not missing much. Joe Carter's challenge in his last sentence spurred me to think of how to make virtue attractive to younger people. The difficulty seems to be putting the good of life-long monogamy in a more attractive light than immediate intimacy. One writer that puts this into perspective is Aquinas when, in the Summa Theologiae, he surveys the goods that men normally seek and explains why they are not the final good. He covers wealth, honor, pleasure, and so on. Anyway, it puts things into perspective.
When a small child is offered the choice between a nickel or a dime, he will likely choose the bigger, heavier nickel above the dime. Mr Savage is counseling folks to choose the sexual nickel- for obvious reasons (just like the obvious "better" qualities of the nickel.) In contrast to Savage, Jesus explicitly taught that monogamous marriage was something instituted by God, with the intention of it lasting for life. (Incidentally, Jesus also served others by cleaning their germy feet instead of endeavoring to spread sickness by making doorknobs dirty.)
In this contrast, I'm thinking that Jesus is offering the dime and Mr. Savage has the nickel. Joe's advice (and I think it is good) is to help people choose the dime.
When a small child is offered the choice between a nickel or a dime, he will likely choose the bigger, heavier nickel above the dime. Mr Savage is counseling folks to choose the sexual nickel- for obvious reasons (just like the obvious "better" qualities of the nickel.) In contrast to Savage, Jesus explicitly taught that monogamous marriage was something instituted by God, with the intention of it lasting for life. (Incidentally, Jesus also served others by cleaning their germy feet instead of endeavoring to spread sickness by making doorknobs dirty.)
In this contrast, I'm thinking that Jesus is offering the dime and Mr. Savage has the nickel. Joe's advice (and I think it is good) is to help people choose the dime.
7.13.2011 | 2:56pm
andrew says:
1. it seems to me that the only way to argue that our bodies are not "ours to abuse" is to claim our bodies belong to someone else who has final authority over us. absent some notion of "creator," it's hard to find fault with libertarian "self-ownership" and consequent autonomy.
2. even empirically, unbridled hedonism never leads to happiness. the experiment has been run too many times and the results are always the same.
2. even empirically, unbridled hedonism never leads to happiness. the experiment has been run too many times and the results are always the same.
7.13.2011 | 3:00pm
Craig Payne says:
Honestly, when I saw the "Chronicles" part and "Dan Savage," I instantly misread it--thought it was going to be an off-the-wall meditation on some of my favorite teen reading, Kenneth Robeson's "Doc Savage" novels. Remember Doc Savage, the Man of Bronze?
Instead I get a gay doorknob-licker. Something of a shock to the system.
Instead I get a gay doorknob-licker. Something of a shock to the system.
7.13.2011 | 3:00pm
kevin s. says:
"Rather, Savage believes that a commitment to monogamy requires exactly that, and if partners in a relationship make other provisions, they should proceed with honesty and openness."
No. He validates the right to sleep around, and has explicitly said there is no obligation to alert ones spouse. You're making stuff up.
No. He validates the right to sleep around, and has explicitly said there is no obligation to alert ones spouse. You're making stuff up.
7.13.2011 | 4:04pm
Jesse Myers says:
Dan Savage was on Colbert last night and I turned it off. I'd never heard of him before, but his behavior was appalling. I can't imagine that his appearance did anything to advance the credibility of his arguments for gay marriage. The guy is the living embodiment of every negative gay stereotype.
7.13.2011 | 5:01pm
Mary De Voe says:
Dan Savage is not boasting. He is looking for a way to return to humaness. Dan Savage is responsible for evey person who died or became deathly ill from his actions. Justice is predicated on intent and Dan Savage intended to murder Gary Baur. Dan Savage is a statutory murderer and homicidal maniac. Jesus Christ said that whoever hated his brother is a murderer and Dan Savage took it a lot further. Dan Savage acted on his hatred.
Arrested development in homosexual persons is not sexual but a lack of sexual, a disorder to be set aside and life continued to be lived according to the truths set forth by God.
Arrested development in homosexual persons is not sexual but a lack of sexual, a disorder to be set aside and life continued to be lived according to the truths set forth by God.
