Friday, June 15, 2012

Letter to OETA's Stateline Program


To Whom It May Concern:

I have just finished watching your program on Thursday, 14 June, on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. I am frankly horrified at the amazingly one-sided treatment you gave the issue. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You interviewed a transgendered person who had been a married man with children, presumably because s/he is suing the OKC PD. Yet you apparently found it too difficult to explore the question of how s/he got to where s/he is with respect to his/her marriage and children. Marriage includes vows such as "...'till death do us part"; where was any treatment of this person's forfeiture of the vows s/he took? Of the effect his/her actions have had and will yet have on his/her children? You interviewed the homosexual founder of IDEA. You interviewed Kathy McCallie, a pastrix so incredibly liberal that she was disciplined and defrocked by the United Methodist Church, and that's really saying something!

The biblical text cited - the one, single, solitary biblical text cited - was Leviticus 18, and Rev McCallie put forth the predictable, disingenuous, and inane argument that since Christians today don't also abstain from shellfish, etc, they have no consistent reason to call homosexuality sin. Where was the response? The best you could do was to show a few graphics of hateful ignorants with badly-printed posters saying "HOMOSEXUALS ARE POSSESSED BY DEMONS"? Really? No dealings with Jesus' specific endorsement of marriage according to God's created order in Matthew 19? Nothing about Romans 1? 1 Corinthians? You do know, don't you, that there are other books in the Bible besides Leviticus?

Are you unaware of the numerous thoughtful Bible-believing pastors in your area? It is unbelievable you could be ignorant thereof. Honestly, it is difficult to conclude that you were pursuing anything other than a prejudicial appeal for acceptance of this lifestyle. You put on airs of seriously engaging the disagreement, yet you hosted zero content from the other side of things. Perhaps for your next show you could display a comparable level of fairness and invite several science professors from OU and OSU to discuss whether science is a good thing and show some pictures of snake handlers in backwoods Kentucky so as to poke further fun at Christianity.

Thank you at least for reinforcing my already well-founded conclusion that liberals much prefer monologue to dialogue. Tolerance is a one-way street with leftists like you.

7 comments:

Leslie Terrell said...

I know the people involved, and they're 1) Religious 2) Kids are doing great, thank you very much and 3) I think the 'other side' gets plenty of press.

Learn tolerance or God will teach it to you. Judging from your blog, you won't like it much, either.

jaykay said...

Call Kathy McCallie predictable, disingenuous, and inane, and you don't have to counter the point she makes. Clever.

Anonymous said...

Oklahoma leads the country in divorce. Yet it claims to be a very Christian state. It would appear yu are guilty of a one sided presentation as you accuse OETA of beind. Rather than questioning the divorce of the subject of this story, you should be exhorting your own to deal more respectfully with the VOW you hold up. I believe there is a NEW Testament quote about a beam in one's own eye. Rather than throw stones at someone else who made a very difficuly decision, you should look within your own and see why this vow is so lightly thrown aside in such great numbers.

Chemist said...

I think Rhology's point is that OETA gave a one-sided presentation of a very contentious issue. For example, he pointed out that McCallie has been defrocked by a church body that generally has a liberal bend. This really does say something! Thus, why should anyone expect McCallie to speak on behalf of the majority of Christians?

I have no idea what you talking about Anonymous. Oklahoma does not lead the nation with divorce rates. In fact, it's not even close to the top. Oklahoma ranks #39 in both marriage and divorce rates for 2009 based on the government census website, although 6 states did not report divorce rate data. Moreover, the 2009 divorce rate in Oklahoma is less than the 2009 marriage rate. To wit, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that Oklahoma "leads the country in divorce."

Beyond that issue, Rhology is not in violation of Luke 6:42; he is not divorced.

Rhology said...

Leslie Terrell,

How are they doing great when their father became a woman? how do you define "great"? HOw do you know your definition is correct?

You say "the people involved" are religious, but so what? Do you believe that being religious is good in and of itself? If so, why? If not, what makes you think the kind of religious they are is the right kind?


Learn tolerance or God will teach it to you

What makes you think I am intolerant? Are you defining "tolerance" as "total unwillingness to ever express any disagreement about modern social buzzwords"? Do I have to fully accept the justifiability of a given issue or lifestyle before I can be labeled "tolerant"?
Are you being tolerant of my own view, in that case?

Rhology said...

jaykay,

I didn't call HER those things (though in my experience she certainly is those things anyway) but rather her ARGUMENT.
And her "point" is easily dispensed with.
Here
Here
Here

The point I was making, as the Chemist already said, is that the program was so one-sided. But even worse is that the program pretended to show the other side of things in its images of "HOMOSEXUALS ARE POSSESSED BY DEMONS", etc. That is simply disingenuous and reasonable people should call it for what it is.

Rhology said...

Anonymous,
I *do* exhort my own to deal with divorce. See how you judged me right there, w/o any knowledge about me? THAT is intolerance.

Also, I don't see any special programs airing on broadcast TV celebrating the virtues and extolling the wonders of divorce. If I did, I'd criticise them for the same reasons.

What are you talking about when you say "throw stones"? Do you really think that writing a criticism on a third-rate blog constitutes an action that is justifiably compared to executing someone or at least committing an act of violence? How do you figure?
Or is it just that you bristle every time someone dares question your most dearly-held dogma?