Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember the infamous gay penguin scare of 2006, when it was revealed that gay mating behavior among penguins was not at all unusual? It wasn't just the two male penguins at the Central Park Zoo taking care of an egg and acting as a family, it turned out that this sort of thing was commonly observed in penguin populations in captivity all over the world. Well a couple of authors wrote a children's book about it and people are trying to ban it from libraries all over the country.
The latest instance is in Loudon County, Virginia, where a parent is complaining and trying to get the book removed from an elementary school library, presumably on the theory that if their child happens to stumble upon the fact of the existence of gay penguins, they will turn out to be interior decorators or gym teachers.
"And Tango Makes Three" by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson is based on the true story of two male penguins who took turns sitting on an orphaned egg at the Central Park Zoo. In the story, the penguins, Roy and Silo, start their family when the chick, Tango, is hatched.A parent at Sugarland Elementary in Sterling filed a request with the school principal that the book be reviewed. The principal and several staff members deemed the book appropriate for general circulation.
The parent appealed the school's decision with the Loudoun County Public Schools administration. According to David Jones, the LCPS library media supervisor, a district-level committee was formed with teacher, parent, school librarian and administrative representatives who reviewed the book and offered a recommendation to Superintendent Edgar B. Hatrick III, who ultimately decided on the book's status.
Dr. Hatrick determined that "And Tango Makes Three" should be taken out of general circulation at the elementary level and placed in each school's professional library. Teachers may reference and share the book with students at their own discretion. Children and parents may not check the book out of the library.
The American Library Association says that this book is one of the most challenged books of the last couple years all over the country. All because there are people ridiculous enough to believe that if you even acknowledge the existence of gays, whether human or some other species, their kids will turn out to be gay. I love the smell of irrationality in the morning.
Comments
In the link you posted:
"Unfortunately, they were deep within territory controlled and patrolled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, widely referred to as the FARC, the largest armed insurgent force in the Western hemisphere."
What's with the out-of-order acronym? Someone in the comments called it "farcical." Is there some joke here I'm not getting?
Posted by: David H | February 13, 2008 10:03 AM
Sorry--not "in the link you posted," but "in the link it's posted:"
Posted by: David H | February 13, 2008 10:04 AM
Wow. I really need to go get some coffee. I commented on the wrong post.
Posted by: David H | February 13, 2008 10:05 AM
Still off topic but the acronym stands for Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. Why acronyms don't get translated when the name they stand for does I don't knw.
Posted by: Matt | February 13, 2008 10:12 AM
Of course, thanks.
Posted by: David H | February 13, 2008 10:14 AM
Oh, but those gay penguins look FABULOUS in their tuxs;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | February 13, 2008 10:50 AM
Ed: I think you misundersand the 'Christian' position on this -- and, of course, any time I use the phrase, I refer to the majority since there is nothing all Christians agree on.
It is very important that they deny gay penguins -- or members of any other species. The argument goes:
a) being gay is a (sinful) choice;
b) man, being the only creature 'created in God's image,' is the only creature with free will and 'true' consciousness. (They must not have cats very often.)
c) other creatures, having neither consciousness nor being 'cursed' with original sin, can not commit sins or make true choices.
d) therefore, gay penguins are impossible.
So it is absurdity, but on a slightly higher level than you give them credit for.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 13, 2008 10:51 AM
Actually, I'll bet they're not too keen on the inference that it's OK for gay couples to adopt unwanted offspring. . .far better that Tango die in his egg than be taken in by ho-mo penguins!!!
It's pretty common for foes of same-sex couples adopting children to have no plan in place for getting children into stable homes or keeping them out of the system in the first place. For some reason, letting them go from unstable home to unstable home until they age out is a better alternative, so anything that shows kids that living with gay parents isn't so bad is anathema to them.
Posted by: Alison | February 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Edgar B Hatrick III?? - You are kidding right? Do all Americans HAVE to adopt stupid names at birth?? A Hat Trick of Hatricks. Classic!
On the subject at hand. These morons are aware that this same sex adoption HAPPENED IN REALITY right? As opposed to the fanasty bilical land. -DJ
Posted by: Dingojack | February 13, 2008 11:16 AM
oops, very late here... I meant of course "fantasy BIBLICAL land" - apps DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 13, 2008 11:19 AM
It seems to me that the big problem with penguins being gay, is that it pokes a hole in the theory - not the evolution type - that being gay is a "lifestyle choice." And, apparently, gays can be perfectly reasonable parents of orphans. Of course, Ted Haggard pokes a bigger hole in the gay choice theory.
Honestly, what should scare everyone - of all religious stripes, or lack thereof - more than children being raised by homosexuals, is children being raised in such a climate of ignorance and bigotry. Ignorance is truly a "lifestyle choice" that gets far too much respect and is going to damage many more children than any gay penguins will.
Posted by: scott r | February 13, 2008 11:24 AM
I don't find where the gay association comes in. A buddy and me hand raised a Cockatoo chick back in the 70's. Every couple of hours someone had to get up (from our own beds in separate rooms) and feed the chick. We were very much single, heterosexual males rearing a chick. Pretty much the same situation with the Penguins in my view.
So, where is the gay?
Posted by: Gene Goldring | February 13, 2008 11:26 AM
I know that these folks are not really acquainted with the finer points of logic and reality, but wouldn't it be kind of fun to get one of them on TV and ask them to explain, directly, how gay penguins contribute to the moral decay of the country?
I am waiting with my popcorn at the ready.
Posted by: PuckishOne | February 13, 2008 11:27 AM
"The American Library Association says that this book is one of the most challenged books of the last couple years all over the country. All because there are people ridiculous enough to believe that if you even acknowledge the existence of gays, whether human or some other species, their kids will turn out to be gay. I love the smell of irrationality in the morning."
People are paranoid I agree. But there is a concerted effort to have what many would consider pro gay materials taught in the classroom. I went to one of these meetings months ago by the pro gay organization. What they said they were trying to stop I was in total agreement with: Gay kids getting beat up for being gay. What I had issue with were two things: 1. There portrayal of anyone who thought it was wrong as a bigot. 2. That they were treating homosexuality as a race.
This goes into the whole are they born that way argument but it is certian in my mind that to give one group of people the right to be treated as a race is unfair to other groups. When these groups come in and say hey we want to stop violence and teach tolerance I say cool. When they come in and say that if I think it is wrong I am a bigot that is them imposing there beliefs on me. The same thing that they say right wingers are doing to them.
Are most Evangelical Christians paranoid about gays? Absolutely. Do these groups lose support of people who would actually agree with them on many things and still call themselves Evangelical by taking the extreme stances they do? Absolutely. There are hypocrites in all shapes and sizes. But you are right about this book. Who cares if it is in there. Maybe elementary is a little young for anything sexual in nature but other than that so what.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 1:30 PM
King, I have yet to run across anyone treating homosexuality as a race. Most just ask that homosexuality be treated as a sexual preference, exactly like heterosexuality.
As far as I know, there's absolutely nothing in the book that is sexual.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 13, 2008 1:51 PM
Ed,
You've given this argument a number of times, and I have to say it's not entirely fair. As stupid as it is to ban books about gay penguins, the reasoning behind it isn't that it will corrupt children's sexuality (i.e. turn them gay), but that it will corrupt their MORALITY (i.e. make them think homosexuality is okay). They're trying to preserve and defend their bigoted belief system, not the sexual orientation of future generations.
Posted by: Carlo | February 13, 2008 1:56 PM
So, it's apparently ok for teacher to bring the book into the classroom at THEIR discretion, but it's not ok for parent to choose to check out the book for their children. I thought the religious right were all about giving the choice to the parents about what's being taught? By giving the choice to the teacher, they're risking having the teacher read the book to their students in the classroom. Wouldn't it make sense to make the book only available to teacher and parents, and let the parents choose to allow their children to read the book if they wanted? Oh, right. I forgot the religious right want to tell all of us what's ok to read.
Posted by: mathyoo | February 13, 2008 2:07 PM
King of Ireland demonstrates typical hypocrisy when he says "Maybe elementary is a little young for anything sexual in nature". Why is it that its okay to talk about opposite sex couples raising children but when you talk about same sex couples rasing children suddenly its "sexual"? Typical bigotry, things opposite sex couples do every day like talking about their spouses, displaying their pictures, etc. are unquestioningly okay, but when a gay person does the same thing its "pushing their sexuality in our faces".
And "King", it is bigoted to say gays who harm no one are "wrong". Opposing people who harm no one is what's wrong.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 2:30 PM
Carlo said "the reasoning behind it isn't that it will corrupt children's sexuality (i.e. turn them gay), but that it will corrupt their MORALITY (i.e. make them think homosexuality is okay).".
Carlo, they actually do believe that this will turn them gay, their fear is that if children think it is okay to be gay that they will CHOOSE to be gay. The morality of it is really secondary to them, they honestly think that if you don't teach children its wrong to be gay that they WILL become gay.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 2:33 PM
the worst part about naming a kid 'edward hatrick iii' is not so much the pun in the name, as the fact that it takes three generations to finally get to the punchline.
how'd you like to be edward hatrick junior, and have your dad tell you that he gave you this stupid name just so that his grandson's name would make a stupid joke? and there you are in the middle, hatrick jr., with none of the joke and all of the stupid.
Posted by: kid bitzer | February 13, 2008 3:43 PM
Unless by "race" you mean that it's treated as an inherent characteristic of the person that they are not capable of changing and should not be discriminated against because of... WTF?!
1) make up your mind.
2)
[Origin: 1590-1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE bī God by God] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
...you don't see some SMALL difference between pointing out that people who display intolerance and advocate discrimination against a group of people because of an integral and unchosen part of who they are fall under the definition of "bigot," and said displays of intolerance and advocacy of discrimination?