7.13.2011 | 5:16pm
Mary De Voe says:
@IRKSOME1 "Savage, like his CIA counterpart, is willing to do what it takes to "win.". This is precisely Joe Carter's point. The ethos behind winning must be valid and virtuous. Dan Savage did a better hack job on himself than anyone might. Joe Carter, in freedom of the press is obligated to print it, to inform citizens of the quality of character scandalizing us.
7.13.2011 | 6:49pm
JDC says:
@andrew I see your point but it seems to me that it is possible to mount an effective argument against the "use and abuse" mentality that is crushing the souls of our young adults. I think the veil needs to be lifted from what happens to people that live their lives like Dan Savage. In other words, we need to show what the logical conclusion of living viciously entails. The problem is, young people aren't taught to think about their future good because pleasure and gratification come so quickly and cheaply nowadays. So it becomes and issue of hope. I.e., "can I hope for a higher, more fulfilling life if I practice virtue than indulging in vice?"
In addition, most people are much more moderate than Savage. They ask themselves, "what can a little indulgence here and there hurt?" These people are the most difficult to persuade with arguments that relate to the horrors of hedonism because their behaviors aren't extreme enough to lead to calamitous consequences like disease or addiction.
In addition, most people are much more moderate than Savage. They ask themselves, "what can a little indulgence here and there hurt?" These people are the most difficult to persuade with arguments that relate to the horrors of hedonism because their behaviors aren't extreme enough to lead to calamitous consequences like disease or addiction.
7.13.2011 | 8:02pm
Fresh Iced Tea says:
"Advocating they choose a path of loveless chastity rather than finding a life partner makes him (Joe Carter) the moral cretin in my book."
Now, now... Mr. Gilbert, don't carry on so. Genitals are not the be-all and end-all of sexual pleasure as you would have us believe. I've always found my most important sex organ to be my brain.
Now, now... Mr. Gilbert, don't carry on so. Genitals are not the be-all and end-all of sexual pleasure as you would have us believe. I've always found my most important sex organ to be my brain.
7.13.2011 | 10:09pm
Gil Costello says:
Michael M writes, “It is disingenuous and below the belt to try to work President Obama into the narrative of this unsavory person.” And Mr. Carter responds by listing the site that proves Obama does support Mr. Savage. But President Obama also supports and has appointed another gay hedonist, Kevin Jennings, as czar of his safe schools initiative, and there is no question that Mr. Jennings is committed to teaching hedonist (including S&M) practices to youth.
The following is from this website: http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2009/12/07/fistgate-barack-obamas-safe-schools-czars-2000-conference-promoted-fisting-to-14-year-olds/
“Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio)…
“…GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims ‘furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students’…Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called ‘GLSEN BookLink,’ featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own…
“We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.”
So why would anyone be surprised that President Obama supports Dan Savage’s mission?
For how many years did Christians ask themselves how Sodom had ever become possible, clearly believing that it could never happen in the modern world, Christian or non-Christian? Yet here we are.
The following is from this website: http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2009/12/07/fistgate-barack-obamas-safe-schools-czars-2000-conference-promoted-fisting-to-14-year-olds/
“Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio)…
“…GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims ‘furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students’…Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called ‘GLSEN BookLink,’ featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own…
“We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.”
So why would anyone be surprised that President Obama supports Dan Savage’s mission?
For how many years did Christians ask themselves how Sodom had ever become possible, clearly believing that it could never happen in the modern world, Christian or non-Christian? Yet here we are.
7.13.2011 | 10:16pm
Gabriel says:
I had not heard of Dan Savage before today. But prompted by Carter's mention of it, I went to the 'It Gets better' site, and ended up spending some hours watching the enormous variety of extraordinarily moving videos (see: http://www.itgetsbetter.org/#ax96cghOnY4).
On the basis of that, I do not think that it is right to say, as Carter does, that the campaign is "an effort to prevent suicide among gay youth by having LGBT adults convey the message that the lives of these teens will eventually improve if they embrace their sexuality". Certainly some of the videos did express that sentiment. But overwhelmingly, the message that 'It Gers Better' was: it gets better if you speak to others, it gets better when you realise that you are not alone, it gets better if you have the courage to come out and open up to friend, it gets better once you leave the enclosed bully-condusive environment of school...
