Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our old friend Nathan Bradfield has written another ridiculous anti-gay screed that is rather amusing to read. He's got his panties in a bunch over a booklet about sexual orientation sent to every public school in the country by a group of organizations that includes the American Psychological Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the Interfaith Alliance (see full text of that booklet here). You especially have to laugh at "logic" like this:
The question from homosexual advocates is always, "if homosexuality is a choice, why would one choose it if it causes all the emotional distress?" The answer is simple: The person made a poor moral choice. It's the same reason we see school shootings.
This kind of stupidity really should be painful. How ridiculous is the notion that one just flippantly chooses to be gay - or that one just flippantly chooses to shoot up a school. This clueless dolt actually thinks that a teenager just waked up one day and thinks, "I think I'll decide to be attracted to my same gender. It'll be great. I'll be ostracized from society, my friends will hate me, my parents may disown me, random strangers will beat me up. This is gonna be awesome!"
But even if that weren't the case, his answer would still make no sense because it's a tautology: "Why do people choose to do X? Because they choose to do X." Brilliant. If I had made the choice to be straight, I might buy that people choose to be gay. But I didn't. When I hit puberty, I was attracted sexually to girls. There was no choice involved.
Comments
What to do about this:
When you hear extremists spouting that kind of nonsense, ask them:
"When did you choose to be heterosexual, and can you tell us how you made the choice?"
They will of course sputter & spew some more, but keep after them about it, ask follow-ups. Ask them if they had feelings for members of their own sex and made a deliberate choice to forego acting on those feelings in order to be heterosexual. Ask them how strong the feelings were, and what they had to do to reinforce their choice to be heterosexual. Ask them if they had feelings for both genders. Ask them if they had feelings for their pets, and if they ever felt like marrying their dog (as per what's his name from Pennsylvania who went on about "next they'll be asking for the right to marry their dogs.."). You get the idea...
Also useful to ask:
"Why are YOU so OBSESSED with homosexuality?"
and
"Why are you so obsessed with OTHER PEOPLE'S sex lives?"
Posted by: g510 | February 26, 2008 9:57 AM
Re: g510's comment. This is the kind of thing I would expect to always be useless, except... I once asked someone who had called homosexuality a choice, whether they could ever imagine making that choice. Of course they said, no, because the thought of being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex repulsed them. So I followed up with, "Could anyone who is repulsed by the thought make that choice? Or would you already have to have some attraction in that direction to make such a choice." By god, it worked! The person actually started thinking about it.
But I still wouldn't expect it to work very often. It requires that the person be at least semi-logical.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 26, 2008 10:05 AM
Who knows why people become Gay, are they born that way, do they become that way due to some traumatic life event?
Is it genetic (no proof so far) or is it a mental disorder? I guess the only answer is time and research will tell.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | February 26, 2008 11:02 AM
The problem is that is isn't quite as simple as Ed suggests.
We are not either gay or straight. It is not a simple dichotomy. The is a continuum from completely gay through bisexual to completely straight.
There are folks who are near the bisexual node, and some of those can actually choose to be gay or straight.
The consensus among the gay folks I have spoken with ( not a lot - this isn't scientific at all) is that a higher percentage of women than men tend toward that bisexual node. Many lesbians tell me that a lot of lesbians are "political" lesbians - they turned to lesbianism because they were disgusted with men or what they perceive as a male-dominated society.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 26, 2008 11:05 AM
AFSGTSAM- Funny, the same questions apply to heterosexuality.
Posted by: Rick R | February 26, 2008 11:05 AM
If we could choose who we were attracted to, the world would be a simpler, but more boring place. I present to you a play in one act, Romeo And Juliet in Fundieland
The scene: A Hall in Capulet's House.
ROMEO
What is her mother?
Nurse
Marry, bachelor,
Her mother is the lady of the house,
And a good lady, and a wise and virtuous
I nursed her daughter, that you talk'd withal;
I tell you, he that can lay hold of her
Shall have the chinks.
ROMEO
Is she a Capulet?
Oh well, I will just stop loving her and choose to fall in love with someone else. Sorry to have bothered you all.
EXEUNT OMNES
THE END
Posted by: Donalbain | February 26, 2008 11:09 AM
Funny, I am repulsed by the idea of shooting up a bunch of people whom never done anything to me. I am not repulsed by whom I am attracted to. Silly me, I see loving someone and shooting someone as very different things.
Bradfield's moral vision is something I will never see.
Posted by: Janine | February 26, 2008 11:10 AM
AFSGTSAM, you are wrong that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, there is quite a bit.
And for you to say that it is a "mental disorder" is quite an ignorant thing to put forward. The American Psychiatric Association has said quite specifically that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. This has been their assessment for at least one or two decades now.
Homosexuality is NOT included in the DSM-IV.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders)
At all.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 26, 2008 11:12 AM
The question isn't so much what causes sexual orientation (does that really matter?), it's what homophobes THINK causes homosexuality. It usually vacillates between "sinful choice" and "sickness."
What amuses me most about rabid homophobes (especially the religious ones) is that they're afraid that any exposure to "the gay lifestyle" is irresistably seductive, particularly to teens and children. Of course, that attitude gives us rather more glamour than we actually deserve. (I am many cool and wonderful things, but one thing I am NOT is irresistable!)
Other amusing myths that homophobes clutch to desperately are that we are all predators toward children, and that none of us can resist making a pass at any man we cross paths with--especially straight men. It's all just sex! sex! sex! with us, they think. My life should be so depraved! :)
Posted by: gary l. day | February 26, 2008 11:21 AM
Posted by: SeanH | February 26, 2008 11:56 AM
There's a twist on this which is fun to use against bigots. After they tell you it's a choice, simply ask them if they are equally attracted to penises or vaginas, but consciously choose the opposite sex exclusively. Most of them high tail it away from 'choice' pretty damn fast.
Posted by: DarkSyde | February 26, 2008 12:12 PM
Gingerbaker:
My understanding is that most fertile area of current research (at least for male homosexuality) is not genetic but the intrauterine environment - specifically the level of hormones.Posted by: Alan B. | February 26, 2008 12:12 PM
"But even if that weren't the case, his answer would still make no sense because it's a tautology: "Why do people choose to do X? Because they choose to do X." Brilliant. If I had made the choice to be straight, I might buy that people choose to be gay. But I didn't. When I hit puberty, I was attracted sexually to girls. There was no choice involved."
All behavior is a choice. The question is why we are inclined toward certain behaviors individually and collectively as humans. I personally do not think there is a gay gene, murder gene, or adulterer gene etc.
This whole discussion goes back to the movie "Trading Places". Is it nature or nurture? I am not sure any of us have all the answers. But when behavior is no longer a choice then we have problems as a human race. This lends to the victim mentality that I used to hear from my students in the Ghetto's of D.C.: "I am ghetto I cannot help it."
I fully understood that these kids had been through more in life than I will ever go through. But to let them get away with that comment would be a travesty. I think there is room for compassion for the history and pain of people and still hold people accountable for their actions. I am not saying homosexuality is a crime or whatever. I am saying, this type of logic can lead us down a road we do not want to go. A road where everything is ok because because I am just this way and had no choice.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 12:45 PM
Of course for the fundies there is no such thing as a homosexual. In their universe, men are only (naturally) attracted to women for the purposes of making souls for their invisible best friend. Women are not sexual, they comply with their place as vessels for THE SEED©®(and milk supply when needed). ANY variation from this structure represents a conscious effort by a lost soul. Nothing more or less.
Posted by: WBPNYC | February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
Ed's point about choice is certainly correct from a logical standpoint, but it's ultimately irrelevant.
Choice or no, what difference should it make to you and me who consenting adults choose to love and what they choose to do with their genitalia in the privacy of their homes?
The people who don't get this are just intolerant busybodies.
Posted by: Kevin Klein | February 26, 2008 12:56 PM
I choose to flap my arms and fly out my 4th floor office window then....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa..aaa...aaa.aa!!
Posted by: Dave S. | February 26, 2008 12:58 PM
"king" of ireland:
AAAGGGHHH! Do you reduce YOURSELF to "behaviors"?!? Then why reduce anyone else as such? Is one nurtured to be heterosexual? How about by the ENTIRE universe. If my two straight parents, my straight siblings, my ENTIRE F'ING STRAIGHT WORLD attempted to "nurture" me straight (and BOY did they EVER) and failed - then what happens to your "argument"? Doesn't your insistence on starting with an assertion of "fact" with "I personally do not think" kind of empties out everything that follows, no?
Posted by: WBPNYC | February 26, 2008 1:00 PM
"Choice or no, what difference should it make to you and me who consenting adults choose to love and what they choose to do with their genitalia in the privacy of their homes?
The people who don't get this are just intolerant busybodies.'
I would agree with this statement 100 percent.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 1:01 PM
Ed, off topic, but I'm trying to catch your attention and can't get the email address in your contact section to work.
I have a comment stuck in moderation on the "No More Ms. Nice Guy" thread. Would you be kind enough to set it free?
Cordially,
JH
Posted by: James Hanley | February 26, 2008 1:03 PM
"AAAGGGHHH! Do you reduce YOURSELF to "behaviors"?!? Then why reduce anyone else as such? Is one nurtured to be heterosexual? How about by the ENTIRE universe. If my two straight parents, my straight siblings, my ENTIRE F'ING STRAIGHT WORLD attempted to "nurture" me straight (and BOY did they EVER) and failed - then what happens to your "argument"? Doesn't your insistence on starting with an assertion of "fact" with "I personally do not think" kind of empties out everything that follows, no?"
I am not saying that "nurturing" someone will take away attraction to the opposite sex. Second, I would be the first to agree that we cannot reduce everything to behavior. The fact I asserted is a fact. I do not have to do anything. I always have a choice. I am attracted to women. I do not have to sleep with one. It is a choice.
As far as my opinion about "genes" or genetic reasons for certain behaviors it is just that. I am not a scientist or pyschatrist. I do have a Grandmother that is Bi-Polar. I feel for her when she struggles. But her behavior is a choice. SHe does not have to get angry and go off. It is much harder for her than most not to but she does have a free will.
This can delve into fatalism. I watched it in Western China. Tibetan Buddhism is fatalistic at its core. People think they have to suffer because of karma and what not. That is what I am addressing. As far as you I have no problem with you. I am sorry that so many who speak in the name of have a problem with you. I have no idea what it is like to be discriminated against, beat up, and all the rest.