And you're willing to admit this in public?
Wow...
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 13, 2008 4:00 PM
"And "King", it is bigoted to say gays who harm no one are "wrong". Opposing people who harm no one is what's wrong."
First I did not say they are wrong. I said the act is wrong based on my belief in the Bible. I HAVE ALSO STATED OVER 10 TIMES HERE THAT IT IS NO MORE WRONG THAN ANY OTHER "SIN" INCLUDING THE HYPOCRISY AND BIGOTRY PEOPLE ACCUSE ME OF ON HERE. You have labeled something bigotry that simply is not.
"King, I have yet to run across anyone treating homosexuality as a race. Most just ask that homosexuality be treated as a sexual preference, exactly like heterosexuaity"
To push for certain "rights" much the way that African Americans and Women have makes this lobby prone to accusations such as this. I have met people from this lobby who say it is like being black or female in that your are born that way. It is a choice.
LET ME PUT THIS IN CAPITALS AGAIN SO PEOPLE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF EQUATING HOMOSEXUALS WITH PEDOPHILES. THIS IS JUST AN ANALOGY. The Pedophile could come and ask for "rights" and when questioned as to why he needs these rights he says that he was born that way. The murderer could say he was born that way. For that matter the religious hypocrite who goes to church every Sunday to feel good about himself and then goes and judges everyone else could say he was born that way.
In my opinion behavior is a choice. Race or gender are not. If we are going to give certain rights to every choice of behavior where does it stop? Now with that said, gays are still treated very badly in this country. There is still too much violence agaisnt them. I think some of it has been stopped by bringing the issue out in the open. BUT THE SECOND THAT I BECOME A BIGOT FOR LIVING MY LIFE THE WAY I CHOOSE AND THE MORALS THAT I SET FORTH AND SEEK TO ENTER PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT IT I PART COMPANY WITH TRYING TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS.
At that meeting I was one of the few people that could actually help them accomplish what they said: get the kids from beating up the gay kids or making fun of them. I have always had a tremendous influence over young people and am sure if I would have went into the school and talked to some key students it would have stopped. But they lost me when I became a bigot. It takes it too far.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:00 PM
...I am positive I removed any reason for the formatting not to be correctly applied.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 13, 2008 4:01 PM
"1) make up your mind.
2)
big·ot [big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
This would be a great definition for at least some in the gay lobby who seek to ensure their liberty by infringing on my free speech. Ed had a good post on the whole tolerance for any point of view except the Christian one the other day. I think there is some truth in what the man was saying that Ed had a problem with.
It would be a great definition for at least some on the evangelical side as well. Lets be consistent!
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:06 PM
"...you don't see some SMALL difference between pointing out that people who display intolerance and advocate discrimination against a group of people because of an integral and unchosen part of who they are fall under the definition of "bigot," and said displays of intolerance and advocacy of discrimination?"
I believe like all behavior, good or bad, it is a choice. That is where we disagree. Yes, I have talked about this in public many times. I am against all discrimination against gays. I acknowledge it and it is wrong. Those who seek to do it are bigots. Those who seek to beat them up or riducule them are bigots. I confronted guys in my church all the time for making fun of gays and mock acting like it in fun. The pastor even did it. They were wrong. BUT TO SAY THAT I AM A BIGOT FOR BELIEVING IT TO BE WRONG IS CRAZY. IT TAKES IT TOO FAR AND ACTUALLY HURTS THE CAUSE.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:12 PM
"If we are going to give certain rights to every choice of behavior where does it stop?"
When you say that LGBTI people are asking for rights based on a "behavior", you are showing profound ignorance. I don't think you even know what gay means.
Posted by: John | February 13, 2008 4:14 PM
Homosexuality is as much of a choice as heterosexuality. Heterosexuals have benefits that are denied to homosexuals, with no reason other than they are homosexual. The homosexual "lobby" wants no more or less than to have the same exact rights that heterosexuals do.
This is a tired, pathetic strawman. It obviously stops at the point that someone's actions harm or interfere with another person's ability to live their life within the constraints of the law. Murderers may very well "be born that way". Their predilection for killing other people is obviously outside the bounds of the law, and therefore does not entitle them to the right to kill people. Homosexuality, regardless of it being a choice, is not illegal and does not require people to operate outside the bounds of the law, where as murdering and pedophilia do.
I don't think you're a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong. I don't think you hate homosexuals, or wish them harm, simply because of their sexual orientation. If you think that homosexuals should be denied rights simply because they are homosexual, then I'd start to question whether you're a bigot.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 13, 2008 4:18 PM
"When you say that LGBTI people are asking for rights based on a "behavior", you are showing profound ignorance. I don't think you even know what gay means."
They are asking, based on their view of what it is to be gay, for rights because the vast majority believe they are born gay. I am saying that they shold not ask based on that because it is a behavior. It is a choice. I know most would disagree with me about that but that is my belief. All behavior is a choice. Like I said good or bad.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:21 PM
Am I the only one who notices that King of Ireland's presence is almost a certainty in threads relating to homosexuality? It seems a little, um, curious.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM
Being gay is not a behavior.
Posted by: John | February 13, 2008 4:26 PM
"If you think that homosexuals should be denied rights simply because they are homosexual, then I'd start to question whether you're a bigot."
I agree with all you wrote. All analogies go only so far. Obviously being gay is not illegal nor should it be. I think you see my point with the last part of your statement. No I do not think they should be denied rights based on sexual orientation. Now that depends what rights means. The guy I heard speak thought it was a right not to have to hear it is wrong by those who believe it. That is not a right that any group should have. It limits free speech.
The article on the whiny wife shows the other extreme. That dude does not want gays to be able to "recruit" others to there cause. His words not mine. I oppose him on this and he could be put in the possible bigot category. Since the vast majority of Evangelicals believe homosexuality is a sin and thus wrong by the logic of some we are all bigots. This is simply not true.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:29 PM
"Being gay is not a behavior."
Based on what?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 13, 2008 4:31 PM
"King of Ireland" said "I HAVE ALSO STATED OVER 10 TIMES HERE THAT IT IS NO MORE WRONG THAN ANY OTHER "SIN" INCLUDING THE HYPOCRISY AND BIGOTRY PEOPLE ACCUSE ME OF ON HERE. You have labeled something bigotry that simply is not.".
Obviously that is bigotry. You're equating gayness which harms no one with sins in general which typically involve harming others. Gayness is most certainly not the equivalent of sin as most people understand sin and its incredibly offensive of you to suggest it is.
"King of Ireland " said "The Pedophile could come and ask for "rights" and when questioned as to why he needs these rights he says that he was born that way. The murderer could say he was born that way".
Once again, the pedophile and the murderer are hurting others, the gay is not. There is a reason why gays deserver equal rights and those do not.
"King of Ireland" said "In my opinion behavior is a choice. Race or gender are not."
No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex, that is innate and central to a person's character just as much as race or gender. Sexual desires are one of our most powerful drives and to suggest that they not be acted on when they harm no one is hatred and bigotry. If someone told you never to act on your heterosexual sex drive you'd consider that an outrageous imposition on your personal freedom and it is just as outrageous an idea when it comes to gays.
King of Ireland said " If we are going to give certain rights to every choice of behavior where does it stop?".
It stops when you hurt others. As long as you aren't hurting others any behavior is moral. You have rights based upon religion which most certainly is a chosen behavior, by your logic you should not have such rights. I however support your right to your chosen religious behavior - I'm not a bigot like you.
"King of Ireland said "BUT THE SECOND THAT I BECOME A BIGOT FOR LIVING MY LIFE THE WAY I CHOOSE AND THE MORALS THAT I SET FORTH AND SEEK TO ENTER PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT IT I PART COMPANY WITH TRYING TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS.".
You're not simply living your life as you choose, you're trying to dictate to gays how they should live their lives - that's where you cross the line and become a bigot. And its incredibly childish of you to use the fact that people oppose you dictating to others how to live as an excuse to look the other way when it comes to violence against gays.
"King of Ireland" said "[The definition of bigot] would be a great definition for at least some in the gay lobby who seek to ensure their liberty by infringing on my free speech."
No one here has tried to infringe upon your free speech. The right to free speech doesn't include the right to be free from criticism which is what you mistakenly seem to think you deserve. Obviously anyone so presumptuous as to call themselves "King of Ireland" is under the mistaken impression that they deserve preferential treatment over everyone else.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 4:31 PM
King of Ireland, I encourage you to try to step back from your own feelings for a second and carefully read what you have written here. If you honestly cannot understand why we consider your rantings to be erroneous and absurd, then I am afraid that you are beyond help. Feel free to live in your fantasy world, but don't be surprised by the goings-on of the real world.
And let me give you a piece of advice: excessively typing in all-caps gives you the appearance of desperation and/or imbalance, not authoritativeness.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 13, 2008 4:48 PM
Although the strongest argument for treating gays and lesbians like human beings comes from the biological nature of all sexuality (just like the biological nature of all human characteristics), the distinction King of Ireland makes is arbitrary and inaccurate. To put sexuality (which exists whether or not the "behavior" - or in this case behaviors, as sexuality is expressed in many different ways) on the level of "lifestyle choice" makes it exactly equal to religion, if not race (BTW, race is a man-made creation that lacks any scientific basis, there are no races but the human race).