The truth is, the flood of videos that have been uploaded onto the 'It Gets Better' site is overwhelming, and I *hope* that a lonely and scared teenage kid might stumble across the site, and be buoyed up and given a little hope and courage by all the hundreds and hundreds of people on these videos who - by their very appearance - are telling him/her that he/she is not alone, and that there is life beyind the merciless bullying that goes on in schools, and beyind the lying to oneself and to others, and the hiding form oneself and from others.
Watch the videos, and it will be difficult for you not be horrified by the testimony after testimony of terrible suffering that these adults report that they suffered at school. How could this video project be anything but a good thing - if it might offer some light and some hope to children who are suffreing form such torture right now?
Perhaps Carter doesn't agree with the way that Dav Savage thinks that a gay child should deal with and live with his/her homosexuality. But surely that is no reason to criticise the essential - I would even say: life-saving - work of the 'It Gets Better' project!? This is so especially given that many of the videos talk of the pain that they suffered from specifically Christian views and rhetoric on the matter of homosexuality. In this comment I am saying nothing about whether this Christian view of homosexulaity is correct or not. Rather, I am addressing only the suffering that gay youth go through - and the fact (apparent form many of the videos) that this sufferung is often exacerbated by Christian friends, parents, pastors, and the like. Surely this is not what is meant to be? Even if you hold that homosexual sex is sinful - this is no excuse for making gay kids feel alienated, hated, or disgusting. If that is what is happining, then even if the Christian message is a right and Godly one, it is clearly being expressed and taught in a terribly wrong and unChristian way. - The 'It Gets Better' project, therefore, is partly aiming to right a grievous wrong that the Christian community is partly responsible for. Instead of atacking it, Joe Carter ought to grateful.
On the basis of that, I do not think that it is right to say, as Carter does, that the campaign is "an effort to prevent suicide among gay youth by having LGBT adults convey the message that the lives of these teens will eventually improve if they embrace their sexuality". Certainly some of the videos did express that sentiment. But overwhelmingly, the message that 'It Gers Better' was: it gets better if you speak to others, it gets better when you realise that you are not alone, it gets better if you have the courage to come out and open up to friend, it gets better once you leave the enclosed bully-condusive environment of school...
The truth is, the flood of videos that have been uploaded onto the 'It Gets Better' site is overwhelming, and I *hope* that a lonely and scared teenage kid might stumble across the site, and be buoyed up and given a little hope and courage by all the hundreds and hundreds of people on these videos who - by their very appearance - are telling him/her that he/she is not alone, and that there is life beyind the merciless bullying that goes on in schools, and beyind the lying to oneself and to others, and the hiding form oneself and from others.
Watch the videos, and it will be difficult for you not be horrified by the testimony after testimony of terrible suffering that these adults report that they suffered at school. How could this video project be anything but a good thing - if it might offer some light and some hope to children who are suffreing form such torture right now?
Perhaps Carter doesn't agree with the way that Dav Savage thinks that a gay child should deal with and live with his/her homosexuality. But surely that is no reason to criticise the essential - I would even say: life-saving - work of the 'It Gets Better' project!? This is so especially given that many of the videos talk of the pain that they suffered from specifically Christian views and rhetoric on the matter of homosexuality. In this comment I am saying nothing about whether this Christian view of homosexulaity is correct or not. Rather, I am addressing only the suffering that gay youth go through - and the fact (apparent form many of the videos) that this sufferung is often exacerbated by Christian friends, parents, pastors, and the like. Surely this is not what is meant to be? Even if you hold that homosexual sex is sinful - this is no excuse for making gay kids feel alienated, hated, or disgusting. If that is what is happining, then even if the Christian message is a right and Godly one, it is clearly being expressed and taught in a terribly wrong and unChristian way. - The 'It Gets Better' project, therefore, is partly aiming to right a grievous wrong that the Christian community is partly responsible for. Instead of atacking it, Joe Carter ought to grateful.
7.13.2011 | 10:19pm
Gil Costello says:
Also keep in mind that there is no public outcry or condemnation from any gay community regarding the mission of Kevin Jennings and Dan Savage. Also keep in mind the brilliance of Bill Clinton in cow-towing to conservative demands to get re-elected, but pushing hard in assigning federal judges and bureaucrats who would promote the hedonist culture through the courts and public institutions. President Obama is at least as smart as Clinton, and has obviously learned his lessons well.