The only reason I even comment on these threads is so people can see that the minority that do this stuff in the name of Christian are not the only people out there. As a group we should be ashamed of the way we treat this issue. All it does is hurt and degrade people most of the time. I work with a Lesbian girl who knows I am a former preacher and missionary. She talks to me about her ex girlfriends. I think one broke her heart. I am more concerned about her getting over that rejection than telling her that God disapproves.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 1:19 PM
KoI- So if I follow your reasoning, we must continue to persecute gay people because, if we stopped, then murder and adultery and "anything at all" will become normal and accepted?
Yes, how we behave is definitely a choice. Ed states that he has always been attracted to the opposite sex. So he chooses to pursue his interest, which just happens to be socially acceptable.
Gay people, OTOH, find members of the same gender attractive. Many of us decide that there is nothing inherently wrong about our feelings, and CHOOSE to pursue healthy loving relationships regardless of what the greater culture might feel about such relationships.
I've never felt any personal choice about how I FEEL, but living my life in the open is definitely a CHOICE I've made. And until someone can prove to me that my choice definitively harms someone else, I will continue to make that choice.
Your analogy falls apart, King, precisely because you are lumping gay people together with murderers, adulterers, etc. as much as you claim you don't. Sexuality can be expressed in ways that ARE criminal and demonstrably harmful to others (pedophilia, rape etc.), but sexuality itself is ethically neutral. It just is. It's what we as humans DO with it that matters.
Our culture's continued oppression of gay people is wrong and unjust. Those who perpetuate that injustice are ALSO making a choice. And the burden of proof is on them to show how that choice can be justified.
Posted by: Rick R | February 26, 2008 1:20 PM
A critique, and a defense, of King of Ireland.
KoI wrote:
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You don't know a damn thing about being bipolar. Your grandmother doesn't sit around and say, "hmm, I think I'll fly into a screaming rage, break shit, lose my job, alienate friends and family, because I want to make that choice. The little homunculus in the brain is no match for the the various chemicals there that cause your grandmother to lose control. It's not just "much harder" for your grandmother--it's at times impossible not to go off.
Rick R. wrote:
KoI said no such thing, and it's a wildly dishonest mis-interpretation on your part. It's impossible to have thoughtful discussions when people refuse to deal with what's actually said, but want to pretend other commenters actually said something more obnoxious. I'd point you to where KoL said he said he 100% agreed that what you do with your privates are nobody else's business.
All KoI said was that he didn't believe our genes cause these behaviors, but that behaviors are freely chosen. I obviously don't agree with him--not 100%--but your spin was vicious and dishonest.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 26, 2008 1:58 PM
KoI, your choice argument is based on a false analogy between the behavioral choices you allow people. You are attracted to women but can choose to sleep with them, or not--both of these options are personally and socially acceptable options. A gay man is attracted to men and can choose to sleep with them, or not--only one socially acceptable choice here (as well as only one that is personally acceptable to you). Add in your option of sleeping with men despite not being attracted to them, which you will summarily reject, and you have reserved three socially acceptable choices for yourself while offering only two to your gay brother. And one of those is no more a realistic "choice" for him than the potential for having sex with men is for you, while the other is a piss-poor "choice" for anyone who wants a shot at the same kind of fulfilling-life-with-partner you claim the right to pursue unfettered.
Attracted to women but celibate? Good. Attrated to women and sexually active with them? Good. Attracted to men but celibate? Good. Attracted to men and sexually active with them? Bad. Equivalent "choices" for straight and gay? Not even close.
Posted by: boltgirl | February 26, 2008 1:58 PM
Geesh. I find it hard to take seriously a person who presents and Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie as evidence. While we certainly make choices about our sexual lives it seems rather obvious that being unable to find the opposite sex sexually attractive is anything less than natural to that person.
Apart from that the quote in question draws parallels between the morality of murder and homosexuality! Whatever other permutations of experience and opinion you have King of Ireland, surely you agree that that is a hurtful and dangerous statement, that represents logic as much as your slippery slope argument implying, by telling gays they did not make a choice we are telling children in poor urban areas they have no choice but to do nothing. Again, you are equating a sexual behavior with a social ill. Why?
And fatalism is a hallmark of religion, by the way. While you may see it in the Tibetan Budhism I see it in Christianity with revelation. Odd how these religious dogmas are choosen by people who think it is their moral imperative to "help" gays in their choices.
Posted by: B8ovin | February 26, 2008 2:01 PM
"KoI- So if I follow your reasoning, we must continue to persecute gay people because, if we stopped, then murder and adultery and "anything at all" will become normal and accepted?"
I do not advocate persecuting gay people. The guys who do this are wrong. I have said that many times before. I agree with Ed they should be stopped. I do not believe that homosexuality is not a choice. At least as far as behavior. I had to admit on the Why Gay Marriage Matters post that if I had to put the Bible aside and not be able to say God said I cannnot explain why I think it is un-natural to be attracted to the same sex. I do believe this though.
"And until someone can prove to me that my choice definitively harms someone else,"
I do not think you are harming anyone. I can understand the need for companionship and feelings. I am sorry that most of the culture does what it does. It is a choice and it is wrong. Someone said on another post that maybe God is less concerned with homosexuality than church hypocrites. I think this could be right.
This is the hardest thing in the world to do: Make a moral judgement and not impose it on others. My moral judgements come from the Bible. I do not want to impose them on you. I am not equating you with a murderer or thief. I know it does not sound that way but I am not doing that. I am not better than anyone else. We are all sinners. That is the one thing we have in common. For religion to elevate 2 or 3 sins above all others and impost their morality on others is wrong.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 2:06 PM
James Hanley wrote- "All KoI said was that he didn't believe our genes cause these behaviors, but that behaviors are freely chosen. I obviously don't agree with him--not 100%--but your spin was vicious and dishonest."
Sorry James, I don't agree. As much as KoI claims otherwise, he is constantly equivocating sexual behavior with crime. If not civil, then moral. There is much double-think in his opinions as stated on this board. If I knew him in my personal life, I would run from such an individual. He is constantly sending mixed messages, and I simply point this out to him.
Posted by: Rick R | February 26, 2008 2:09 PM
"King" said "All behavior is a choice."
That's totally disingenuous. It most certainly is not a choice to be same sex attracted and its immoral to suggest that people should ignore one of their strongest natural drives just to please others who are in no way harmed by it.
King said "The question is why we are inclined toward certain behaviors individually and collectively as humans. I personally do not think there is a gay gene, murder gene, or adulterer gene etc.".
Once again you put the lie to your claim to not want to hurt gay people. You can't resist implying that gayness is the same as murder or adultery - you are hurting gays by promoting the idea that their doing something wrong, that they are evil in the way adultery and murder is evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.
That's totall
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 26, 2008 2:28 PM
KOI: All behavior is a choice
It must be very convenient to go through life with such a simple explanation for something that is in reality so complicated.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 26, 2008 2:34 PM
You know, when I hit puberty I did have to make a choice. I was sexually attracted to both sexes. I didn't have any control over that. But I had enough common sense to keep my bisexual preferences to myself for fear of getting the life kicked out of me. So, twenty-five years ago, I chose girls for the sake of survival. I was lucky, though. At least I could still make a choice and be happy.
Posted by: Jay | February 26, 2008 2:57 PM
Speaking as a qualified homosexual it's all about who you love. If you are in a relationship with someone and you don't want to end the relationship simply to be with someone of the opposite gender...I should think that is simple enough.
And I might add this guy is probably a closet case. Anyone who invests time and energy in anti-gay causes is usually a closet case. Nothing else can explain the energy these people devote to their efforts.
Posted by: Timothy | February 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Really I think there is a big jump from adultery to murder as such as not to be used in the same sentence. Perhaps theft, rape, etc you know, actual crimes.
In some ways some peoples compulsion to stray is every bit as innate as is homosexuality. Doesn't make it correct of course but the biology is there.
Posted by: JimC | February 26, 2008 3:30 PM
You see, that's a scientific question. It's testable.
Question: Are there gays who have not gone through "some traumatic life event"?
Answer: Yes.
Logical conclusion: Gays "do not become that way due to some traumatic life event". Try looking for some other possible reason; that one is out.
For example, male homosexuality is correlated to certain ratios of the lengths of different fingers, and it's correlated to above-average female fertility in the same family. Sound like promising directions for research, don't they?
Many homophobes have a strikingly hard time imagining anyone might not be gay or at least bisexual. Make of that what you will. <innocent whistling>
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 26, 2008 3:40 PM
Sorry Timothy, but I have to ask. How does one become a "qualified homosexual"? Is there a test? Do you get a membership card and secret decoder ring?
As far as KoI is concerned, hou keep talking about behavior. Yes, your Grandmother might be able to control her actions (and I say might), but that doesn't change the fact that she's bi-polar. A homosexual might choose to be celibate, but that doesn't change their orientation. It's not about what they do with their squishy bits. It's about who they are. You don't seem to get that.
Posted by: Sam Lewis | February 26, 2008 3:50 PM
My cousin is an example of how you become Gay due to a traumatic life even...She was a loving wife and mother of 2 children. Her husband over time became violent and abusive. She is now a Lesbian and has been living a lesbian lifestyle for 15 years. She was not born gay if she were a hetero lifestlyle would be unthinkable. She was a battered woman who mad a lifestyle choice due to bad events.
There are many many examples of this out there.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM
KoI: "All behavior is a choice"
I think we are having a semantics problem here (as well as more serious ones). The word he should have used (which is what he meant) is "action". However, even in that case I think we are looking at some serious misunderstanding of the concept of choice.
Behaviours are complex, and they can be influenced by genetic background (well, at least in flies, worms and mice...which are some of our best model organisms for the study of biology. Mice share something like 80% or more of their genes with us). Courting same sex partners and making a family with them, those are complex behaviours.
Single actions...well, we can make decisions about those. But chances are that each of us has a certain inclination toward certain kinds of actions or not, some more than others. Example: heterosexual people will have an inclination to have sex (action) with members of the opposite sex. That inclination is much lower (or absent) in gay people. So, although we can both choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, we do not have the same inclination to do it - which makes the choices different: being attracted to something attracted is radically different to being attracted to something repulsive, so the resulting action, if it is apparently the same, has completely different consequences on the individual, as well as most probably very different causes.