You say that you find the "act" of homosexuality (which I presume means all sexual acts, and perhaps romantic acts, between those of the same gender) immoral. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church, which teaches that blasphemy, heresy, fornication and adultery are immoral. Yet if the Roman Catholic church tried to downgrade, say, Hillary Clinton's sexual lifestyle choice to a "civil union" from a marriage, based on the fact that her sex partner has proven himself completely incapable of monogamy and therefore their relationship should not be considered the moral equivalent of a true marriage, there would be a huge public outcry. The same would be true if, say, Georgetown University Hospital here in DC refused to grant spousal status to those who choose the immoral lifestyle choice of Mormonism or Southern Baptist (two "psuedo-Christian cults" according to the church). Can you imagine how the American public would scream if George Bush were rushed to that hospital and his partner in fornication, nee Laura Welch, were barred from his hospital bed on the grounds of being a concubine?
Finally, of course, there is the huge problem that your beliefs, and many of our laws, are based on the scientific fallacy that all human beings are either male or female, and those two genders are diametrically opposite to one another. That ignores the intersexed, a small but still human percentage of the population that is neither male nor female. I wonder, under existing marriage laws that elevate breeders above gays and lesbians, what gender a child born with mixed genitals (e.g., an ovary, a fallopian tube, a penis and a testicle) would be assigned to, and what gender that child (actually profiled on a Discovery Channel documentary a while back) would be forced to marry?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 13, 2008 4:57 PM
"King, I have yet to run across anyone treating homosexuality as a race. Most just ask that homosexuality be treated as a sexual preference, exactly like heterosexuaity"
To push for certain "rights" much the way that African Americans and Women have makes this lobby prone to accusations such as this. I have met people from this lobby who say it is like being black or female in that your are born that way. It is a choice.
Women are not a race either...
Posted by: Drekab | February 13, 2008 5:01 PM
Wait, you think that being told that you're wrong is "infringing on your free speech?"
...geez, what can I add to that?
Based on what? What evidence would you cite in support of this claim?
You do have some, right? If not, then your "belief" is already getting more respect than it deserves.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 13, 2008 5:05 PM
King of Ireland-
I don't think merely believing that homosexuality is wrong makes you a bigot, especially if you don't elevate that alleged wrong above others. But I have to agree with the others that you are wrong when you say that gay is a behavior. Gay is an orientation. Those who are sexually attracted to the same gender are gay, regardless of their behavior. You can have gay sex without being gay (there have been male porn stars who are heterosexual but acted in gay porn films for money) and you can be gay and have nothing but straight sex (lots of gay men have married women and lived that way despite being sexually attracted to men exclusively). Orientation and actions are not the same thing. A gay person who doesn't have sex is still gay, just as a straight person who doesn't have sex is still straight. It's your attractions that make you what you are and those attractions are not a matter of choice. I didn't choose to find women attractive; when I hit puberty, it just happened.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 13, 2008 5:10 PM
KoI,
I'm not going to accuse you of being bigoted, but I just want to point out some flaws in your logic. The difference between being a pedophile or a murderer and being gay is that *children cannot give consent*, that is why it's a crime. Same for murders, regardless of whether they were born that way, the people they murder did not give consent and their individual rights are being seriously violated.
Being gay by contrast is peaceful, relationships consensual, and damaging to *no one*.
And, as for homosexuality even being a choice. Let me ask you question: Who do you think we should ask to find out if being gay is a choice? I dunno, how about gay people for a start. You think? The people who are actually gay say it's not a choice. Why would they lie?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | February 13, 2008 5:18 PM
Saying its wrong for people to do something that doesn't harm others is bigotry.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 5:20 PM
"They are asking, based on their view of what it is to be gay, for rights because the vast majority believe they are born gay. I am saying that they shold not ask based on that because it is a behavior. It is a choice."
KoI, I agree with your earlier call for consistency. Do you agree that it is then consistent to say that heterosexuality is also a choice? My, and your I'm assuming, heterosexuality means to me that we're attracted to females, something you and I definitely did not choose (though I would have anyway if I could have... they're so purrrty). Did you choose to be attracted to women? Yes, there is homosexual-ness and homosexual behavior; are you trying to make a distinction between the attribute and the behavior?
Posted by: Dave L | February 13, 2008 5:21 PM
KoI, it's pretty clear that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about. You don't even know what homosexuality is, and you're declaring that it's "wrong"?
You ask "based on what"? Based on the definition of homosexuality. A gay person is someone who is attracted to people of the same sex, just like a straight person is someone who is attracted to people of the opposite sex. There are no actions involved!
Posted by: Skemono | February 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Superintendent Edgar B. Hatrick III appears to be in violation of Justice Holmes' opinion in Buck v Bell (also from Virginia) that, "Three generations of idiots are enough."
On the other hand, if I weren't already divorced, I am convinced that this book would have destroyed the sanctity of my marriage. Without a doubt.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 13, 2008 5:32 PM
I would like to know what King O'I thinks are the "special" rights GLBT are asking for. If we were asking to sit in the front of the bus, or to let our children (I have two) into good schools without having the necessary qualifications, I would agree that we are demanding special rights. But we're not. I have been, in the past, denied jobs, housing, and service at public accomodations, because I am gay. Sometimes it was unspoken, sometimes I was told "We don't serve your kind." As a single parent I was constantly afraid that someone would decide that, since I was gay I was an unfit parent and my sons would be taken away.
Reading a book or seeing an image on television will not make anyone gay but it could stir up feelings in a child that he or she does not understand. I remember having a huge crush on Timmy from Lassie. I knew enough that I could not share my feeling with others because they would think I was strange but I think that seeing a positive gay image at that age would have done wonders for my self-esteem. This is what fundie parents are most afraid of.
On a personal note to Ed: If this book or others like it could make a kid gay, I would like to see more gay firemen and quarterbacks. We have enough interior decorators.
Posted by: wrpd | February 13, 2008 6:54 PM
Hi King of Ireland,
Above you wrote, "I said the act is wrong based on my belief in the Bible."
Perhaps your interpretation of the Bible needs work.
Scott
Posted by: Scott | February 13, 2008 7:19 PM
Ed: I think the title would have been catchier had you written --
Anti-Gay School Board Proves That Penguins Have Free Will
Posted by: Dan | February 13, 2008 7:36 PM
Ed, you claim that believing homosexuality is "wrong" doesn't necessary make one a bigot. But then, in the same post, you go on to describe how being gay is "not a matter of choice" (people are born with the sexual orientation they got, not what they chose).
My question to you is how can a "inherited" trait ever be "wrong" (in any non-bigoted, respectable sense)? And how can disapproving of an inherited trait not be bigoted when it comes to gays, yet is obviously so when it comes to race? I don't see the difference.
Posted by: Caliban | February 13, 2008 7:55 PM
They should take the Bible out of circulation, the hypocritical fucks.
Posted by: Jacob | February 13, 2008 8:35 PM
Caliban: Because Ed is making a distinction that is beyond the Bible-thumpers: There is being gay, and then there is engaging in homosexual acts, and they are not the same thing.
I am not a bigot if I believe that sex outside of marriage is a mistake, so long as I apply the same reasoning to myself. As a single man, I do believe that, so I don't engage in sex; I feel the same is a good idea for other singles as well, whether hetero or otherwise (but I am in favor of SSM, so I don't have that contradiction).
But if I believe something is wrong with a person because of their sexual orientation, that is definitely bigotry: Who am I to tell someone they are broken when God made them that way? (I am a Christian, but you don't have to accept my premises to see that the logic is valid). I am not "broken" as a heterosexual, even though lust can lead me into sin, also. Neither, then, is the homosexual. Or bisexual. Etc.
The problem here is that far too many believers (of lots of religions, but we evangelical Christians are the problem in the US) think homosexual acts somehow represent a separate class of sin, unlike any other. This is, of course, unBiblical, although as I don't think I need to make that argument here, I'll skip it.
My point is, I don't think I'm a bigot, and yet I fit into Ed's schema. It is possible, but it is a viewpoint shared by far too few of my fellow Christians.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 13, 2008 8:59 PM
Greetings from Loudoun County, Virginia ("Laughingstock since 1994")
The ones who are demanding "special rights" are those parents who expect our public schools to help them with the anti-gay indoctrination of their children. Since the mere visibility of GLBT people and our families in the schools makes that task more difficult, these parents would demand that all such evidence be erased - whether it's a book about penguins that might make some child with two dads feel included, or that child's own voice in talking about her family just like all the other kids do. We actually had a guy testify to our school board that he's "trying to raise my children in a very rigid value system, and I could use your help with that." This was in an attempt to have the board adopt a policy banning any positive portrayal of gay people in drama productions written and produced by high school students.
Thanks for picking up this story. Here's our report from Equality Loudoun.
Posted by: David Weintraub | February 13, 2008 8:59 PM
Kersham, those christians who believe gay sex is wrong also believe there is something inherently wrong with those who desire gay sex. The catholic church says gays are intrinsically disordered. As Caliban points out, that is bigotry just as sure as its bigotry to disaprove of a person's race.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 9:20 PM
And for those of you who think saying gayness isn't any worse a sin than anyother - spare us your bigotry. Gayness doesn't hurt anyone and cannot in any moral sense be considered a wrong.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 9:36 PM
What I meant to say was and for those of you who think your being generous by saying gayness isn't any worse a sin than any other - spare us your bigotry.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 9:38 PM
well, all i know is that i'm 56 and heterosexual and never been married, so the only possible answer is that the institution of marriage has been so damaged by the homosexual agenda.
Posted by: z | February 13, 2008 9:53 PM
i don't know how people can say that being gay is not a choice. i mean, every man knows the seductive pull of a hairy-chested beefcake giving you a look at a muscular buttock, which it takes every ounce of character to resist, don't we guys. Guys? back me up on this? guys?
Posted by: z | February 13, 2008 9:56 PM
CPT_DOOM said essentially what I was going to say.
If one argues orientation as an act of mind, then what differentiates itself from other types of culturally centered acts of mind such as religion or diet? Secondly, is there any harm to the state/government or to its people from doing such an action of mind?