Think of this and dwell on the inevitable outcome of a president supporting and promoting the initiatives of Jennings and Savage, and also reflect on the lukewarmness of so many American citizens who in no way agree with these initiatives.
Think of this and dwell on the inevitable outcome of a president supporting and promoting the initiatives of Jennings and Savage, and also reflect on the lukewarmness of so many American citizens who in no way agree with these initiatives.
7.13.2011 | 10:46pm
Gil Costello says:
Gabriel writes, "Perhaps Carter doesn't agree with the way that Dan Savage thinks that a gay child should deal with and live with his/her homosexuality."
One of the major problems is that sex liberationists have convinced Gabriel and millions of others that there are not only children who experience same-sex attraction, but also that there is such a thing as “gay youth”. There are of course youths with a homosexual orientation, and the data is clear: many of those youth never develop beyond that orientation—but many do (it is common for a pubescent child to experience same-sex attraction who will eventually arrive at and stay fixed in heterosexual attraction (those facts are incontrovertible), but Jennings-Savage and company are now rushing in and taking those children and placing them in gay-indoctrination classes “for their own good”, never giving the children an opportunity to fully mature to their own sense of their sexuality. Being gay is an ideological identity formed by adults like Jennings and Savage and imposed on children before their full maturation has been completed. This is an act of violence against children.
I would suggest that anyone interested simply read Savage’s columns where he advises youth on sex practices (his column is available to all youths for free at street corners, and sex liberationists in schools advise children to read it). Savage, Jennings and a host of other sex liberationists have gotten real good at covering their ubiquitous tracks with harmless, even helpful, programs, but their primary mission is clear and it’s all out there if you want to investigate. If you don’t, the children will continue to be assaulted.
One of the major problems is that sex liberationists have convinced Gabriel and millions of others that there are not only children who experience same-sex attraction, but also that there is such a thing as “gay youth”. There are of course youths with a homosexual orientation, and the data is clear: many of those youth never develop beyond that orientation—but many do (it is common for a pubescent child to experience same-sex attraction who will eventually arrive at and stay fixed in heterosexual attraction (those facts are incontrovertible), but Jennings-Savage and company are now rushing in and taking those children and placing them in gay-indoctrination classes “for their own good”, never giving the children an opportunity to fully mature to their own sense of their sexuality. Being gay is an ideological identity formed by adults like Jennings and Savage and imposed on children before their full maturation has been completed. This is an act of violence against children.
I would suggest that anyone interested simply read Savage’s columns where he advises youth on sex practices (his column is available to all youths for free at street corners, and sex liberationists in schools advise children to read it). Savage, Jennings and a host of other sex liberationists have gotten real good at covering their ubiquitous tracks with harmless, even helpful, programs, but their primary mission is clear and it’s all out there if you want to investigate. If you don’t, the children will continue to be assaulted.
7.14.2011 | 2:30am
dadfly says:
i was not aware of this man. thank you for this service to us parents. i will take steps to protect my children from him and his groaning acolytes. the trouble is just look at the "infection" in this comments section. God help us.
7.14.2011 | 2:40am
Rick says:
I'm checking out the links above and doing other research on this subject, but I've learned to be very cautious when people of one, shall I say, polarized, view of a subject present horror stories about the other side.
A few years back I happened to hear a Chuck Colsen broadcast on my car radio. Now I admire Mr. Colsen for his prison ministry, but that day he was decrying the corruption of the Girl Scouts of America. He told, in graphic detail, how young girl scouts today are being trained, right in the scout meetings, to install a condom on a man, using an erect male dummy as a training aid. I thought this incredible, so I later relayed the story to a woman I knew who was a girl scout leader at the time. She stared at me open-mouthed for a few seconds and then doubled over laughing. When she got control of herself, she explained that the only topic relating to sexuality that they were allowed to treat in meetings was basic feminine hygiene, and that only with the older girls, and only with written parental permission.
Yes...it pays to be cautious.
A few years back I happened to hear a Chuck Colsen broadcast on my car radio. Now I admire Mr. Colsen for his prison ministry, but that day he was decrying the corruption of the Girl Scouts of America. He told, in graphic detail, how young girl scouts today are being trained, right in the scout meetings, to install a condom on a man, using an erect male dummy as a training aid. I thought this incredible, so I later relayed the story to a woman I knew who was a girl scout leader at the time. She stared at me open-mouthed for a few seconds and then doubled over laughing. When she got control of herself, she explained that the only topic relating to sexuality that they were allowed to treat in meetings was basic feminine hygiene, and that only with the older girls, and only with written parental permission.