Simple example: a worm likes 100mM salt, and normally moves towards it. The same worm dislikes 1M salt. Now, the worm can "choose" to move toward one or the other - but why would it move toward a repellent? Worms who are attracted to repellents tend to have a different genetic background and/or they were trained to get used to higher salt concentrations.
I know that this is an extreme simplification, but I hope it gets the main idea through.
Comparisons between homosexuality and crime, or homosexuality and mental health disorders are inappropriate - and they should completely be disregarded as spin/propaganda.
Posted by: steppen wolf | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM
AFSGTSAM your cousin is bisexual. She didn't become lesbian due to her violent husband. The vast majority of gays and lesbians had normal upbringings and knew they were same sex attracted at a very young age. You can't make someone gay by traumatizing them.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 26, 2008 4:16 PM
they're natural
*whisper, whisper*
what? we weren't talking about Jamie Lee Curtis? sorry, my bad
Posted by: skyotter | February 26, 2008 4:17 PM
KoI, you're right, in a very literal sense, that homosexual behavior is a choice. The problem with people like you is that you never take into account identity. But why should this surprise anyone? If I've read you right, you're a Christian? A religion that has the possibility to reduce good behavior merely to an order would seem to breed people that can't look past choice.
The other part of that problem is that even if I decided to leave my partner and marry a woman, I would still be gay. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?
Posted by: Bachalon | February 26, 2008 4:24 PM
So, how many of us chose to be right or left handed?
Did anyone decide at some point in their childhood to be right-handed as opposed to left?
Did anyone in their teens then decide to switch hands and become a left-hander?
Sexual orientation is basically the same thing, except that sexual orientation is even stronger and more dynamic than merely right vs left hand bias.
Posted by: Caliban | February 26, 2008 4:25 PM
The notion that being gay has anything to do with morality is stupid.
Posted by: George | February 26, 2008 4:47 PM
KoI, I agree that homosexual behaviour is a choice, in exactly the same sense that heterosexual behaviour is a choice.
The real question is, by what justification do you compare homosexual activity to murder and adultery, as opposed to heterosexual activity?
By what justification should we discourage or inhibit homosexuals in living fulfilling lives as sexual beings, doing manifest harm to them in the process?
Posted by: DaveL | February 26, 2008 5:17 PM
I agree with JimC above. This linking of items is in and of itself strange.
Although neither have a thing to do with being gay is true.
Posted by: Chetaylor | February 26, 2008 5:32 PM
Just to provide a little levity here in an otherwise serious discussion: try entering "Nathan Bradfield" or "Church and State" along with "Bradfield" into Google and see what comes up. LOL! Ah, schadenfreude....and kudos to Kevin Beck.
Posted by: Adrienne | February 26, 2008 5:33 PM
As an example, I think KOI is wrong in his belief that homosexuality is a choice however he appears to state that homosexuals should not be treated differently or denied rights.
Maybe it is time to not bicker about the specificities of what people believe but how that belief is measured against more important ideas about fairness and humanity.
I don't think the murder and adultery examples are appropriate as comparisons however I'm pretty sure most people can think of some behind closed door actions that definitely make you go EEEUUUUW but really why should we care? I don't, it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter. I don't have to approve of a behavior, belief or action or whether something is natural or not if it makes someone else happy. It doesn't hurt or bother me or hamper me from doing what I believe so although I disagree with KOI in his assertions as to what makes a person homosexual, I think that he understands that it is even more important to treat all human beings equally whether or not he approves.
Posted by: JoH | February 26, 2008 5:43 PM
You may have a point, JoH. I think that KOI is ignorant on this topic (and others), but he's not as bad as some of the more flagrant bigots out there.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Let me start off by saying that I know both research and anecdotal evidence points toward sexual orientation being inborn, not chosen.
But even if it's a choice, so the fuck what? I don't care what a bunch of bigots think. Even if people outright _chose_ to be gay, so what? All this harping on how it isn't a choice just seems like pandering to bigots, trying to defend gays from people who wouldn't "like" or "approve" of them even if you did convince them there's no choice involved.
The whole thing makes it sound like it's only okay to be gay because you were born that way, and that the bigots would be right if it was "just" a choice.
Don't get me wrong - I know there is legitimacy to the argument that inborn things should be more off-limits to criticism, like one's ethnicity or gender or disabilities. And I'm fine with one's sexual orientation being added to that list.
But it shouldn't matter whether it's inborn or a choice, except perhaps as something to investigate for pure science's sake.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | February 26, 2008 6:44 PM
In all fairness, that's generally not a very accurate description of school shootings.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 26, 2008 6:46 PM
Considering the social environment you seem to have grown up in, it is entirely plausible that she was never attracted to men but married one and let one stick it in her even though she hated it, because she had been taught that this was her duty as a woman, etc. There are numerous examples of this, too.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 26, 2008 6:57 PM
King of Ireland
You claim that your moral judgements come from the bible, but they don't. They come from your choices. You have selected some of the moral judgements of the bible while rejecting others. You have chosen to condemn homosexuality, the bible is just your rationalisation.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 26, 2008 7:57 PM
The anti-gay crowd prefers to think of homosexuality as a "choice". Conversely the pro-gay crowd prefers to think of homosexuality as genetic. The truth is probably something very complicated that involves multiple factors. But in my mind the whole debate seems crazy and dangerous. Can homosexuals only be afforded equal rights if we can prove that there sexual orientation is genetic? If scientific evidence arose that disproved that genetic theory would we then use that as grounds for backtracking on gay rights?
Posted by: cheddar | February 26, 2008 7:59 PM
Warning: self-promotion :-). I co-authored a piece in the Hestings Center Report in 1997 (getting old - me that is) with Ed Stein, Bill Byne and Jacinta Kerin which looks at most of the issues discussed on this thread, namely the choice issue, questions of causation, illness, and ethics. Might be of interest to one or another.
http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm
udo schuklenk
Posted by: udo schuklenk | February 26, 2008 8:01 PM
Bingo, and well said. The central issue here is that my or your or anyone's lifestyle choices (including sexual habits), however weird or perverse (by anyone's standards), whether determined genetically or environmentally, chosen arbitrarily or any combination thereof, are nobody's business except those most closely involved, and should never constitute grounds for denial of basic human rights. Arguments about the determinants of sexual orientation, while no doubt useful in themselves, and a valid response the Bible-spouting morons who talk about "choosing to be gay", are simply irrelevant to that issue. A perfectly appropriate response to the accusation of "choice" is: "So, what difference would it make if I did choose to be gay? MYOFB".
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 26, 2008 10:10 PM
Fair enough Eamon, I agree with you, but this concept of "choice" has got to be addressed regardless.
People choose to be gay as much as people of colour choose not to be white, and short people choose not to be tall. There are a lot of other factors involved in whether you will end up really dark skinned or really tall (to make an example) - and anyone who knows that phenotype is not just a simple linear consequence of your genotype knows that.
But in most cases, the simplification applies.
And as long as religious bigots will be able to say that this is a "choice" (seen as something completely detached and independent from our own natural personal inclinations) and therefore we are "choosing to sin", there will be people being hanged, stoned, tortured and raped because of it.
Posted by: steppen wolf | February 26, 2008 10:33 PM
Well, one of the problems is that, in law at least, immutability can make a difference. One of the rules for considering whether a group fits suspect classification is that the group's characteristics are immutable. And so judges can say that any discrimination against gay people must meet only standard scrutiny (in layman's terms: "We'll let the legislature do whatever the fuck it wants" [can you tell I'm not a lawyer?]) rather than heightened or strict scrutiny.
If it were accepted that sexual orientation is not a choice, then we might even get it deemed a suspect class. Maybe.
Ideally, I agree with you--it shouldn't matter even if people did choose to be gay. However, the idea that it is a choice is simply false, and I think battling people's false perceptions of homosexuality is exceedingly important.
Posted by: Skemono | February 26, 2008 10:48 PM
On the thread "Why Gay Marriage matters, again". I posted.
"KoI - What your basiscally saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): "I think homosexuality is wrong. I can't really say WHY I think this, I just do. The bible agrees with me therefore I'll believe the bible." Is that a fair summary?..."
I just repeat it here in case you miss it there. - Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 27, 2008 1:57 AM
The reason we must address the choice issue is that there are more subtle things going on than outright denial of human rights. There is the continuous undercurrent of pressure in homophobic religious sects to "fix" homosexuals and make them straight.
Arguably no harm can be done in simply getting someone to change his or her mind. The fact is, however, sexual orientation is not a choice and great psychological harm is being done to people by pressuring them to live as heterosexuals when it feels wrong to them on a primal level.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 5:51 AM
DJ, I got the impression that the primary reason why KoI thinks homosexuality is wrong is because, as a straight person, he personally finds it 'icky'... and therefore "unnatural". He's never had to think through it any further than that since religion has been a crutch for him, confirming this judgement without having to examine it.
But that's the difference... Sure, as a straight guy myself, I find that the homosexual act is either a very big turnoff (in the case of men), or a very big turnon (if it's two attractive women... lol).
But joking aside, the difference between KoI and myself is that he, for some reason, equates his feeling of ickiness to them acting 'unnatural', and therefore a behaving immorally... even if it's just a little immoral, on par with being a gossip or a hypocrite in church.
But I just take the ethic of reciprocity (aka... the golden rule) and recognize that I can't find anything that gay persons actual do is any different from anyone else. Therefore I have a 'live and let live' attitude. Afterall, if I had such a superficial difference, I wouldn't want to be discriminated against based on such a trivial reason, either.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 27, 2008 8:18 AM
Since my last comment, like DingoJack's, refers to comments on another thread, I just cross-posted it over there for easy reference:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/why_gay_marriage_matters_again.php#comment-766178
KoI, if you feel up to the task of responding, feel free to do it on either thread.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 27, 2008 8:21 AM
Not only is that all true, but the argument is telling in an even greater way that is often the case with arguments coming from the religious; its an argument from cowardice. His basic logic is that "If A is an unpopular decision, then it is a poor one". There's not much difference morally between this kind of thinking and the old religious hedging that a person should believe in god "just in case he's real". Says a lot about the depths of his devotion to these principals, doesn't it.