If one argues orientation as an act of nature, then what differentiates itself from other types of naturally occuring qualities, such as hair color, eye color, and skin color? What quality of this action of nature poses a threat to the state or to its people?
Those are the questions I asked when I decided to make an informed decision on the matter. Can anyone guess my answer? Here's a hint, I agreed completely with the full opinion of last summer's Iowa state judge.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | February 13, 2008 10:04 PM
Priya Lynn: And had I said that "gayness isn't any worse a sin than any other" I agree that that is unmitigated bigotry. I didn't. As I tried to point out, the sexual urge is universal, taking different objects in different people: In this there is no sin. In acting out of this urge, hetero and homosexuals can both sin. They also might not, the same as any other biological desire.
Being gay is not a sin. I made that clear. Neither is gay sex a sin in and of itself. It might be, depending upon the motivations of the practitioners, in exactly the same manner that hetero sex might be sinful. I may well be a prude as far as my personal life goes, but I am not a hypocrite.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 13, 2008 10:06 PM
KoI,
Nobody else is saying it, so I feel I must...
!,.;: These are punctuation marks. They are used to break thoughts into coherent sentences. Please use them.
Saying that gay is a "choice" is simply wrong. When did you choose to be straight? Did I miss that day in school when they told us all to choose sides? Was it that baseball thing I skipped? I knew I was gonna be in trouble!
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from criticism. I have to let a lying bigot speak. I am then able to use *my* freedom of speech to call him a lying bigot. That's the beauty of a free country. (So far... last time I checked... but Congress is still in session.)
Posted by: LanceR | February 13, 2008 10:14 PM
Caliban wrote:
First, you're confusing "inborn" with "inherited", which is based on the misconception that there is a single gene that makes one gay; that is highly unlikely. Far more likely that being gay is a matter of predisposition and that the cause is partly genetic and partly environmental (there are theories, for example, about flooding the womb with female hormones as one input into homosexuality, which would mean one is born with a high likelihood of being gay but this is not an "inherited" trait, nor is it one controlled genetically the way eye color is). It's highly unlikely that it will turn out to be as simple as a particular gene that, when X mutation or X variation occurs, means one is gay. So let's not oversimplify the notion of homosexuality being innate.
Second, you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, assuming that any trait we are born with me cannot be a bad thing. But this is transparently false. There is much evidence that some people are born with a tendency toward violence at highly elevated levels; it's hardly a stretch to say that is a bad thing. The point is not that homosexuality is a bad thing, of course, because I don't believe; the point is that merely because a given trait is "natural" does not mean it's healthy or moral or good. One must make those judgments on some grounds other than it being natural.
I reject the notion that merely believing that homosexuality is wrong means that someone is a bigot. I know people, even people I care about, who believe that homosexuality is a sin but only one among a myriad of sins. The important thing is that they do not treat gay people any differently than they do anyone else. There may not be a lot of those people around, but they do exist and I don't think it's reasonable to call them bigots based solely on that. I think they're wrong, of course, but being wrong does not make them a bigot.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 13, 2008 10:23 PM
Kersham, what you said was "The problem here is that far too many believers (of lots of religions, but we evangelical Christians are the problem in the US) think homosexual acts somehow represent a separate class of sin, unlike any other." which is essentially the same as saying gayness isn't any worse a sin than any other. That's insulting and wrong. Sin in general is something bad, something that hurts others, to suggest that gayness is in the same category is bigoted.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 10:40 PM
Is being bi-sexual a half sinful semi-choice? Is it being "sortta" gay? Or is it the 'default' position to ensure maximal cohesion in a small band of wandering hominids? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 13, 2008 10:44 PM
Ed said "I know people, even people I care about, who believe that homosexuality is a sin but only one among a myriad of sins. The important thing is that they do not treat gay people any differently than they do anyone else.".
There's no way you can think gayness is a sin and not treat gays differently than you would someone who you think is not sinning. You can't think someone is doing something wrong and have no desire to oppress them. There's no way you're going to be as welcoming and supportive of someone you think is doing something wrong as you would be of someone you think isn't doing anything wrong. Believing that gayness is wrong when it hurts no one is bigotry.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 10:46 PM
This is just freaking bizarre on alot of levels. At no point in the bible does it even remotely come close to saying men having sex with men is ever ok. The motivation simply doesn't matter. Now is the bible correct is the valid question but lets not be so dishonest in the discussion to pretend those folks thought gay sex was ok depending on the motivation by which I think you mean married or not.
There was no ancient clamor for gay marriage.
You think a bunch of bottled up, passionless, prudes is a good idea? I honestly don't think you are getting all that life may offer friend and I say this as a fellow who has never slept around. Methinks you put to much emphasis on the genitalia. But to each his own, I personally would find a hard line stance as the above to be unhealthy mentally and physically but I guess that depends on individual drives. Likewise I think waiting until marriage causes as many if not more problems than not waiting. I know several such stories personally.
Having said all of that I do hope you find someone special and get back in the game so to speak.:-)
Posted by: JimC | February 13, 2008 11:30 PM
[[there you are in the middle, hatrick jr., with none of the joke and all of the stupid.]]
Names. What are these people thinking? My son had a grade-school classmate named Justin Case, and one of my sibs had a high-school classmate named Donald Duck............
.
.
.
.
(.........wait for it..................)
.
.
.
.
JUNIOR!
Posted by: wotthe7734 | February 13, 2008 11:32 PM
Ed, I put the word "inherited" in quotes because i know the scientific causes for homosexuality have not reached a consensus. The point is that whatever the causes are, they are beyond the control of the individual who acquires them.
Comparing sexual orientation to a predisposition to violence is false comparrison as being gay has no necessary negative outcomes the way, say, a predisposition to alcoholism does. It's a straw man argument.
In this context, being gay is much more akin to being born left-handed than it is to being born with a predisposition to violence.
People who think being gay is a sin or somehow "wrong" is just as bigoted and ridiculous as thinking somehow that it's sinful or wrong for being born left handed.
I know that there are Christians who think that being gay is wrong but still make an effort to be compassionate to them, but, in a way, that's even more offensive than someone who openly declares their rabid homophobia.
I have close friends, coworkers and family members that are gay, and the very notion that someone you love thinks you are fundamentally "wrong" or "living in sin" because of something you have absolutely no control over is just another knife in the heart.
By that, i mean that the crazy, Fred Phelps style of raging homophobia does not damage a gay person's psyche because it's so over-the-top fucking crazy. What really hurts is when you know that the people you love (who treat you sanely and compassionately) think that you are nonetheless morally wrong or bad or sinful for something that you have no control over.
It's stupid and horrible and yes, it's bigoted. I don't care about hurting the feelings of people who think that gays are sinful or wrong (simply for being who they are) by calling them bigots. I care about the people that are hurt, day in and day out, by the stupid, irrational affects of those beliefs.
Posted by: Caliban | February 13, 2008 11:42 PM
I wonder what the parents' reaction would have been if it had been a story about seahorses? Not only is it the male who looks after the eggs and cares for the young, but he does it - ALONE!
Quick, run for the hills! The big, bad, gay, single parent monster is coming! -DJ
PS There are species of lizards that reproduce parthenogenetically thus have only females &etc. The natural world sure is a frightening place for the narrow-minded.
Posted by: DingoJack | February 13, 2008 11:45 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
If someone believes that everyone is a sinner, including themselves, this simply doesn't hold true. As I said, I know people like this. I've seen it myself. You telling me that you can't imagine they exist does not negate their existence a bit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 13, 2008 11:51 PM
Caliban-
You spend your time worrying about people who think homosexuality is sinful but still treat gay people with the same decency they treat others, and I'll spend my time worrying about the people who actually mistreat gay people and work to deny them equal rights.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 13, 2008 11:54 PM
I think Caliban makes a good argument above. People who say they love the sinner but hate the sin are usually only able to do one or the other successfully. It's the kind of smarmy catch phrase that is a band aid for the cognitive dissonance present in so many religious people. Most people who profess belief simply don't take it that seriously and they are the individuals who eventually change the landscape.
Religion takes a terrible toll on the day to day lives of so many for the most mundane of reasons.
Posted by: JimC | February 13, 2008 11:56 PM
Ed, the point of my disagreement is that the very people you speak of who "treat gay people with decency" are still hurting gays, especially those close to them.
In my own state of Wisconsin, enough liberal democrats voted "yes" to an amendment to our state constitution to forever outlaw gay marriage. This was not accomplished solely by religious fundamentalists, a sizable portion of moderate and liberal Democrats voted for it as well.
Think of it this way: You're posted threads before about how the youth today don't have the (the same kind of) negative associations with homosexuality that their parents have.
So, imagine 50 years from know, when (for the sake of argument) gays are fully (legally) accepted into our society. Imagine how embarrassing your posts now about defending those who think it's not bigoted to think that being gay is wrong?
It will be no different than reading now about someone 50 years ago defending those who though that being black was somehow "wrong" or at least, not equal to, being white.
I'm honestly bewildered why you can't see this.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 12:17 AM
Ed Wrote: "You spend your time worrying about people who think homosexuality is sinful but still treat gay people with the same decency they treat others, and I'll spend my time worrying about the people who actually mistreat gay people and work to deny them equal rights."
Ed, my point is that they all contribute towards the suppression of gays. Surely, those who (Christian liberals) think that there's something wrong with being gay, yet don't vote against them are still contributing to the social wave of anti-gay sentiment? How could their disapproval possibly be against it?
"I think that it's wrong to be gay, but I'm going to vote for their equal rights in society." :How is this intrinsically different than saying: "I think that black people are usually inferior to whites, but i support their equal rights in society?"