Yes...it pays to be cautious.
7.14.2011 | 6:56am
Gabriel says:
Gil Costelol says: "There are of course youths with a homosexual orientation, and the data is clear: many of those youth never develop beyond that orientation—but many do (it is common for a pubescent child to experience same-sex attraction who will eventually arrive at and stay fixed in heterosexual attraction (those facts are incontrovertible), but Jennings-Savage and company are now rushing in and taking those children and placing them in gay-indoctrination classes 'for their own good', never giving the children an opportunity to fully mature to their own sense of their sexuality."
I know very few homosexual people. As a child and teenager, I don't think that I knew any - at least none who I know of *as* homosexual. Nor have I read any literature on this. Gil Costello points out that there are youths with same-sex attarction, who then later arrive at opposite-sex attaction instead; and that there are youths with same-sex attarction who remain with that. But he seems ti think that the existence of the first group, shows that the second group's remaining in their same-sex attraction is something that could have been avoided, either with the right guidance/indoctrination, or at least without the wrong guidance/indoctrination. But why does he think that? That is not a rhetorical quetsion, it is a genuine one - I would be interested to know if he has any reasons to believe that heterosexual orientation is the basic one, and that youth with homosexual orientation needn't stay that way, and can always be educated towards heterosexual orientation? Could it not just be that there are those who have a mere homosexually-oriented phrase, as youth, and those who do not - but rather, have an indelible homosexual orintation, from puberty. All I have to go on is my own experience, which never showed the slightest hint of any homosexual attarction, and very clear and very strong heterosexual attraction from puberty - which I find it impossible to believe could have been swayed in the other direction by education or indictrination (of course, I may be wrong about mysefl!). I find it easy to believe that there are pubescent teenagers out there who have the very same experience as me, just the otherw way round (though of course there is the enormous difference in that we live in an extrodinarily heterosexual and heterosexually explicit culture, and that the presumption is for heterosexuality, which must complicate things). Is there any reasont to think that - contrary to this intuition/assumption - there is the deep assymetry, which Gil Costello seems to take there to be?
I know very few homosexual people. As a child and teenager, I don't think that I knew any - at least none who I know of *as* homosexual. Nor have I read any literature on this. Gil Costello points out that there are youths with same-sex attarction, who then later arrive at opposite-sex attaction instead; and that there are youths with same-sex attarction who remain with that. But he seems ti think that the existence of the first group, shows that the second group's remaining in their same-sex attraction is something that could have been avoided, either with the right guidance/indoctrination, or at least without the wrong guidance/indoctrination. But why does he think that? That is not a rhetorical quetsion, it is a genuine one - I would be interested to know if he has any reasons to believe that heterosexual orientation is the basic one, and that youth with homosexual orientation needn't stay that way, and can always be educated towards heterosexual orientation? Could it not just be that there are those who have a mere homosexually-oriented phrase, as youth, and those who do not - but rather, have an indelible homosexual orintation, from puberty. All I have to go on is my own experience, which never showed the slightest hint of any homosexual attarction, and very clear and very strong heterosexual attraction from puberty - which I find it impossible to believe could have been swayed in the other direction by education or indictrination (of course, I may be wrong about mysefl!). I find it easy to believe that there are pubescent teenagers out there who have the very same experience as me, just the otherw way round (though of course there is the enormous difference in that we live in an extrodinarily heterosexual and heterosexually explicit culture, and that the presumption is for heterosexuality, which must complicate things). Is there any reasont to think that - contrary to this intuition/assumption - there is the deep assymetry, which Gil Costello seems to take there to be?
7.14.2011 | 7:15am
Gabriel says:
I would also add that many of the videos on 'It gets Better' report intense and prolonged effort - as well, sometimes, as intense prayer - on the part of the youths with same-sex attraction, to change. But to no avail. Does this not speak against (not refute, but at least speak against) Gil Costello's apparent claim that all youths with same-sex attraction can develop out of it into opposite-sex attraction?