Posted by: Julian | February 27, 2008 8:21 AM
If icky = immoral, then eating Durian would be immoral. Maybe surgery would be immoral. Nursing sure as heck would be! Should it be considered immoral to help an old man use a bedpan?
The extent to which something is inborn matters a lot to social regulation. "All men are created equal" and all that. If people are created homosexual, then its really a moral imperative to try to treat that equally. You can consider it a handicap or not, but you shouldn't make a person's life more difficult than necessary because of it.
Someone above talked about being left-handed, and that's really an excellent analogy. It's roughly 10% of the population, appears to be an inborn trait, is publicly visible but can be concealed, and used to be discriminated against.
These days, at least in the English-speaking world, it's a non-issue. It requires specially adapting some tools and sporting equipment (which can be expensive and inconvenient), but I've never heard of a social prejudice. Accommodating left-handed players is a standard and unremarkable part of sports. It's one of those bits of trivia buried on "did you know" pages about celebrities. (George H.W. Bush is left-handed, but George W. is right-handed. Does anyone care much?)
What I can't figure out is why being homosexual is so much bigger a deal.
Posted by: Dan S | February 27, 2008 10:02 AM
When it's cut fresh from the tree, durian really isn't all that bad. But other than that, it (literally) smells and tastes like crap!
Of course it's an aquired taste... I know plenty of people who love the stuff. In fact, I know a place outside of Providence RI where you can purchase durian icecream. NASTY!!11one
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 27, 2008 10:15 AM
Apart from that the quote in question draws parallels between the morality of murder and homosexuality! Whatever other permutations of experience and opinion you have King of Ireland, surely you agree that that is a hurtful and dangerous statement, that represents logic as much as your slippery slope argument implying, by telling gays they did not make a choice we are telling children in poor urban areas they have no choice but to do nothing. Again, you are equating a sexual behavior with a social ill. Why?
And fatalism is a hallmark of religion, by the way. While you may see it in the Tibetan Budhism I see it in Christianity with revelation. Odd how these religious dogmas are choosen by people who think it is their moral imperative to "help" gays in their choices.
I am not saying homosexual behavior is as bad as murder. I am saying all sin is sin. Obviously, different sins have different consequences for ourselves and others. I can see why you might think that is what I was saying but I do not believe that.
I have no intention of helping gays in their choices. My focus is to treat all people the same as: 1. Enormously valuable because we are made in the image of God 2. Inately sinful from birth. Myself included.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 1:46 PM
KoI, you're right, in a very literal sense, that homosexual behavior is a choice. The problem with people like you is that you never take into account identity. But why should this surprise anyone? If I've read you right, you're a Christian? A religion that has the possibility to reduce good behavior merely to an order would seem to breed people that can't look past choice.
The other part of that problem is that even if I decided to leave my partner and marry a woman, I would still be gay. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?
Good behavior is not the point of Christianity. I guarentee that most people on here, if we added up a lifetime of bad behavior, would be better people than me. I trust in the grace of God. The only way to see it is to see that we are inately sinful. It is absurd to rank one sin over another in regard to that. As far as trying to achieve a good or just society, homosexuality or lack there of is not something that is even on my radar screen in that there are so many other things to worry about. With that said, I believe it is wrong. I am not going to change that. I think looking at a woman with lust is wrong. Most people think that is crazy. I am either right or wrong but I am consistent.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 1:55 PM
Sorry James, I don't agree. As much as KoI claims otherwise, he is constantly equivocating sexual behavior with crime. If not civil, then moral. There is much double-think in his opinions as stated on this board. If I knew him in my personal life, I would run from such an individual. He is constantly sending mixed messages, and I simply point this out to h
FOR THE RECORD HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CRIME. NEITHER IS ADULTERY. MY LOOKING AT AN 18 YEAR OLD GIRL'S ASS THE OTHER DAY IS NOT A CRIME. In my view based on the Bible all are sins. Along with many other types of behavior. If someone tried to make an anti gay law I would fight it.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 2:00 PM
"King", you're contradicting yourself does little for your credibility. Its hard to believe you would fight an anti-gay law when you continually go out of your way to equate gayness with adulter, murder, hypocrisy, and gossiping and promote the idea that gays are doing something wrong. You're under the delusion that saying you're a sinner yourself makes it okay for you to call gays sinners for merely being gay - it most certainly does not. If you want to acknowledge the wrongs you've committed, fine, but don't go equating that with gayness where no one is harmed and people's needs for romance and companionship are met - not even remotely the same sort of thing.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 2:25 PM
I know an unfortunate lady whose story is very similar. She married her (male) best friend to appease her fundy parents and even had a baby. She lost her friendship with her husband when they divorced (it was more complicated than simply not being attracted to men; he knew she was a lesbian long before the wedding) and was disowned by her parents when she finally worked up the courage to move in with her longtime lover.
Some choice!
Posted by: twincats | February 27, 2008 2:36 PM
Supposing homosexuality is a choice (and everything points to that not being the case), shouldn't they then get equal rights like other large groups of people who make life decisions based on a choice?
As an adult, your religion is fully a choice. You get special treatment and a pass for doing things a lot of us (including members of other religions) think is stupid, dangerous, deluded and frankly hinting at a mental deficiency or sickness. That's way worse than anything I can ascribe to a loving couple of adults who choose (going with the assumption it is a choice for this question) to love a member of the same sex.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 27, 2008 3:12 PM
Sorry hit post too soon...
And since they are just asking for equal treatment, seems like a pretty reasonable request.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 27, 2008 3:15 PM
""King", you're contradicting yourself does little for your credibility. Its hard to believe you would fight an anti-gay law when you continually go out of your way to equate gayness with adulter, murder, hypocrisy, and gossiping and promote the idea that gays are doing something wrong. You're under the delusion that saying you're a sinner yourself makes it okay for you to call gays sinners for merely being gay - it most certainly does not. If you want to acknowledge the wrongs you've committed, fine, but don't go equating that with gayness where no one is harmed and people's needs for romance and companionship are met - not even remotely the same sort of thing."
Is my looking at an 18 year old girl's ass wrong? Is my looking at a 35 year old girls ass wrong? What about if I looked at a porno? These are all sexual behaviors. The Bible says lust is wrong and it is the root attitude that produces all these behaviors. None are any worse than others. Most would think I am ridiculous to say looking at an 18 year old girl's ass is wrong. I do not see horny males on here telling me I am a bigot because I think this.
In the larger scope beyond this narrow and I think trivial argument is how to make sure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. The orginal point of the post was to point out that this man is equating someone going in and shooting up people with sexual orientation. I strongly oppose doing this. One is a crime and the other is not. The context of my equalizing these things was to original sin only and this was to point out that homosexuality is no worse than anything else by the very book they use. If you guys really want to shut these dudes up who get up on rocks and yell, "all fags go to hell" or worse, then this is where you hit them. They will never be able to answer why they have elevated homosexuality to some great evil above all else. It simply is not.
This is another case of where people who essentially agree with you that this crap needs to stop and will work to see it happen will not align with many of the people on here in trying to do it: You want us to lie and say we do not think it is wrong. I agree with the post that said whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant to the need for not one more child to be killed just because he is gay. Most of society thinks it is wrong or un-natural. It is a small majority that will protest grave sites and actually kill someone. It is the latter that is your enemy not me.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM
Then where, exactly do you get off telling other people what is wrong?
Ah, in a nutshell, the two Christian doctrines that completely deny the value of moral judgement, with predictable results. If it is impossible to avoid sin, and it is further impossible to minimize the gravity of sin, how then is it possible to live a life that is more moral than any other?
That's it? Argument by dogmatism? Not even an attempt to justify yourself? No wonder your so-called moral system is unavailing in the pursuit of a a good or just society.
Would you discourage homosexuals from engaging in homosexual behaviour? If so, your attempt to avoid "sin" results in your causing real harm and is morally wrong. This is merely one example of why sin is useless as a moral concept.
You are consistently wrong- not something I would advertise with pride.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 3:53 PM
I don't think that's what King is saying Priya. He's not saying gays are sinners merely for being gay. They're (we're) sinners for merely being born. It's difficult to discuss these things because of the concept of 'sin' and 'wrong'. For example, not believing in God or believing in the wrong one seems to be a greater sin (if there is a hierarchy at all) than homosexuality, which also does not harm anyone. Unless by some miracle King's beliefs are correct, and then there is no greater harm.
Posted by: Dave L | February 27, 2008 3:55 PM
Great, now there's a Dave L and a DaveL here. I hope that wasn't intentional.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 3:58 PM
"If it is impossible to avoid sin, and it is further impossible to minimize the gravity of sin, how then is it possible to live a life that is more moral than any other?"
No one can and that is the whole point. THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE HAS BEEN PERVERTED INTO A BUNCH OF RULES. Romans 2:1 somes it all up: You who judge do the same things. I may not sleep with men but I do other things that the Bible considers wrong. The whole idea is to see when you judge others you condemn yourself in the process because all have sinned.
What you described is moralism. It is not the Biblical message. The Biblical message is GRACE. It is a free gift. The law points us to grace that is the only reason it was given. It was not given to live by. No one can do it perfectly. That is what religion is in my book. It is taking the very thing God gives you to show you that you need mercy and using it to berate others.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Hard to believe I'm coming to King of Ireland's defense again, but...
Saying that committing murder and being homosexual are both choices does not "equate" homosexuality with murder.
Try this: Eating a twinkie and commmiting murder are both choices. Does that mean I'm equating eating twinkies with murder? There is no implied moral equivalence.
Neither is there in the King's case, instead you eagerly infer it because you disagree with his view that homosexuality is a sin. I disagree with that also, but I'm not going to stoop to making cheap caricatures of what he's saying.
I know there's a couple people on here who still won't get it, but there's not much that gets through to them.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 27, 2008 4:11 PM
"That's it? Argument by dogmatism? Not even an attempt to justify yourself? No wonder your so-called moral system is unavailing in the pursuit of a a good or just society"
Read my comments on "Why Gay Marriage Matters" from a few days ago. I tried to get into this line of discussion and realized that apart from the Bible I am not sure totally why I believe this. I had never really though it out. Since I do not want to be a "The Bible says it" guy and give at least a thought out response to good and fair questions, I will have to get back to you guys.
Why don't the male's who like to look at 18 year old girl's asses come on here and call me a bigot when I say it is wrong? I guess I am a bigot against myself too since I do it?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:18 PM
That was unintentional 'DaveL'. I'll try and come up with a different handle for my infrequent comments.