Yeah, sure, such a view is an improvement over Fred Phelp's but it's hardly positive by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 1:23 AM
JimC wrote:
That may well be true. In fact, it's almost certainly true. But the fact that this is "usually" true doesn't mean it's always true. And that has been my only point.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 1:55 AM
Caliban wrote:
Sorry, I just don't buy it. Disapproval alone is not hurtful, it's the things that usually come along with disapproval that hurt people. I've used the example of my stepmother before. She's a born again Christian who believes that being gay is a sin because that's what the Bible says. But she also believes that we are all sinners, including her, and that she has a responsibility to treat all sinners the same way she would want to be treated. For almost 10 years she took almost constant care of my uncle while he was dying of AIDS. She never passed judgment on him for what she thought was sin, she showed nothing but compassion and love. The fact that she disapproved is not hurtful. She disapproves of many things that I do as well, but I am not hurt by that; we simply have a disagreement. We see bigotry in people's actions, not their abstract beliefs about what is and isn't a sin. And while it's certainly true that most people who believe as she does really do treat gay people worse, she does not. I give her great credit for that and I do not consider her a bigot.
I can't imagine what "liberal democrats" have to do with this discussion, or even what political battles have to do with it. I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about how one person treats other people in everyday life and whether the sole fact that one thinks homosexuality is sinful - and nothing else - is enough to label someone a bigot.
I doubt I'll feel any embarrassment at all. But feel free to stick around and find out.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 2:03 AM
Dammit Ed, I'll hold you to that! And don't think that i won't!
I realize that when it comes to issues like abortion or gays that is suddenly becomes personal instead of abstract. All i can do (at least here) is express the kinds of injustice that i have experienced from people i love who are gay or women or whatever and make a case in their defense.
Although in this particular instance, i can't help but get the feeling that you're more interested in defending people close to you that are liberal Christians than follow through on the natural conclusions your own beliefs entail.
Fuck, I'm the same way. I'd go to the ends of the earth to defend everyone around me who has to suffer, each and every day, because of an irrational bias against gays.
Ed, I wouldn't read your blog every day if i didn't think it was worthwhile. In this particular instance though, i think you give far to much credit for the oppressor than the oppressed. Even if the oppressor thinks they're being "nice".
Being "nice" or "compassionate" just isn't good enough when your patenter of 20 years is dying and you're not legally allowed to see him or her because the prevailing culture thinks you shouldn't.
My response to those is and will always be a resounding "fuck you!"
Granted, i probably won't win any minds that way, but the way i see it, if they were capable of seeing the inherent injustice in the matter, it wouldn't be dependant upon me to highight it for them.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 2:39 AM
Priya -
There's no way you can think gayness is a sin and not treat gays differently than you would someone who you think is not sinning. You can't think someone is doing something wrong and have no desire to oppress them.
This isn't remotely based in reality. I know a lot of atheists, who absolutely believe that religious thinking is flat wrong and practicing any religion is flat wrong. Yet they seem to function without any desire to oppress the religious. I know many who have even worse thoughts about perpetuaters of horrendous forms of ignorance, indeed, I often do myself, yet they believe quite firmly in those person's freedom of expression, having no desire to oppress them.
Wanting to see people change, to leave perceived negative behaviors behind, is not oppression. Attempting to force people to change is. There is a huge difference there.
And Ed is dead on, in that most people who take the tak he is describing, don't believe anyone isn't a sinner.
Caliban -
Therin lies the rub though. It may very well be you.
I used to be an ardent anti-choicer. I was never a misogynist, I was just ignorant. I changed because others realized that I was not a misogynist, merely that I was ignorant. I used to be anti-gay. I didn't even know what it meant. When I found out my uncle was bisexual, I honest to gods thought it meant he liked having multiple partners (I misunderstood my parents explanation).
By the time I knew what homosexuality meant, I knew enough gays to get skeptical about the notion of gay = sin or otherwise bad. But again, it was relief of ignorance that changed my attitude. I was never an anti-gay bigot, in spite of fervently believing that the gay was wrong, sinful and apparently immoral.
Why is it worth it? Because me, someone who used to be anti-choice, someone who absolutely believed that teh gay was really, really bad, is now very fervent in my defense of women's reproductive rights and downright voracious in my advocacy of gay rights. I also went from believing that prophylactics are evil, to being one of those nauseating people that looks for excuses to hand out condoms (having lost an uncle and more than a couple friends to AIDS, I am just nutty like that).
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 4:12 AM
I think people that think like King of Ireland are subconsciously equating the choices re: gay behavior to the mundane like car buying choices.
It's like the free-thinking free-marketer conservationist who won't even own a car because it pollutes etc. but will defend GM's right to produce a extravagant gas hog, and a consumer's right to buy and own one to tool around town da solo.
The problem with the mental gymnastics involved to support the above is:
(1) it is fooling yourself -- you ARE prejudice against the gas-hogs and you will in some way express that prejudice against the gas-hoggers by somehow allowing a creep of restrictions to occur (an extra tax of some sort, etc.). Your prejudice will override your other principles in someway sooner or later.
(2) you probably have loop-holes in your mind for gas-hogs; oh he needs one for that big family or in that harsh weather in the country or something. Like hetro-sex is ok in marriage to produce babies or show god the glory of the love in marriage or something. Yet where are the loopholes for gay-sex? There is the big rub -- and the flat out unjust prejudice!! Yup, gay expressions of love and human bonding are a SIN - always and forever - and are forbidden at some level. It is not a gas-hog thing - it is "should I be able to buy an automatic weapon for the expressed sole purpose of shooting up a 1st grade class?" type of thing. Admit it, sooner or later you'll come down on the side of NO WAY. Again, your prejudice will override your other principles in someway sooner or later.
Yes K of I you have a prejudice and yes it is unfair. But you are trying in your mind to believe yourself to be fair. I grant you that. You just are NOT! Read above though.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 14, 2008 7:08 AM
Pria quoted me saying
and somehow then concluded,I would suggest I said nothing of the kind. Where did I call homosexuality a sin (or even homosexual acts)?
And when I said,
JimC responded,It must be opposites day, and no one bothered to tell me.
Finally, JimC takes,
And goes off about how motivation is irrelevant in matters of sin; this merely shows he doesn't understand the nature of sin. First, with regards to whether motivation matters, I suggest reading the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7): Motivation is all that matters.
Second, he is mistaken in that a sin is not an act. Sin is a state, the difference between how God would have us live and our actual choices. And yes, spouses can sin against each other sexually as easily as two people hooking up: To treat the other person as an object for my own pleasure is the sin; if I am motivated by the desire to please the other, that is different. There is thus a distinction between fucking and making love.
Nor do I think a piece of paper determines what relationship exists between two people; the paper comes in handy in other areas of life, such as inheriting property or getting tax breaks.
I seem to be in agreement with most of what is being said, I just happen to think sleeping around tends to be a mistake. Don't read more into that than what I said.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 14, 2008 7:47 AM
Ed wrote:
This is a political issue because some people's rights are at stake. Rights that are routinely violated by majorities who have similar ideas about homosexuality.
Does or would she support bans on gay marriage? No matter how nice she was to your uncle, if she's willing to deny him rights that other sinners get, then I'm not so sure she really does think that all sinners should be treated equally. At least not here on Earth.
If not, good for her.
That said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that you run straight over to your stepmother's house, point at her and scream "BIGOT!" There's certainly always room for tact and common decency. Nevertheless, I don't think it's wrong to describe these ideas as bigoted, even when they are held by people we dearly love. And in my opinion, holding bigoted ideas is enough to earn you the label. Pretty much unless you never voice them or act upon them, which is not usually how it goes.
Most of them (and let's not kind ourselves- in this country it is almost exclusively religious people who fret about homosexuality and advocate against it) say they hate the sin, love the sinner. That's fine. Then why do they still go out and vote to deny a particular kind of sinner equal rights? That's not the kind of love I want! I'm sure many of them are nice people who don't go around saying mean things to gay people. But they still speak by voting. And how we use our political voice is one facet of how we treat people in our daily lives.
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 7:51 AM
Then why are there apparently bisexual penguins, to return to the topic? It must be much, much, much, much, much older.
(Also, what little I've read is quite contradictory about whether bisexuality is the default condition in humans.)
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 14, 2008 9:33 AM
Well, it is kind of hard to take the argument that gay people shouldn't get "special rights" because of their sinfulness when other kinds of sinfulness don't subject people to a loss of rights. Leviticus is usually cited as the source for the strongest admonition against the "abomination" of "lying with a man as you would lie with a woman". However, there's a whole laundry list there of other "abominations" that get excused with apologetics instead. The day we deny the right to marry to people who plant tomatos and peppers together and touch dead bugs is the day that being gay becomes a valid argument to deny the right to marry. Well, maybe not valid, but at least consistent.
Posted by: Alison | February 14, 2008 10:17 AM
Ed, that's a nice story about your step mother but I'm not buying it. She may have cared for your uncle but at some level at some point someone who believes you are doing something wrong is going to oppose you. As one other poster suggested I don't believe for a minute that if she had a chance to vote on an amendment to ban gay marriage that she wouldn't have. I'm sure you don't know a single person who thinks gayness is wrong that voted against an amendment to ban gay marriage. Anyone who thinks someone who harms no one is doing something wrong is a bigot.
Kersham said "I would suggest I said nothing of the kind. Where did I call homosexuality a sin (or even homosexual acts)?".
When you said ""The problem here is that far too many believers (of lots of religions, but we evangelical Christians are the problem in the US) think homosexual acts somehow represent a separate class of sin, unlike any other." you suggested that gayness is in the same class of sin as anyother.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 11:38 AM
Priya Lynn wrote:
*shrug* You're free to believe whatever you want, of course, but reality isn't going to budge.