7.14.2011 | 3:25pm
Gil Costello says:
Gabriel, you write, "...he [me] seems to think that the existence of the first group, shows that the second group's remaining in their same-sex attraction is something that could have been avoided, either with the right guidance/indoctrination, or at least without the wrong guidance/indoctrination."
I wrote no such thing, nor do I believe that. My point is that there is no honest psychologist that can predict what child who experiences same-sex attraction will become fixed in a homosexual orientation and which ones will develop into a heterosexual attraction. Scientists can argue ad infinitum about causes of homosexual orientation, but we know with certainty there is no gay gene. We do know that for any number of reasons some persons do become fixed in a homosexual orientation. My point is that we have to stop forcing children to become homosexually or heterosexually oriented in indoctrination groups within our schools for the simple reason that no one knows for certain what orientation a child will end up with. Right now sex liberationists in our schools are taking children at earlier and earlier ages who experience same-sex attraction and placing them in gay indoctrination groups.
Prayer, therapy or any other short-term intervention for anything concerning a person's sexuality is not something that should be occurring in schools, to make a child's sexuality conform to anyone’s notion. It is violence against youth. Informing a parent of a child's predicament is what is required.
Finally, what amazes me more than anything in this age of high abstraction, far removed from the real world, is that the easiest thing in the world is to look at a man and woman in all their complex biologically oriented selves and be able to see right away that heterosexuality is the norm, and every other sexual expression, from same-sex to transgendered, is disordered for whatever reasons. The Emperor is not only not wearing clothes, but performing all kinds of self-affirmations to make us believe he is indeed wearing clothes, that we are the ones who are confused.
I wrote no such thing, nor do I believe that. My point is that there is no honest psychologist that can predict what child who experiences same-sex attraction will become fixed in a homosexual orientation and which ones will develop into a heterosexual attraction. Scientists can argue ad infinitum about causes of homosexual orientation, but we know with certainty there is no gay gene. We do know that for any number of reasons some persons do become fixed in a homosexual orientation. My point is that we have to stop forcing children to become homosexually or heterosexually oriented in indoctrination groups within our schools for the simple reason that no one knows for certain what orientation a child will end up with. Right now sex liberationists in our schools are taking children at earlier and earlier ages who experience same-sex attraction and placing them in gay indoctrination groups.
Prayer, therapy or any other short-term intervention for anything concerning a person's sexuality is not something that should be occurring in schools, to make a child's sexuality conform to anyone’s notion. It is violence against youth. Informing a parent of a child's predicament is what is required.
Finally, what amazes me more than anything in this age of high abstraction, far removed from the real world, is that the easiest thing in the world is to look at a man and woman in all their complex biologically oriented selves and be able to see right away that heterosexuality is the norm, and every other sexual expression, from same-sex to transgendered, is disordered for whatever reasons. The Emperor is not only not wearing clothes, but performing all kinds of self-affirmations to make us believe he is indeed wearing clothes, that we are the ones who are confused.
7.15.2011 | 8:20am
Thomas R says:
"Advocating they choose a path of loveless chastity rather than finding a life partner"
Chastity isn't really loveless. You can feel certain kinds of love must be expressed, therefore believe chastity is wrong for taking out sexual/romantic love in one's life, but that's not the same as thinking other kinds of love don't exist. In principle I think, as a Christian, I'm probably to love the men I've been attracted to. It's just a different kind of love.
And there are also plenty of straight people in loveless marriages.
On the article itself I do find Joe Carter to at times be a tad overheated on this. It is good to remember the worrisome aspects of Dan Savage at times when he seems to be becoming "mainstream", but I think focusing one guy and turning him guy into a kind of hate-object is in some ways problematic. There is a risk of succumbing to pride (Picking someone we feel morally superior to so we can aggrandize ourselves) or to even a dehumanization in extreme cases. It's important to remember the humanity of someone who lives in a way you despise. And it's not like he's Levi Aron or something.
Chastity isn't really loveless. You can feel certain kinds of love must be expressed, therefore believe chastity is wrong for taking out sexual/romantic love in one's life, but that's not the same as thinking other kinds of love don't exist. In principle I think, as a Christian, I'm probably to love the men I've been attracted to. It's just a different kind of love.
And there are also plenty of straight people in loveless marriages.