Posted by: Dave L | February 27, 2008 4:23 PM
"I know there's a couple people on here who still won't get it, but there's not much that gets through to them."
And these are the people who unknowingly do more harm to the cause of gay rights or protecting gays than anyone because they turn off the very people that could help them shut up the real bigots.
Just for the record all citizens have rights. Gays are citizens. Thus, they already have be right what they seek for the most part. The gap is in restraining others from infringing on those rights. This does happen I understand. But to infringe on the rights of others to stop the real bigots is now wise. Why? Any infringement on the rights of one group will be used to oppress all dissent if tyranny takes over.
V for Vendetta is a great movie that illustrates this. The homosexuals and "dissenting" religions were banned. All in the name of unity and "moral" govenment by the "correct religion". One minute I am a bigot for saying homosexuality is wrong the next minute I am committing a hate crime.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:27 PM
King of Ireland,
Are you familiar with this website?
Posted by: JuliaL | February 27, 2008 4:28 PM
"Are you familiar with this website?"
I looked at it and to say that Ruth and Naomi were lovers is ludicrious in that Naomi told Ruth to go and marry a man. This is an example of people taking one verse or word and making a doctrine out of it without support from other places in the Bible.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Actually I know a Lesbian couple in which one urged the other to marry a particular man (as happened in the Bible story) because of some very personal circumstances including serious financial problems.
If you are serious about your efforts both to study the Bible and to analyze/develop your own attitudes towards homosexuality, I hope you will do more than just look at that website. Study it, study the many Bible passages referred to (not just one verse or word), and get beyond an inaccurate response like "No woman in a Lesbian relationship would ever urge her partner to marry." And while you likely will not agree with every idea suggested on that website, you may find a new way of looking at one or more Bible passages.
I admire your efforts at self-examination, and your willingness to discuss your opinions without insulting or excluding others.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 27, 2008 4:50 PM
I've got news for you, KoI: If you oppose equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry, you are one of the "real bigots", just a nonviolent one.
Your comparison to checking out the rear ends of 18 year-olds is a red herring. The moment you start supporting ballot initiatives that require, for example, forbidding men over 30 from being within sight of girls under 22 to prevent ass-watching, you'll see your opposition come out of the woodwork.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 5:09 PM
"And while you likely will not agree with every idea suggested on that website, you may find a new way of looking at one or more Bible passages."
I have heard these arguments many times. I used to sit and talk with a pastor lady that had what some would call a liberal view of homosexuality. We had some good discussions but most of what she would use as evidence was weak. In a way I agree with Priya sometimes. To just ignore the passages that say it is wrong is dishonest.
With that said, I cannot hurt to look more into some of these verses. I was taught in my old church that women could not lead. I believed it for years because I was a heathen dude and thought the "leaders" knew better than me. When presented with a book about why this was crap I read it thinking I would disagree. I still do not agree with some of the authors points but have definetly changed my mind about a lot of that.
Look I am an example of what mis-informed Christians can do to people. My old church somehow convinced me that the "world" was bad. They would always talk about "the world" meaning things not of God. After leaving I began to realize that according to the Bible God made all things good. It is what we choose to do with them that makes something good or bad. The old line of thinking got so deep into me and I felt so guilty all the time whenever I enjoyed anything that I eventually came to the conclusion that heaven was all that mattered and that I should go overseas to tell people.
The only thing that kept me from doing this was my son. His Mom would not let me see him and this all got messed up in that same church. Somehow I thought God would be angry with me if I did not go and just leave my son behind. I was actually afraid to see him. In short, I gave him up for adoption to his step father and went. Two months ago I realized I was wrong. There is more to this story about false accusations against me from the mother and other bizarre things that the church told us both.
My reason for telling this is to let people here know I sincerely understand your concerns about Christianity. I have seen it hurt so many people. I will not even go to church anymore because I am tired of being associated with the people who get all the press and are Pharisees. I agree with much of what is written here. Someone even wrote about cults and coercive groups months back that really helped me see the depth of my brain washing in some things.
BUT- Despite all this my faith in God and core beliefs have not changed. That is where I am coming from. I hope people can see that.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:10 PM
What's more, KoI, your rights are not being infringed if the government recognizes gay marriage and fully recognizes their civil rights. Nor are they infringed by covering sexual orientation under hate crime laws, as these only apply to violent crimes.
You have the right to call homosexuality wrong, and I have the right to call you a bigot for it. Your religion has the right not to recognize gay marriage, but it does not have the right to impose that view on the state.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 5:13 PM
"I've got news for you, KoI: If you oppose equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry, you are one of the "real bigots", just a nonviolent one.
Your comparison to checking out the rear ends of 18 year-olds is a red herring. The moment you start supporting ballot initiatives that require, for example, forbidding men over 30 from being within sight of girls under 22 to prevent ass-watching, you'll see your opposition come out of the woodwork."
Did you even read what I just said? All citizens have every right under the Constitution. I oppose the marriage amendment as far a nationally. The rest I am not sure where I stand. I certainly am opposed to legislating morality. It does not work.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:17 PM
I apologize for misunderstanding you, KoI. I hope you will continue to support for equal rights for all. I have no problem applauding that support even as I condemn your characterization of homosexuality as wrong.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 5:22 PM
"forbidding men over 30 from being within sight of girls under 22 to prevent ass-watching,"
That is an asinine example. Maybe you missed my point: I want to have the right to say it is wrong. Gays want to have the right not to get beat up and have some benefits(medical) that heterosexual couples have. Should they get beat up? No it is wrong and sick. Should they be able to be married? I do not think so because it is a religious term but I am open to changing my mind based on liberty issues. Gay partnerships? Not sure but evolving in my thinking from a liberty perspective. ABLE TO CALL ME A BIGOT AND SOON TO SUE ME CIVILY IF I SAY IT IS WRONG? No dice my friend. You would fill the jails up in a day. The latter question is a free speech issue. Do you think not?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:24 PM
"I apologize for misunderstanding you, KoI. I hope you will continue to support for equal rights for all. I have no problem applauding that support even as I condemn your characterization of homosexuality as wrong."
I respect your beliefs.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:26 PM
King of Ireland,
I'm also a Christian.
One thing that I try to remember when I am reading the Bible is that it is not a single book in the same simple, obvious way most books are. It was put together from various manuscripts, many clearly incomplete, by a decision made by a group of human beings who did not even fully agree among themselves. There is more than one version of the Bible now, and various translations of each version. The result is a collection of stories, poetry, memories, prophecies, etc. from different cultures at different times in history.
This is exactly why you are wise to warn against taking one or two verses out of their context, and going just by those. No passages should be ignored, not the ones that record an early Jewish law against homosexuality or the ones that record Paul's personal distaste both for homosexuality and for marriage and for any woman in leadership, nor any of the stories about relationships or Jesus's response to the centurion.
I hope you will read in detail the arguments presented on the website. They may not be identical to the ones presented by the somewhat liberal lady pastor. At the very least, you will gain a more in-depth understanding of what some other people now believe the Bible to be saying.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 27, 2008 5:29 PM
Sorry,
These cultures apparently didn't have a concept of homosexuality, as we do today, apart from behavior. In both cases, it would have been more accurate for me to use some term such as "same-gender sexual activity."
Posted by: JuliaL | February 27, 2008 5:33 PM
There two separate issues here. Anyone can call you a bigot just as much as you can call them wrong. Their speech is protected just like yours is.
Now, do you know of anyone who has been sued civilly for calling homosexuality wrong? I don't. Will including sexual orientation in hate crimes statutes allow such suits? No. They only apply to violent crimes.
So what's the issue?
I know a lot of conservative Christians are against including homosexuals in hate crime legislation and say it would interfere with their freedom of religion. These people are lying, flat out.
Posted by: DaveL | February 27, 2008 5:48 PM
"know a lot of conservative Christians are against including homosexuals in hate crime legislation and say it would interfere with their freedom of religion. These people are lying, flat out."
I have to admit that is where I heard that the Federal Government was going to enforce local enforcement of hate crimes that included 10 days in jail for someone if convicted of hurting a homosexuals feelings by saying it was wrong. I did read some independently but not enough. I apoligize for stating that so emphatically. I do think it is a fact that to say that it is wrong from the pulpit(which I think does more harm than good the the Christian cause) in Canada is illegal.
Do you have information on this debate on the last US bill I would read it and if I am wrong I will retract what I said. I listen to Janet Parshall and Don Crow sometimes and I know they spin things at times and I get pissed when they do it. I think the person who told me about the hate crimes thing heard it on Dobson and I did read some but never totally followed up. I am no fan of many of Dobson's stances either.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:56 PM
"King" said Most of society thinks it is wrong or un-natural. It is a small majority that will protest grave sites and actually kill someone. It is the latter that is your enemy not me.".
No, you're wrong, its about an even split in the U.S. between those who think its wrong and those who think its okay. By promoting the idea that its wrong and harming the reputation of gays and refusing to support equal rights you have made yourself the enemy of gays albeit not as big of one as are those who would kill gays.
Dave L said "I don't think that's what King is saying Priya. He's not saying gays are sinners merely for being gay.".
Yes he is, he's said repeatedly that being gay is no greater a sin than this that and the other thing. He thinks he's being charitable but when he's being incredibly offensive. Gayness is no more a sin than heterosexuality and his suggesting it is is bigoted.
"King" said " Should they be able to be married? I do not think so because it is a religious term".
Marriage IS NOT a religious term. The religious term for marriage is MATRIMONY. That's your word and your welcome to it. Marriage belongs to the secular community.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:06 PM
"King" said " I do think it is a fact that to say that it is wrong from the pulpit(which I think does more harm than good the the Christian cause) in Canada is illegal.
That's a typical right wing lie. The hate speech law in Canada specifically provides an exemption for hate speech that is religious in nature. Not only can religionists say its wrong to be gay, they can incite murder of gays and get away with it. Only the hateful religionists are exempt from the law:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm
Liberal Member of Parliament Derek Lee proposed an amendment to C-250 which was adopted. "It creates a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text" like the Bible. This appears to be a redundant alteration to section 319 of the criminal code. Section 319 already allows immunity from prosecution "if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject."