Wanna bet? Not only do I know such people, some of them comment on this blog. There is no inherent incompatibility between believing that homosexuality is a sin and believing that gays should have equal rights. It's certainly true that most people who believe homosexuality is a sin are also going to believe they shouldn't have equal rights, but when you say "not a single person" you're simply wrong, period. You can wish such people away all you want, but since I actually know people like that and they're not going to disappear into thin air based on your wishful thinking - again - reality isn't going to budge no matter how much you want it to.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 12:04 PM
Priya stated:
"You're not simply living your life as you choose, you're trying to dictate to gays how they should live their lives - that's where you cross the line and become a bigot. And its incredibly childish of you to use the fact that people oppose you dictating to others how to live as an excuse to look the other way when it comes to violence against gays."
I would never look the other way if someone was being attacked whether they were gay or not. That has no bearing on my decision to help someone at all. I obviously was talking about supporting an agenda that I think goes too far. Please read all that I state.
I also have said repeatedly that I do not personally care what gay people do. I am Libertarian at heart and want the maximun amount of freedom for all.
Since I am not trying to tell gay people I know to change their behavior, do support any type of legislation that would tell them to change their behavior, or any thing remotely like it I guess by your definition I am not a bigot.
This comment proves my point that most people on this side of the issue are so heated and dogmatic they do not listen. It seems the vast majority here think anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and is a choice is a bigot. That is so far from the mainstream of thinking that it is extreme in my view. It is no different in my mind than Religionists calling anyone who is Pro-Choice a murderer. It is needless rhetoric and harms legitimate debate on these tough issues.
Ed Stated:
"I reject the notion that merely believing that homosexuality is wrong means that someone is a bigot. I know people, even people I care about, who believe that homosexuality is a sin but only one among a myriad of sins. The important thing is that they do not treat gay people any differently than they do anyone else. There may not be a lot of those people around, but they do exist and I don't think it's reasonable to call them bigots based solely on that. I think they're wrong, of course, but being wrong does not make them a bigot"
I hope that I am in this category. I think this is a great statement and takes real courage to state in this climate. I would agree that not many who say they love the sinner and hate the sin do it. I am not sure where this saying even came from. It is not my job to hate the sin. I can out of compassion hate what a person is doing to themselves by sinning. This goes far beyond the issue of homosexuality.
On a personal note I was the guy that gay kids had to worry about. I saw a kid come into the library one day in HS and look at an article about gay rights. Soon afterwards we heard he was outwardly gay and was going to bring his boyfriend to prom. I put the word out if he did I would beat the crap out of him.
What changed my mind about gays? When I began reading the Bible and saw God's compassion on all despite our short comings and even our evil as humans. I remember going to a Christian concert where two girls camped next to us who were kicked out of their camp site for being lesbians. We fed them and just listened. I think if more people did that we as Christians would be better off. The best advice I ever got from someone was to never base your compassion or friendship with someone on your trying to convert or change them. I have had it happen to me and it hurts bad. There is a difference between true love and compassion for someone you feel is making wrong choices and the "project" mentality. The latter is more prevalent than the former. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM IS WRONG ON THIS SUBJECT.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 14, 2008 12:04 PM
You're just not credible on this one Ed. If you believe gayness is wrong then on some level at some point you're going to oppose it. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't believe gayness was wrong. Even just stating that gayness is wrong is a form of opposition. By doing that one is promoting the idea that gays shouldn't be that way and demonizing gays. Gays aren't hurting anyone and to suggest that what they are doing is wrong is bigotry plain and simple.
"King of Ireland" said "What changed my mind about gays? When I began reading the Bible and saw God's compassion on all despite our short comings and even our evil as humans.".
Compassion?! LOL, you obviously have been reading the abridged version of the bible. The real bible is loaded with a psychotic sadistic god punishing the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty, there is precious little compassion to be had in it. The very foundation of Christianity is immoral - the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others. We know instinctively that its wrong to punish someone for something they didn't do, we know instinctively that an innocent person can never take responsibility for the wrongs of others and yet this insanity is the very foundation of Christianity. Most definitely not compassionate.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
*shrug* I typically hate it when I hear a teenager say "Whatever!" in response to something someone says, but it seems perfectly appropriate here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 12:27 PM
I have to side with Ed on this. I am married to women who thinks gayness is wrong, but she fully supports the Goodridge decision. (legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts, our home state.)
Posted by: John | February 14, 2008 12:42 PM
So, if someone "disapproves" of black people, but doesn't vote to curtail their rights, that exonerates them from being called a racist?
Again, the idea that being (born) gay is wrong is bigoted regardless if they want gays to have equal rights or not. -Just as it would be bigoted to think that left handed people are wrong or sinful. And frankly, it's just as irrational and stupid as well.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 12:44 PM
Caliban-
But they don't believe that people are born gay. That makes them wrong, it doesn't make them bigoted.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 12:59 PM
"But they don't believe that people are born gay. That makes them wrong, it doesn't make them bigoted"
And thats the kicker. We need proof positive that homosexuality is not a choice or else it's just going to be beating a brick wall.
KoI, why do you think homosexuality is a choice? I'm not trying to attack, just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Posted by: jba | February 14, 2008 1:05 PM
Ed, they don't believe that people are born Islamic or Hindu either. Disaproving of people because of their religion is bigoted, just as disaproving of people's gayness is bigoted. If they never expressed this disaproval then I'd agree with you that they are not bigoted, but they do, they contribute to and promote an environment that rejects and oppresses gays, that is bigoted regardless of whether or not you think people are born gay.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 1:05 PM
I'd just like to try a little experiment.
Let me rephrase what Ed wrote:
You get the idea. This seems paltry and almost laughable, especially in light of the reality of discrimmination, and in considering the kind of harm that these ideas can result in, however unwitting. Obviously, it's a lot clearer when we talk about a group of people who aren't saddled with the unfair notion of "choice", but ultimately it is the same thing. Corretta Scott King recognized that obvious fact in a paragraph that is quoted often here.
Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone use this as a rhetorical device to win hearts and minds. If you don't want to call people bigots because you like them or don't want to alienate them, then don't. But we should hardly be indignant when people, even nice ones, who unfairly characterize gayness as some kind of flaw get described as bigots because they have bigoted opinions.
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 1:18 PM
Ed wrote:
I'm not sure how that makes them not bigoted. It's more than possible to be a bigot with respect to other people's choices (or perceived choices). Religious bigotry for example. Either way, other people's sexual orientation is not their business, chosen or not.
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 1:24 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
Imagine that. I don't either. No one is born Islamic or Hindu. Religions are not innate, they are learned.
Nonsense. If someone believes that God commands them to kill innocent people and they'll be rewarded in heaven, I can't disapprove of them and their religion on that basis without being a bigot? That's not bigotry, it's a perfectly rational judgment.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 1:42 PM
Ed, then you're disaproving of them on the basis that they're hurting others, thats not bigotry, its bigotry when you disaprove of someone who is NOT hurting others - like gays, or religious people who do not believe in such things.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 1:58 PM
"Compassion?! LOL, you obviously have been reading the abridged version of the bible. The real bible is loaded with a psychotic sadistic god punishing the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty, there is precious little compassion to be had in it. The very foundation of Christianity is immoral - the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others. We know instinctively that its wrong to punish someone for something they didn't do, we know instinctively that an innocent person can never take responsibility for the wrongs of others and yet this insanity is the very foundation of Christianity. Most definitely not compassionate."
This bridges to the question of what justice is?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 14, 2008 2:10 PM
Ed the flaw in your logic is that your saying what determines whether someone is a bigot or not is whether or not they believe someone chooses to be as they are. By that logic someone who disaproves of blacks wouldn't be a bigot if they thought blacks could choose to be white by straightening their hair, bleaching their hair and skin, having cosmetic surgery etc. like Michael Jackson did. No, what determines whether or not someone is a bigot is whether their disaproval of that person is based on that person doing something wrong or not. What makes it wrong to disaprove of blacks is that people aren't doing anything wrong by being black, not that they didn't choose to be that way. Its the same with gayness - if you disaprove of someone who isn't hurting others you're a bigot regardless of whether or not you believe they choose to be that way.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 2:12 PM
"King of Ireland" said "This bridges to the question of what justice is?".
Justice is the fair and equal treatment of all people. You may quibble on that but what you most certainly cannot do is argue that justice is the punishment of the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty - no one in their right mind would agree to that.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 2:15 PM
"Religions are not innate, they are learned."
Agreed. So is it not possible to be bigoted toward someone if that bigotry is not based on an innate characteristic? I think this is what Priya is getting at. If bigotry toward Hindus is possible, then saying that your stepmom is not bigoted because she thinks homosexuality is a choice doesn't necessarily hold. Maybe the quibble is about the definition of bigotry, and whether someone has to actively antagonize the bigotees to qualify. I view it as holding those views regardless of how it's expressed. All racists are bigots is a true statement using my definition of bigotry, even if these racists agree that non-whites should have all the rights as their own race.
I think Ed's stepmom is technically a 'bigot' if she thinks there's something wrong (sinful) just with being gay, regardless of behavior. I don't think there's much wrong, if anything, though with that alone, since what matters is how it is outwardly expressed. I wouldn't want to associate her with that label just because of the way many bigots (mis-)behave, but I don't know that it's not accurate. I do agree that given how she actually treats gays, calling her bigoted results in a big 'so what', so maybe it doesn't matter except as far as semantics.
Posted by: Dave L | February 14, 2008 2:53 PM
Caliban said "So, if someone "disapproves" of black people, but doesn't vote to curtail their rights, that exonerates them from being called a racist?".