On the article itself I do find Joe Carter to at times be a tad overheated on this. It is good to remember the worrisome aspects of Dan Savage at times when he seems to be becoming "mainstream", but I think focusing one guy and turning him guy into a kind of hate-object is in some ways problematic. There is a risk of succumbing to pride (Picking someone we feel morally superior to so we can aggrandize ourselves) or to even a dehumanization in extreme cases. It's important to remember the humanity of someone who lives in a way you despise. And it's not like he's Levi Aron or something.
8.13.2011 | 1:39am
Lelah Raye says:
The appropriate response to Savage, indeed everyone who plies the message of permissive hedonism that he does, is to engage the argument. Believing that you've won your argument because you've managed to pen a wonderfully florid, ad hominem piece about how your opponent is a bad man is about as smug, deluded and self-serving as anything Savage himself could concoct. I'm checking out the links above and doing other research on this subject, but I've learned to be very cautious when people of one, shall I say, polarized, view of a subject present horror stories about the other side.
8.16.2011 | 9:37am
Delce Marin says:
Perhaps Carter doesn't agree with the way that Dav Savage thinks that a gay child should deal with and live with his/her homosexuality. But surely that is no reason to criticise the essential - I would even say: life-saving - work of the 'It Gets Better' project!? This is so especially given that many of the videos talk of the pain that they suffered from specifically Christian views and rhetoric on the matter of homosexuality. In this comment I am saying nothing about whether this Christian view of homosexulaity is correct or not. Rather, I am addressing only the suffering that gay youth go through - and the fact (apparent form many of the videos) that this sufferung is often exacerbated by Christian friends, parents, pastors, and the like. Surely this is not what is meant to be? Even if you hold that homosexual sex is sinful - this is no excuse for making gay kids feel alienated, hated, or disgusting. If that is what is happining, then even if the Christian message is a right and Godly one, it is clearly being expressed and taught in a terribly wrong and unChristian way. - The 'It Gets Better' project, therefore, is partly aiming to right a grievous wrong that the Christian community is partly responsible for. Instead of atacking it, Joe Carter ought to grateful. In addition, most people are much more moderate than Savage. They ask themselves, "what can a little indulgence here and there hurt?" These people are the most difficult to persuade with arguments that relate to the horrors of hedonism because their behaviors aren't extreme enough to lead to calamitous consequences like disease or addiction.
8.18.2011 | 2:06am
Nigel says:
late comment, but as a Savage fan and occasional reader of First Things, it's probably pertinent to note, if we're taking the ad hominen into account, that Savage is (to the best of my knowledge) happily married with an adopted kid. Married in Canada and with mutually consensual, occasional non-monogamy as part of the marriage, but pretty stolidly bourgeois nonetheless.
5.2.2012 | 12:14pm
JMLearsi says:
The biblical His-story affirms that we are ALL dysfunctional by birth
because of the 'fall'.
When Jesus cried out on the cross "Tetelestai!" (meaning : "It is finished! " or 'the
debt has been paid!') He was saying the "Sin" problem we all are born
with has been taken care of. From now on we are not to regard anyone after the flesh, character wise ,
but regard each other the way God does : FORGIVEN because of the cross.
If anyone demeans or bullies anyone else it means he or she is still 'carnal',
and has not truly understood he or she has been forgiven.
Read Steve Brown's latest book "Three Free Sins" to understand the
Christian perspective of "It gets better."
So...It seems Mr. Savage is still carrying some form of guilt to say and act the way he does towards Christ and Christians.
because of the 'fall'.
When Jesus cried out on the cross "Tetelestai!" (meaning : "It is finished! " or 'the
debt has been paid!') He was saying the "Sin" problem we all are born
with has been taken care of. From now on we are not to regard anyone after the flesh, character wise ,
but regard each other the way God does : FORGIVEN because of the cross.
If anyone demeans or bullies anyone else it means he or she is still 'carnal',
and has not truly understood he or she has been forgiven.
Read Steve Brown's latest book "Three Free Sins" to understand the
Christian perspective of "It gets better."
So...It seems Mr. Savage is still carrying some form of guilt to say and act the way he does towards Christ and Christians.
If Carter has better advice for gay and lesbian teenagers than Savage, he's never provided it in First Things. Advocating they choose a path of loveless chastity rather than finding a life partner makes him the moral cretin in my book.