It seems ironic that religious institutions are the only groups in the country who want an exemption from hate speech and propaganda laws, apparently so that they can feel free to denigrate groups of individuals without any risk of being charged with a crime.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:12 PM
Religioustolerance.org has a decent rundown of the bills and issues involved. The site mentions fears of being charged as a conspirator if your speech incites another person to commit a violent act against the targeted group, but I think the case law has already put that outside the realm of plausibility, see here and here.
It's true that Canada has "hate speech" laws, something I fundamentally oppose even though I also oppose hate speech itself.
Posted by: Dave L | February 27, 2008 6:20 PM
I was not aware of that. Unbelievable. Does that mean that hate speech against atheists is OK, but atheist could be prosecuted for hate speech if they retaliate in kind because it isn't based on a religious text?
Posted by: Dave L | February 27, 2008 6:24 PM
Yes Dave, thats the case. A religionist in Canada gets a pass that an atheist most certainly wouldn't. And yet right wing fundamentalists in the States lie left right and centre about how Christians are "persecuted" in Canada
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:27 PM
And by the way, "King", if as you say you think it does more harm than good for the "Christian cause" to say from the pulpit that its wrong to be gay why are you repeatedly making that very same statement? If its a bad idea to say it from the pulpit (and it is) its a bad idea to say that elsewhere.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:33 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
Then please explain the Stephen Boissoin case.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM
Boissoin did not specifically back up his hate speech with bible quotes. He declared war on gays and encouraged people to use "any means possible" to stop them. He went over the line.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM
Boisson also equated gays with drug dealers, pedophiles, and pimps. As much hate speech as there is in the bible directed at gays those ideas are not biblically supported.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 6:55 PM
I have documented over and over again the injustice of Canada's "hate speech" laws. There's little point in revisiting it. Those laws should be done away with completely. The only form of speech that should be censored in this regard is speech that is explicitly threatening of physical violence.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 27, 2008 7:00 PM
So, then Ed you'd agree that that the bible (leviticus 20:13) that calls for gays to be put to death should be censored? Glad you agree with me.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 7:15 PM
Well, then you must be incredibly offended pretty much constantly. Are you also incredibly offended that believing in other gods or being an atheist is also sinful? This differs somewhat from our innate sexuality in that people choose their religions, but an argument can be made that we do not have a choice over what we believe. Heterosexuality as it is frequently practiced is also just as, if not more so (going by the volume of Bible verses concerning fornication compared to homosexuality) sinful than homosexuality. The vast swaths of single heterosexuals are pretty much in the same boat of sin as all homosexuals, but I don't know any that seem to be incredibly offended.
Posted by: Other Dave L | February 27, 2008 7:41 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
It depends on the context. No, I don't think the Bible should be censored, of course, but if someone uses that as an actual threat to a particular person, then yes that speech may legitimately be censored. Bear in mind that the vast majority of those who believe the Bible to be the word of god do not believe that this verse still applies. Most Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the law and took that punishment away so they no longer believe in the death penalty for being gay. Only the Reconstructionists and their allies believe that gays should be put to death and they are a very small portion of Christians. But advocating the death penalty for gays, by itself, is not enough to justify censorship. That is advocating a change in the law - (a barbaric one, to be sure, and one that should be condemned, but it's not a direct threat to anyone. Gary North, for instance, advocates such a death penalty, but he isn't actually threatening to kill any gay person nor is he any real threat to do so.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 27, 2008 7:44 PM
King,
You say that to ignore the passages in the bible that condemn homosexuality would be dishonest, but I assume you have no problem ignoring the passages about beating your children, slavery, eating shellfish, etc. No one takes their morality from the bible, except perhaps the Westboro loons.
The bible is not your reason for your homophobia, it's your excuse.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 27, 2008 7:46 PM
Malcolm (to KOI): The bible is not your reason for your homophobia, it's your excuse.
Precisely.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 27, 2008 7:54 PM
Ed, you pussy. Leviticus 20:13 does not call for a change in the law, it directly calls for gays to be put to death. You can't on one hand say "The only form of speech that should be censored in this regard is speech that is explicitly threatening of physical violence" and then on the other say "I don't think the Bible should be censored, of course". If you think speech that threatens physical violence should be censored then that applies to Leviticus 20:13 as well. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to justify such a blatent double standard.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 7:56 PM
And I might add Ed, that there's no context in which its right to refer to innocent people and say "They must be put to death".
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 8:47 PM
Priya -
You fucking moron, you should be ashamed of yourself for speaking while your head is stuck up your ass.
If I were to say; "we should head down the street and beat that red couple in the blue house to death" I would be making a particular threat of physical violence. If I say' "I believe that all red people should be put to death," I am most certainly making a rather vile and horrendous statement about red people, but I am not making a specific threat of violence. I know you hate it when people insult you, but if you can't see the distinction you're a fucking moron.
I find it ironic that you bemoan my occasional use of personal insults, yet have no problems using them yourself. I find it even more ironic that you would use the word "pussy" as an insult - personally I think far more highly of pussy than apparently you do.
Why are you such a hateful, spiteful person?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 27, 2008 9:48 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
LOL. Yes, you seem to think that I should be ashamed of myself for lots of things. I chalk that up to you being a rather ridiculous person with serious problems thinking clearly. How exactly would you go about censoring the Bible? Ban the printing of them? Require that all printings have any passages you don't like taken out? Good luck with the police state that would require. You'll pardon me if I don't fall in goosestep with you on that one.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 27, 2008 10:04 PM
Ed, i honestly don't know where you are coming from with your response to Priya.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought a big part of the reason why you are a deist instead of theist was precisely because of the kinds of verses Priya is quoting?
How can calling for the death of any group of people possibly be defended, let alone, respected?
I know not all (very, very few in fact) Christians buy what Leviticus says, but that's not a defense of Leviticus. And how can such verses not be responsible for the many, nasty expressions of homophobia which you criticize all the time?
I'm not trying to be snarky, i just don't get where your indignation is coming from here.
Posted by: Caliban | February 28, 2008 12:14 AM
Ed, in the same week you post a story about "why gay rights matter". Where do you think the opposition to gay rights comes from? Dude, it comes from the fucking bible!
Where else could it possibly come from? Yes, i know that there are many varieties of Christians and not all of them adhere to what Leviticus says but on a very basic, rudimentary level, can't you simply say that Leviticus is flat out wrong and that calling for the death of homosexuals at any time is utterly wrong and irrational? And that any group that claims that being gay is "wrong" and "sinful" is equally wrong and irrational?
Posted by: Caliban | February 28, 2008 12:45 AM
Gay rights is a very personal issue for anyone who has been on the receiving end of "Christian morality". One of my closest friends, literally had to move to New Zealand to have their marriage vows be legally respected (and get health care).
You can damn well expect then, that some people are going to get angry about any religiously inspired attempts to denigrate gays as being "sinful" or "wrong".
As far as i'm concerned, it's just "Jim Crow laws" repeating themselves.
Posted by: Caliban | February 28, 2008 1:02 AM
Caliban wrote:
Who's defending it? I think that verse and many others like it are barbaric and vile. But that is an entirely separate issue from whether it should be banned. Again, how do you propose doing it? Ban the printing of Bibles entirely? Have the government decide what verses can be included or not included? I'm sorry, but that's a totalitarian solution and I will not accept it. I'll criticize it, I'll make fun of it, I'll blast those who believe it, but I will not stand for the government deciding that it can't be printed.
For crying out loud, do I not condemn such ideas ENOUGH for you? Of course I think Leviticus is flat out wrong. I think it's barbaric and virtually insane. Anyone who thinks otherwise is absolutely delusional. But that doesn't mean I think it should be banned.
No shit. Gay rights is a very personal issue for me as well. People I love very much suffer from the bigotry aimed at gay people every day. Why do you think I speak out so strongly against it? Do you really not understand the difference between protecting the right to express an idea and agreeing with that idea? This really isn't that complicated, man. It's just not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 28, 2008 1:41 AM
"And by the way, "King", if as you say you think it does more harm than good for the "Christian cause" to say from the pulpit that its wrong to be gay why are you repeatedly making that very same statement? If its a bad idea to say it from the pulpit (and it is) its a bad idea to say that elsewhere."
I was vague here. I mean to make it such an issue. I state it here to be honest about where I am coming from in a political debate. Like I have said many times, when I talk with gays I do not bring it up. It is a non issue to me. The cause is supposedly to get people to see that God loves them. The manner in which this issue is discussed is in such a wrong tone it is better to not even bring it up.
I go back to the looking at the girl's ass thing. If I know someone who is doing it I think it is wrong. If asked I may say I think it is wrong. But my tone in saying it means everything. If I am looking down on that person and condescending them then I do more harm than good for my cause. That was my point.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 12:12 PM
"Gary North, for instance, advocates such a death penalty, but he isn't actually threatening to kill any gay person nor is he any real threat to do so."
In defense of Priya, if he got the power he would. This is my exact point about the hate speech. It is a minority on both sides but because of rhetoric and lies the extreme people get the more moderate on their side. To lump all Christian into one category is unfair, not wise, and potentially dangerous to the cause of gays in that the very laws used to silence one side will be used against the other.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 12:19 PM
Just to be clear, i certainly don't think the government should be banning any books either.
I just think it's interesting that if someone calls for a group of people to be killed today everyone rushes in to condemn that person as a dangerous,lunatic psycho; yet when the exact same call appears in the bible, endless excuses are made for it. That's the "double standard" that i was thinking of earlier.
Again, i don't want any books banned. But it would be nice to be able to call a spade a spade when it comes to "hate speech".
Posted by: Caliban | February 28, 2008 12:29 PM
And, for the record Ed, you certainly do stand up for gays all the time. In fact, far more than i do. If i gave you the impression that i thought you didn't, a apologize for that.
For me, the crux of all of this "anti-gay stuff" lies in addressing where it primarily comes from.
Posted by: Caliban | February 28, 2008 12:47 PM
"can't you simply say that Leviticus is flat out wrong and that calling for the death of homosexuals at any time is utterly wrong and irrational? And that any group that claims that being gay is "wrong" and "sinful" is equally wrong and irrational?"
Ed deals with this well in the comments here. To put both camps together is ludicrious. It is exactly what I objected to weeks ago when this whole discussion got started. It is equating saying it is wrong with those who would use it for violence. I think it is equally wrong to put it into two camps. There are many people who think it is wrong and sinful who I think are obnoxious about it and do not align myself with. It is there tone. It is their insistence on scaring more reasonable Christians that society is going down the toilet because people are gay and mobilizing them around the issue.