Ed replied "But they don't believe that people are born gay. That makes them wrong, it doesn't make them bigoted."
Ed you're committing the naturalistic fallacy. "There is much evidence that some people are born with a tendency toward violence at highly elevated levels; it's hardly a stretch to say that is a bad thing.". By the same token just because someone isn't born a certain way doesn't mean that the way they are is a bad thing. What determines whether or not its okay to disaprove of someone is not whether they were born that way or not, its whether they are harming others. You're assuming that its wrong to disapprove of people who are born a certain way but its okay to disaprove of people who choose to be a certain way - that's a naturalistic fallacy.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 2:58 PM
When I was Christian here are some of the things I got out of the Bible. I think it demonstrates how one can believe homosexual acts are a sin without being a bigot.
No one is without sin
Judge not
Love each other
And what does it mean to love?
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
(emphasis mine)
If you believe that everyone sins, and that it's not your place to judge them, but rather to love them, then where is the bigotry? It's that whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing.
There's a lot I don't like about Christianity and I'm glad I've left it behind. (Heck, I dance with joy!) But I must admit that it doesn't have to be the judgmental, self-righteous, disgrace that many of its more vocal practitioners seem to choose.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 3:16 PM
Abby calling a behavior that harms no one a sin is bigotry. There is no valid reason to oppose any behavior that doesn't harm others.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 3:23 PM
Priya -
I strongly disapprove of people believing that God "poofed" the world into existence. There are plenty of people who believe that, who are not doing anything to hurt anyone. I just flat out have a fairly strong distaste for ignorance, especially willful ignorance. Am I an anti-creationist bigot? Keeping in mind that I have a number of friends who are creationists.
I strongly disapprove of, and argue voraciously against many forms of denialism. I honestly don't care if they are hurting others or not, some do some don't. I also do not have the slightest desire to oppress them in any way, indeed, I am all for encouraging them to express their extreme ignorance, so that it can be responded to openly. Am I an anti-denialist bigot?
Disaproving of people because of their religion is bigoted, just as disaproving of people's gayness is bigoted.
Bullshit. I know and read several atheists who speak out voraciously against irrationality, which they perceive religion to be. They are not bigots, they just want to see people get over what they perceive as ignorance.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 3:29 PM
This idea that if one calls themselves a sinner its okay to call gays sinners is preposterous. That's suggesting that wrongs like lying, theiving, adultery, etc. are on the same plane as gayness which hurts no one - decidedly not the case. Don't assume that because you've committed real wrongs this gives you an excuse to claim gays are when they most certainly aren't.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 3:31 PM
Duwayne, one could make the argument that having irrational beliefs is harmful. If, as you say " I honestly don't care if they are hurting others or not" I'd say you have some serious problems with your morality.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 3:39 PM
And Duwayne if you oppose people without worring about whether or not they are harming others you most definitely are a bigot.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 3:41 PM
Priya, what is your definition of bigotry? I'm operating under the same definition Azkyroth posted, "utterly intolerant." What I posted seems to be the very essence of tolerance. Do we just have different ideas about what the word bigot means or was what I posted somehow an example of intolerance that I'm just not seeing?
To be clear, I didn't say anything about opposing homosexual behavior. (Opposition being defined as action.) In fact I talked about loving and accepting everyone.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 4:02 PM
Abby, there's more to bigotry than being "utterly intolerant". One can be utterly intolerant of murderers and not be a bigot. Where intolerance crosses the line into bigotry is when you're intolerant of those who harm no one. If, as you posted one does not judge, one merely loves, that is not bigotry. However, saying that gayness is wrong IS judging and it IS bigotry because gayness in and of itself harms no one.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 4:08 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
Your use of "you're" is inaccurate; I am not discussing my beliefs, I am discussing the beliefs of others. I do not believe in the very concept of sin, much less that homosexuality is one. And your definition of bigotry is patently ridiculous. I disapprove of all sorts of conduct that doesn't hurt someone else and I bet you do too. I disapprove of people who waste their talents. I disapprove of people who get drunk and act like idiots, which has nothing to do with hurting anyone. I disapprove of hypocrites regardless of whether their hypocrisy hurts anyone. I disapprove of people who choose to be ignorant. I bet we could all think of lots of traits we disapprove of without that trait hurting anyone. Disapproval is not bigotry.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 4:12 PM
Priya -
This; And Duwayne if you oppose people without worring about whether or not they are harming others you most definitely are a bigot. tells me all I needed to know. You are operating under a definition of bigotry that makes the very concept, utterly meaningless.
When I believe someone else is wrong, I am going to speak out against that perceived wrong, whether they are actively hurting others or not. I care enough about other people, to attempt to keep them from hurting themselves, which ignorance most certainly does.
If, as you say " I honestly don't care if they are hurting others or not" I'd say you have some serious problems with your morality.
Likewise, I find your assumption that you should allow others to wallow in ignorance, as long as they are not hurting others, to be inherently immoral.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 4:18 PM
Ed, when I said "your" disaproval, I didn't intend to refer to you in particular, but to people in general - sorry for the confusion.
Ed said " I disapprove of all sorts of conduct that doesn't hurt someone else and I bet you do too.".
You'd lose that bet. Unlike you I don't disaprove of anything that doesn't harm others
Ed said "Disapproval is not bigotry.".
I never said it was. UNJUSTIFIED disaproval is bigotry. And although I wouldn't necessarily agree the argument could be made that getting drunk, wasting one's talents, and being hypocritical is harmful.
What you're left with Ed is as Caliban suggested "So, if someone "disapproves" of black people, but doesn't vote to curtail their rights, that exonerates them from being called a racist?". That's essentially what you're saying. And don't try to excuse this with the naturalistic fallacy by saying their not bigots because they don't believe people are born gay.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 4:34 PM
Duwayne, you make me laugh! While trying desperately to claim its unimportant whether or not someone is being hurt you demonstrate that it is in fact important to you - you said "I care enough about other people, to attempt to keep them from hurting themselves, which ignorance most certainly does.".
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Ed, there's a reason why you're reluctant to say someone's not a bigot who disaproves of blacks but doesn't vote to curtail their rights - you know that type of disaproval is bigotry and its no different with gays.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 4:40 PM
kersham-
You don't understand the nature of 'sin' either. No one does. It's a religious precept and not something that necesarily even exists. If 2 men have sex it doesn't matter if they love each other or not. The bible states it clearly as an abomination. So their motivation doesn't matter.
In the real world outside of superstition there is a difference. But one is not necessarily superior to the other all the time.
Sounds good but ultimately it's BS. In the course of a marriage sometimes you screw and sometimes you make love.
It doesn't determine it. It signifies the type of relationship that exists. Married or not. You can be in a relationship and not be married obviously. But you cannot be married without it.
I didn't. I was disageeing with your premise to a degree. Sleeping around probably isn't a great idea for most but then again what some people consider sleeping around others may not. Self induced celibacy is IMHO may be equally as harmful to the body as promiscuity. Fortunately there is a nice middle ground the vast majority of the world occupies.
Posted by: JimC | February 14, 2008 4:40 PM
Priya said:
I don't see anyone here making that argument, and you keep accusing me of it. For the record, I do not believe that being gay is in any way a sin, nor do I believe that homosexual acts are necessarily sinful: They can be, but then so can hetero acts.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 14, 2008 4:45 PM
Priya, I think I see where you're coming from. I believe the difference is in judging the action rather than the person. One can think an act is bad without thinking that someone who commits that act is a bad person. When one say homosexuals are bad, that's bigotry. When one says homosexuals are good people, worthy of the same love and respect as every other sinner (everyone), then I still fail to see how that is bigotry.
You seem to be operating under that idea that just because someone believes and act is sinful that they must be compelled to act against it. There are those that believe that sin is something that they should struggle against personally, without projecting that struggle on to others. They acknowledge that everyone should make their own choices.
As a bi-sexual, I've faced a lot of bigotry from both hetero- and homo-sexuals, from the devout and from agnostics. But some of the most loving and supportive people in my life have also been Christians, who never once made me feel judged or tried to tell me I was anything but beautiful. I didn't come out of the closet until after High School and the encouragement I received from these people helped me to do it. I just can't see how they could possibly be called bigots.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 5:00 PM
Kersham , King of Ireland made that argument at Feb 13, 2008 4:00 Pm, you yourself said "The problem here is that far too many believers (of lots of religions, but we evangelical Christians are the problem in the US) think homosexual acts somehow represent a separate class of sin, unlike any other.", Ed at Feb 13, 2008 11:51 said "If someone believes that everyone is a sinner, including themselves, this simply doesn't hold true", Ed at FEb 14, 2008 2:03 AM said " But she also believes that we are all sinners, including her, and that she has a responsibility to treat all sinners the same way she would want to be treated.", Duwayne at Feb 14, 2008 4:12 am said "And Ed is dead on, in that most people who take the tak he is describing, don't believe anyone isn't a sinner" and I didn't go through the last half of the thread to find all the other times someone suggested that if one calls themselves a sinner its okay to call gays sinners, so don't give me this "no one made that argument" BS.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:08 PM
Priya -
No, I did not say I don't think it's important whether someone is being hurt or not, nor is that what you were saying either. You rather harshly repudiated me and claimed I am a bigot, because I don't care if they are harming others.
You are trying to parse this rather fine here and it just doesn't work that way. There are plenty of people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, not because it hurts others, but because they believe that it harms the homosexual. This is exactly the stance of my mother, Ed's step mother. To be certain, this is an absolutely ignorant position to take, but it doesn't make the person who holds that position a bigot.
Another example, is a young man at my church. At nineteen, he firmly believes that homosexuality is a sin and that it harms people who engage in homosexual behavior. At the same time, he was an ardent supporter of the drive for civil unions in Oregon, in no small part, because his girlfriend's mom is a partnered lesbian who was one of the first in line to register for a civil union.
