“Circumlocutions & Faggotré”

I have had to explain this before, but let me conclude by saying it again. It is our duty to be transgressive. Prior to the rise of homosexual activism, I had never once in my life taunted a homosexual because of his vice, whether with word, gesture, or epithet. I was not brought up that way, and I simply wouldn’t do it. But the pretense — and that is what it is, pretense — that these speech codes are being designed to address that particular problem is simply bogus.

And since the rise of “gay pride,” I haven’t taunted victims of vice under these new circumstances either. Why would a preacher of grace taunt victims of sin? What kind of ministry goes around kicking sad people?
Douglas Wilson

6 Comments

  1. “And since the rise of “gay pride,” I haven’t taunted victims of vice under these new circumstances either. Why would a preacher of grace taunt victims of sin? What kind of ministry goes around kicking sad people?” Um, the answer is……YOUR kind of ministry, “Pastor” Wilson. What a stupid and easy question.

    1. He lives in an alternate version of reality. That statement is wholly false. He’s absolutely vile towards them.

  2. Being gay and getting excommunicated from my CREC that was directly overseen by Doug… the expulsion letter didn’t so much as mock homosexuality as it did call it perverse, sinful, etc. That alone is taunting in itself. There is no love in that man.

  3. Doug’s use of language is typical of a man who never matured linguistically or intellectually beyond the persona of a fourteen year old bully – disliked by his peers and adults alike. His ersatz denomination, his grandiose (unrealized) dreams (where is the elusive cathedral), and his remarkably amateur, self-published (frequently plagiarized) literary efforts are (or should be) an embarrassment to his readers. He is a sixty plus years old, cruel buffoon and, as this article demonstrates, an unblushing liar.
    Rose Huskey

  4. He commits the very sin he says he would never do, all the while denying what he’s doing:

    They are now pursuing their agenda by means of a metaphorical parade through the Castro District, wearing nothing but a thong and a sombrero with mangoes and grapes all over it. . . . So now people who strap on pads and who run into each other at full speed for a living are going to be told that if they use particular prohibited words, words that will bruise the petals of the taunted linebacker in question, they will be fined. . . .

    “Your honor, I didn’t know that was the word. I thought the eff-word law was referring to fudgepacker.”

    Note the definition of fudgepacker.

    He then asks,

    So would I ever taunt a slave of a particular sexual sin with a word like faggot? Of course not.

    “Of course not” meaning “I JUST DID REPEATEDLY.”

  5. And he would never excoriate the husband of an abuse victim.

    And he would never attempt to blackmail and silence an abuse victim.

    And he would never deride a Christian woman who thinks patriarchy is from the devil.

    And he would never write mocking books about fellow Christians and give it an inane title like, Evanjellyfish.

    And he would never threaten the demise of an abuse victim’s family business if they didn’t remain loyal to the Dear Leader.

    Hell no, he would never do any of that because he is a good good “pastor.”

Comments are closed.