You guys hate Bush being in the White House? It is the Democratic Party aligning with the more extreme parts of the homosexual right community that caused it. Like I said weeks ago, I have spoken with some in this camp and then would agree with Priya and some others here who want to equate saying it is wrong with "hate". It is not that far a leap to see that if they were in power it would become a hate crime. It has in Canada as Ed states.
Ed do you have references to the Canada case law?
Just to clarify what I said about the Bush election. There are many Evangelicals that are far more concerned with poverty, justice, fighting AIDs, stopping genocide and other things than worrying about what consenting adults do in thier own houses. Or for that matter, ignoring these issues for abortion. They are kept Republican or Conservative because of people like those on here who are extreme. Why? Sound bites of quotes like I here on here.
Guys like Ed end up on Bill O'Reilly as being left wing radicals. The implied danger to the country in O'Reilly's use of this language stirrs up people that are afraid. If they knew what Ed really stood for they would not be afraid. I disagree with some of his stances but I trust that he is fair. Priya you are playing right into the hands of the people you are trying to stop with your rhetoric. If they do get power they will kill gays. They are nuts. But to even remotely equate me with them is nonsense. You are cutting off your nose to spit your face.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 12:49 PM
"I just think it's interesting that if someone calls for a group of people to be killed today everyone rushes in to condemn that person as a dangerous,lunatic psycho; yet when the exact same call appears in the bible,"
I do sympathize with your point Caliban, but I think it's questionable whether the bible does actually still call for gays to be killed *today*.
Posted by: Spartan | February 28, 2008 1:02 PM
Duwayne said "If I were to say; "we should head down the street and beat that red couple in the blue house to death" I would be making a particular threat of physical violence. If I say' "I believe that all red people should be put to death," I am most certainly making a rather vile and horrendous statement about red people, but I am not making a specific threat of violence.".
Duwayne, Leviticus doesn't say gays "should" be put to death, it says they "MUST" be put to death. Telling people that they must kill members of a group is just as specific a threat of violence as telling people they must kill Joe. There's no way either statement is acceptable. Boisson is in trouble because he threatened gays as a group, not any particular gay person. The idea that its wrong to threaten an individual but okay to threaten a group is what's profoundly moronic.
Ed said "How exactly would you go about censoring the Bible?
You tell me Ed, you said "The only form of speech that should be censored in this regard is speech that is explicitly threatening of physical violence." - you proposed yourself such speech be censored, how do you suggest it be done for non-biblical speech and what possible excuse do you have from excluding biblical speech from your proposal?
Ed said " I think that verse and many others like it are barbaric and vile. But that is an entirely separate issue from whether it should be banned. Again, how do you propose doing it? Ban the printing of Bibles entirely? Have the government decide what verses can be included or not included? I'm sorry, but that's a totalitarian solution and I will not accept it. I'll criticize it, I'll make fun of it, I'll blast those who believe it, but I will not stand for the government deciding that it can't be printed."
Ed, earlier you said that speech threatening physical violence should be censored - Leviticus threatens physical violence and its extremely hypocritical for you to now claim that it shouldn't be censored. The bible isn't some magical book where speech that should be censored elsewhere suddenly becomes okay.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 1:30 PM
Ed, the bible should be censored the same way that other speech that incites murder is censored. I assume that in other such cases the publisher is charged with a crime and/or fined for it. It should be no different with the bible.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 1:35 PM
Good luck with that one.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 28, 2008 1:40 PM
Priya: I had a look at all those Bible quotes you offered in the Chuck Norris thread; and it quickly became obvious that you had taken all of the quotes way out of context, and had grossly misrepresented what those verses were actually saying. (I tried to post a point-by-point rebuttal, but for some reason it got held in limbo and never got out.) Your Bible scholarship is...unreliable...and so is your advice on what we're supposed to do with that flawed but complex book.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 28, 2008 1:48 PM
"Ed, the bible should be censored the same way that other speech that incites murder is censored. I assume that in other such cases the publisher is charged with a crime and/or fined for it. It should be no different with the bible."
Thank you Priya Lynn for so blantantly and accurately portraying the exact view of this issue that, if not stopped, will be lead to hate crimes bills being passed that will limit free speech. Am I a right winger trying to spin this one? That is a question for the 90% on here that will be labeled with Priya whether agree with her or not.
This is the part of the homosexual agenda that I oppose. Many of you should too. But, as a Christian, if I speak out about it I am labeled homophobe, bigot, and all the rest.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 1:49 PM
"King" said " Like I said weeks ago, I have spoken with some in this camp and then would agree with Priya and some others here who want to equate saying it is wrong with "hate". It is not that far a leap to see that if they were in power it would become a hate crime. It has in Canada as Ed states.".
"King", it is NOT a crime in Canada to say its wrong to be gay, Canadian bigots do that all the time. Look at Lifesite news out of Toronto or Catholic Insight - they rant about it being wrong to be gay left right and centre and no one's charging them with a crime. Look at the link I posted on the Canadian hate crimes law and actually read it this time.
"King" said "You guys hate Bush being in the White House? It is the Democratic Party aligning with the more extreme parts of the homosexual right community that caused it.".
Extreme?! You call wanting equal rights and to be protected from discrimination extreme?! That's nuts. There's nothing extreme about wanting the same rights you have. There are many reasons why Bush is in the white house and at best one of them is that large numbers of bigots thought he'd prevent gays from gaining equal rights.
"King" said "Priya you are playing right into the hands of the people you are trying to stop with your rhetoric. If they do get power they will kill gays. They are nuts. But to even remotely equate me with them is nonsense. You are cutting off your nose to spit your face.".
No, its people like you who are providing support for the extremists. You are playing right into their hands by agreeing with them that its wrong to be gay, by agreeing with them that the bible is the word of the supreme moral being. People like you provide the foundation for them that underpins their calls to have gays put to death.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 1:53 PM
King of Ireland,
You're saying there is a homosexual agenda to censor the Bible? I do hope that you will eventually spend some time investigating readings of the Bible that do not condemn loving gay relationships. Perhaps some other gay people agree with Priya Lynn, but there are many, many more who do not, including gay Christians. Gays people are as diverse as straight people. There is no more a unified "gay agenda" than there is a unified "straight agenda."
Posted by: JuliaL | February 28, 2008 1:54 PM
"King" said "Thank you Priya Lynn for so blantantly and accurately portraying the exact view of this issue that, if not stopped, will be lead to hate crimes bills being passed that will limit free speech. Am I a right winger trying to spin this one? That is a question for the 90% on here that will be labeled with Priya whether agree with her or not.".
The hate crimes law is not a hate speech law. Hate speech laws puts limits on speech but the hate crimes bill does not, it does not deal with speech at all, it is not a hate speech law. The hate crimes law provides extra penalties if one attacks a person because of their religion, gender, race, sex, or sexual orientation. Contrary to what "King" implies the hate crimes law has been in existence since 1968, the current proposal simply amends it to cover sexual orienation as well as the other previously included grounds.
H.R. 1592 applies only to violent acts, not to speech. To underscore this point, the authors amended the bill to make clear it wouldn't prohibit what the First Amendment protects.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 2:08 PM
'Extreme?! You call wanting equal rights and to be protected from discrimination extreme?!"
No I call equating saying homosexuality is wrong with saying that gays should be killed is ridiculous and that this type of thinking is what leads to laws that, like Ed said, should be banned. You are the perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that you seek rights for a group by denying others rights.
With that said, I share your concern about the real bigots who would kill gays, those who would not kill but stand on rocks on college campuses and yell that all fags go to hell, and those who would do neither but elevate homsexuality to some sort of evil the same as murder as far as its affects on society. I know you think I believe that last one but I do not. Please do not lump all together. I am done with this now.
No disrespect to you but their are other issues here that matter on this sight and this is distracting from those. I know I have played a part in that and the discussion was good but I need to move on from it. I just wanted to make it clear where I stand and I think most on here while they do not agree with me are clear on where I stand.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 2:13 PM
"King" said "You are the perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that you seek rights for a group by denying others rights.".
Nonsense. I don't ask for any rights for gays that I would deny to you or anyone else. It is people like you who would deny to gays rights you have, like the right to marry. I stand for equality - you stand against it.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 2:18 PM
"There is no more a unified "gay agenda" than there is a unified "straight agenda.""
It is discussions like this that have opened my eyes to that.(including the pastor lady that I used to discuss this with) I know others who would be willing to explore your statement who will not because of the rhetoric of the extreme side that seeks to limit free speech. I think if all the rhetoric on both sides simmered down that more discussion would take place which would destory some of the fallacies out there.
But as I stated to Priya I feel that this debate has become a distraction to other important topics that Ed writes about. So I withdraw from it out of respect to him and others that would like to move on I am sure.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 2:19 PM
I'm sorry but this is a really absurd stretch. There is nothing at all in the bible about accepting gay relationships and the fact that people will bend the bible to state as such rather than just dimissing the book as just that written 2000 years ago is rather bizarre.
King of Ireland makes the point that one can conceive of gay activity as bad but only as much as other 'sins'. This is at least consistent. To pretend there is some form of biblical endorsement for it seems to me another layer of delusion altogether.
Posted by: JimC | February 28, 2008 2:20 PM
Jimc said " There is nothing at all in the bible about accepting gay relationships".
Not true. There's a passage when Jesus heals a centurions gay lover and indicates he approves of their relationship. There's the story of the love between Ruth and Naomi as well as the between David and Jonathon who's love for each other exceeded that of love for women and the story of Daniel and Ashpenaz
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 2:41 PM
Jesus affirmed a gay couple:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 2:46 PM
Holy crap, Priya! Do you really believe what you wrote??
How has this actually incited murder? Even if you're talking about, for example, the religiously rabid pro-lifers who kill abortion clinic doctors, you still cannot place criminal blame on the Bible publishers!
Even if they personally said that the Bible was the sole reason for their murder, you mustn't overlook the fact that over 99% of the people who read it don't come to the same extreme conclusion. So it's not the book, but the wacko people reading it.
Another point... some might say that violent video games makes kids murder each other. Should the video game creators be charged with a crime too?
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 28, 2008 2:48 PM
I went and read your link and I simply don't see it. This seems to be a case of making the bible say what you want it to say. That being said everyone does this so ok. But I don't see a biblical endorsement in any of these mentions. There is simply nothing consistent there at all on any topic let alone this one. But it seems the strongest idea is it is an abomination.
That being said much has been spoken about the meaning of Jesus's alleged words. Would he discriminate? I doubt it but then again he surely seems to when it comes to people who don't accept his way or the highway. So who can say? We don't even know if he actually said any of the things attributed to him.
Posted by: JimC | February 28, 2008 3:07 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
You skipped the other part of what I said because it answers your question. The threat must be imminent and direct. Leviticus is a statement of law for the old regime of Israel. And as I said, the vast, vast majority of Christians do not believe that verse still applies at all and do not want gays killed. There is a difference between advocating that homosexuality is a moral crime for which the death penalty is justified and actually threatening to kill a gay person. Someone who says "I'm gonna kill you, faggot" is making a direct threat and they should be arrested for it. Someone who quotes Leviticus is not directly threatening to hurt anyone. Your inability to understand the distinction does not make me a hypocrite, it makes you quite irrational.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 28, 2008 3:11 PM
Priyas police state: Quick everyone burn those bibles! Screw freedom of religion, the Constitution, or anyone who doesn't believe that she is the all knowing source of goodness and fairness.
For someone who claims that if it doesn't cause harm it is moral, you sure are quick to call for censorship. Anyone who uses the bible to rationalize killing someone based on an obscure passage in a book that by and large people read with modern sensibilities is a NUT JOB plain and simple. If you apply your logic of getting rid of all hate speech in older texts than you've got your work cut out for you. Your limited grasp of logic astounds me.
As a side note, it was a couple of devout Christians that helped me make and deliver "special" brownies in the late 80's to terminal AIDS patients in San Francisco. They were not only willing to break the law, they were intelligent enough to understand that humanity is far more important than bickering over whether homosexuality is a sin or not. Something you seem to imply that the majority of Christians are unable to do.
Posted by: JoH | February 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Doctorgo said "Another point... some might say that violent video games makes kids murder each other. Should the video game creators be charged with a crime too?".
Once again you are trying to make an equivalence between the bible and video games and that isn't even remotely accurate. No one promotes the idea that video games are the true innerrant word of a supreme moral being who will literally torture you to death if you don't obey him.
Ed said "You skipped the other part of what I said because it answers your question. The threat must be imminent and direct.".
What you said was "But advocating the death penalty for gays, by itself, is not enough to justify censorship. That is advocating a change in the law - (a barbaric one, to be sure, and one that should be condemned, but it's not a direct threat to anyone.".
That doesn't cover Leviticus 20:13, its not advocating a change in the law, its directly calling for gays to be put to death and it is imminent in that it doesn't say "at some point when the law is changed", it refers to the here and now. If the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force put out a book that said "Christians are an abomination - they must be put to death." would you say there is nothing wrong with that, that shouldn't be censored?
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 3:40 PM
"who will literally torture you to death " should have said "who will literally torture you eternally".
JoH said "For someone who claims that if it doesn't cause harm it is moral, you sure are quick to call for censorship".
JoH, if you think many people haven't used the biblical call to kill gays as a justification to abuse gays you're a fool. Suggesting people not call for the death of innocents is hardly an unreasonable request.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 3:45 PM
Instead of diminishing freedom of speech in response to questionable bits in the bible, we should be using that freedom to promote a better vision. Why can't Priya, or anyone else, simply publish her own compilation of whatever parts of the Bible she wants us to believe? There's a book of "Gnostic Gospels" out already, and Jefferson published his own version with edit-marks added. Various churches publish books containing those bits of the Bible they think their followers should consider most important, as part of their efforts to lead with a clear message.
That is, after all, how the Bible we know today came about: a committee that decided which books to add to the compilation as officially declared "holy."
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 28, 2008 3:54 PM
Once again? When did I try to make that equivalence ever before? LOL Priya... you're kinda wacky, aintcha?
I don't know how you've managed to gather such a response from everyone here.
Why don't you go play with AFSGTSAM for awhile... lol Between your constant irrational responses and his drive-by one-liner challeges to all us damnity librels, I'm sure you two could provide us some prime entertainment!
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 28, 2008 3:57 PM
I'm done trying to explain the obvious to Priya Lynn, who is such a glazed over fanatic to censor those who disagree with her (him?) that there's simply no point in trying to convince her of anything. Go the fuck away.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 28, 2008 4:04 PM
Ed, sounds to me like I've gotten to the crux of the matter with you and you'd rather run away than deal with it. Are you afraid of this question?: If the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force put out a book that said "Christians are an abomination - they must be put to death." would you say there is nothing wrong with that, that shouldn't be censored?
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 4:24 PM
And I might add I never suggested censoring those who merely disagree with me, I suggested, AS DID YOU that speech explicitly threatening physical violence be censored.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 28, 2008 4:27 PM
Priya:
Fuck off. Seriously. Just fuck off. I'm tired of trying to rationalize with a completely irrational person. So fuck off.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 28, 2008 4:28 PM
WOW. First time to this sight,scaned most replies.I must say things really digressed. ED; may I suggest a thesaurus.Well,here's my two cents worth.(Remember, you get what you pay for.)These opinions are based on people I,ve met, books read and media reports. Sexual seems to be nature by almost all reports,with a bit of nurture thrown in in some instances.The thought being trauma could be a "trigger for some.But whatever the case why a the hostility? I know some people fear what the don,t understand,is that it? Some one made a point about being born left or right handed as similar to being born gay or straight.That may be a good comparison. But remember less than 80 years ago, parents and educated people were tying the arms of naturally left handed children to their sides. Open your minds enough to take in knowledge,think for yourself,and draw honest conclusions.
Posted by: Keith | February 29, 2008 12:57 AM
doctoragoo, please dont associate me with comments like gays should be killed, i do not want anyone killed. I am not even a particularly religious person nor do I want gays harassed in their lives. I just have an opinion that homosexuality is not a good lifestlye, it is unhealthy physically and mentally, it is counterproductive to what I consider traditional family life and I do not like the cultural trend towards "mainstreaming" of the lifestyle. Tolerance is one thing acceptance is quite another.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | February 29, 2008 3:34 PM
AFSFTSAM... I didn't associate you with any such comments. I referred to your habit of responding to just about anything with dumb one-line and substance-free challenges to people you want to get a rise out of. It's dumb and it's immature.
Sure, disagree with us... as long as you have a hint of a valid argument, you'll usually find someone with whom you can have a real eye-opening conversation. But if you cannot say something intelligent, then please don't bother posting here.
By the way, the link to your comment under my name is the perfect example of what I mean by a one-liner substance free comment... for the reasons that Ed gives just a few comments afterwards on that thread.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 29, 2008 5:07 PM
Priya Lynn offers: "AFSGTSAM your cousin is bisexual. She didn't become lesbian due to her violent husband. The vast majority of gays and lesbians had normal upbringings and knew they were same sex attracted at a very young age. You can't make someone gay by traumatizing them"
You can't make someone gay by traumatizing them????
Tell that to little Joe in Cell Block B, Row 3, Cell JJR. He'll tell you being traumatized by fellow inmates will make you agree to be gay or green or an alien even if it's against your nature.
Yeah, PriyaLynn, people can be made to adopt gay sexual practices for utilitarian purposes... like staying alive or after being traumatized.
Posted by: Michigan-Matt | May 19, 2008 10:56 PM
>> And for you to say that it is a "mental disorder" is quite an ignorant thing to put forward. The American Psychiatric Association has said quite specifically that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. This has been their assessment for at least one or two decades now.
Homosexuality is NOT included in the DSM-IV.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders)
At all. >>
Ginger, please show me the study that prompted the APA to change their mind on having homosexuality in the DSM. The APA is supposed to be scientific, so I am sure there is some compelling scientific study somewhere that led them to their decision.
Posted by: mroberts | May 20, 2008 1:26 AM
>> "Choice or no, what difference should it make to you and me who consenting adults choose to love and what they choose to do with their genitalia in the privacy of their homes?
The people who don't get this are just intolerant busybodies.>>
I agree, not my business here. But we have gone WAY beyond this today. My issue is that gays haven't left the issue as just that - something done in private - and have instead DEMANDED that society accept and condone their behaviors. I don't really care what gays want to do in their free time, but imposing their behaviors on the rest of us by demanding that we condone it by enshrining it in our laws, demanding that our kids learn about it at school, then passing bills like in NJ that can send a person to jail for simply "intimidating" a gay person is not right. Where's all the so-called tolerance for those who disagree? Why is it that tolerance is only a one way street? I mention my disagreement and I am met with a barrage of name-calling like "bigot", "homophobe", etc. Forgive me if that doesn't endear me to your cause.
Posted by: mroberts | May 20, 2008 1:34 AM
AFSGTSAM wrote:
Oh you poor baby.
Oh grow up you stupid motherfucker. Welcome to life. People are different than you. Boo fucking hoo. When you are done growing up, kindly fuck off and die.
But quietly, please. Because no one wants to actually hear your rude-ass, gay hating death-snorts. We just want you to die as quickly and as quietly as possible.
Posted by: Leni | May 20, 2008 2:14 AM
mroberts, let me put this in a way that even you are sure to understand: we do not care what you think about these issues. If they bother you, too bad. When I was younger a lot of things bothered me, but you know what? I eventually realized that I had a life to live, and that in the end no one really cared what I thought about them, as they were too busy living their lives. So I decided to live my own life and just enjoy myself. I'm much happier now.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 20, 2008 2:44 AM
Oh Mr roberts.
You are such a douchebag it's not even funny. You post as if some great moral wrong has been done to you. Oh watch out world. Someone sat in mrrobert's chair and he doesn't like it.
How dare you? How fucking dare you?
Oh. Let's watch.
Buy "demanding" that their children have the same rights and benefits yours do? In private?
Oh that's so shocking. How do you get through the day? How has America survived? Poor Jesus. I bet even he wants to die.
Oh you poor, poor dear! They are making you be gay?
The injustice. The terrible. terrible. injustice. Not that I don't believe you, but... Why don't you show us the legislation?
Enshrine it like we enshrined the anti-miscegenation laws?
Posted by: Leni | May 20, 2008 2:45 AM