The profound irony in this all, is that I would be greatly surprised if he's not gay himself. I've known him for almost three years now and had that notion not too long after I met him. To be certain, he has a lot of baggage to get through, before he could ever actually accept that.
Again, this is a person who is simply not a bigot. He is operating under a seriously flawed premise, but that makes him ignorant, nothing more.
So, if someone "disapproves" of black people, but doesn't vote to curtail their rights, that exonerates them from being called a racist?
This one keeps popping up and I really feel the need to address it. The honest to gods truth is, no, not everyone who "disapproves" of blacks, is racist, though I don't doubt the vast majority are. But there are almost certainly still people out there who are merely ignorant.
This distinction is important, because mere ignorance is relatively easy to cure. The distinction between mere ignorance and the ignorance of bigotry, is that bigoted ignorance is pervasive, malignant and willful. A bigot will cling to their ignorance no matter how much evidence that they are wrong, you parade in front of them.
I used to be anti-gay. I firmly and fervently believed that homosexuality was damaging to the homosexual and society. I didn't believe that I was somehow innately superior to them, nor did I believe were inherently evil or that God hated them. I just believed, because I had been told and had no comparison to show that I was wrong.
I was not and never have been, a bigot. I was ignorant and ultimately, easily cured of that ignorance. While I would like to say that I would have shed that ignorance anyways and eventually, it certainly would have taken far longer if the people who helped me shed my ignorance had chosen to call me a bigot, instead of explaining to me and showing me why I was wrong.
It's all about separating the person from the argument they are making. I have gone on about this exhaustively on other threads here lately. The distinction is important if you ever want to actually change hearts and minds. Putting everyone under one, easy label is just not the way to actually change anyone.
Accepting that different people have different premises, different motivations, is key to functionally fomenting change.
I'll be back later, I've got to run.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 5:10 PM
Abby said " When one says homosexuals are good people, worthy of the same love and respect as every other sinner (everyone), then I still fail to see how that is bigotry.".
If they're not suggesting that gayness is a sin then that isn't bigotry, if they are suggesting gayness is a sin, that is bigotry because gayness harms no one.
The mere act of expressing the idea that gayness is a sin is an act of oppression against gays. It wrongfully damages their reputation and causes others to look down on gays without valid reason. That is bigotry. Let me ask you the same question Caliban asked Ed - if a person made it known that he disaproved of blacks but didn't vote to curtail their rights would you say he's not a racist? Why would you think that person's in the wrong but that someone who does the same thing with gays isn't?
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:15 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
If you wouldn't agree with them, then you would have to say - if you're consistent - that I'm a bigot for disapproving of those who get drunk and act like idiots or those who are hypocrites. You won't say that because you know it makes your standard for bigotry clearly absurd. But you also don't want to change your definition of bigotry. You've painted yourself into a tidy little corner here and all the babbling in the world isn't going to get you out of it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 5:23 PM
I'm getting tired of this, but I'll try it one more time. The Christian syllogism goes,
1. All humans are sinners;
2. All gays are human;
3. Therefore all gays are sinners.
Does this argument say that all gays are sinners BECAUSE they are gay? No. King of Ireland arguably made the argument you are fighting against, but a charitable reading of what he wrote suggests otherwise. You keep quoting me as saying that the belief is a mistake, and then concluding that I believe that it is a sin to be gay, even when I specifically deny it.
As Ed said, whatever.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 14, 2008 5:33 PM
Duwayne said "No, I did not say I don't think it's important whether someone is being hurt or not." Yes you did Duwayne, at Feb 14 2008 3:29 you said " I honestly don't care if they are hurting others or not". Duwayne, people like the "king of ireland" aren't basing their condemnation of gayness on the idea that its harming gays, they're basing it on the biblical condemnation of gays. That is bigotry.
You said "The honest to gods truth is, no, not everyone who "disapproves" of blacks, is racist, though I don't doubt the vast majority are.".
Few would agree with you, as we saw earlier Ed was certainly reluctant to. For the vast majority of people anyone who disaproves of blacks is racist and yet many of those people would hypocritically take the line that you and Ed have that disaproving of gays doesn't make you a bigot. Being ignorant doesn't make you any less of a bigot and the vast majority of anti-gay bigots think being gay is a sin because the bible says so, not because they think gays are harming themselves.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:35 PM
Ed, perhaps you are a bigot for suggesting those things, as I said I'm not convinced one way or the other as to whether or not those things are harmful.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:38 PM
And Ed, how about you answer Caliban's question without dodging it based on the naturalistic fallacy?
"So, if someone "disapproves" of black people, but doesn't vote to curtail their rights, that exonerates them from being called a racist?".
You're dodging that is a bit of an answer in itself - you've got two standards, one for blacks and one for gays. Its just more acceptable to be a bigot when it comes to gays.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:42 PM
Ed, so christians who have a problem with gays aren't neccessarily bigoted, they're merely "wrong"? Huh. I wonder where they got this "wrong" belief?
Could it have something to do with this?:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Are you saying that that quote (or any of the others addressing homosexuality) isn't bigoted?
Hell, "bigoted" seems a rather mild description of those verses to me.
Those few, horrible lines are the ultimite cause of anti-gay bigotry in the first place. And if those verses weren't in the bible does anybody think that christains would still have a problem with gays?
It doesn't matter if liberal christians have reasons why they don't follow such comandments today. The point is that those barbaric verses are what makes christians think that there's anything wrong with being gay in the first place.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM
I'm afraid that's a false analogy. What I'm taking about are people who do not think that being a homosexual is wrong. I'm talking about people who think that if they performed a homosexual act it would be a sin. But who do not presume to judge others.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 5:46 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
If there is one thing this exchange has shown it is that you are utterly clueless on what the naturalistic fallacy is.
I've already answered this. There are two reasons why it's wrong. First, because the disapproval is of behavior, not mere orientation. Second, because these people don't believe that being gay is innate the way being black is. A physical attribute and an orientation are not the same thing even if they are both "natural." And that is where you, again, misunderstand the naturalistic fallacy. The mere fact that something is natural says nothing at all about whether it's good or bad.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Abby, you can't think a gay act is sin without judging others. You can't think its wrong to have gay sex and think there is nothing wrong with desiring gay sex. Sex and romantic drives are extremely powerful and a part of who we are in our core. You can't reject a core aspect of a person without also rejecting that person. This idea that people people are seperate from their desires is bunk. After all in your bible it isn't the sin that is punished with eternal torture, its the person.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 5:56 PM
Caliban-
Your argument simply does not engage mine. Yes, Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. And yes, the Bible motivates a great deal of anti-gay bigotry. But it still does not follow that therefore everyone who believes it to be a sin is a bigot. And frankly, this argument should end. You guys aren't saying anything new and no one is going to be convinced. We simply have different definitions of bigotry and this argument is going nowhere.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 5:57 PM
On the one hand, I hate it when people blow off appointments with me. OTOH, I can come back to this, smacking my head against a wall.
Priya -
Duwayne said "No, I did not say I don't think it's important whether someone is being hurt or not." Yes you did Duwayne, at Feb 14 2008 3:29 you said " I honestly don't care if they are hurting others or not".
Typing s l o w l y, so you might pick up the distinction. Saying "I don't think it's important whether someone is being hurt or not," is different than saying "I don't care if they are hurting others or not."
Duwayne, people like the "king of ireland" aren't basing their condemnation of gayness on the idea that its harming gays, they're basing it on the biblical condemnation of gays. That is bigotry.
And exactly how many of these people have you actually sat down and talked to? Many of these folks assume it's in the bible for a reason and the justification that some of them make, is that homosexual acts must be harmful to the person performing them, some also believing it must harm society as well.
Few would agree with you, as we saw earlier Ed was certainly reluctant to. For the vast majority of people anyone who disaproves of blacks is racist and yet many of those people would hypocritically take the line that you and Ed have that disaproving of gays doesn't make you a bigot.
Believe it or not, I could give a flying fuck whether most people, or even any, would agree with me. What I believe, my positions on issues, are not a democracy. If I believe I am right, everyone in the world could believe otherwise, it's not going to change my opinion. Too, I could give a flying fuck whether this makes me unpopular. There are very few people in the world, who's opinions about me, matter to me. I depend on the fact that right or wrong, they care about me/respect me anyways, thus why I actually care.
Being ignorant doesn't make you any less of a bigot...
And taking this tak, makes the entire concept of bigotry irrelevant. You especially seem to take this beyond the point of absurdity painting yourself into corner after corner. Like Ed said, all the babbling in the world won't get you out of it.
...and the vast majority of anti-gay bigots think being gay is a sin because the bible says so, not because they think gays are harming themselves.
Again, the assumption that these are somehow mutually exclusive. They're most certainly not.
Let me ask you this; what do you think that making blanket assertions of bigotry is ever going to accomplish? What do you believe it will solve? Do you honestly think it can have a positive effect?
Finally, do you not see that by your definition, you are a bigot, bigoted against folks think something that harms no one else is wrong, even if thinking that harms no one else?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 6:01 PM
Ed, no, you haven't answered this, you dodged it by saying that its wrong to disaprove of who people are but its not wrong to disaprove of who they are if you consider it a choice. This idea that one is disaproving of the behavior but not the orientation is bunk. As you said earlier "there is much evidence that people are born with tendencies to violence at high levels and its hardly a stretch to say that's a bad thing". You've acknowledged that if an act is a bad thing then the desire to perform that act is a bad thing as well. You can't have it both ways and claim the same isn't then true when one considers that gay acts are bad. If gay sex is bad then it follows that there is something wrong with the orientation as well. Stop with this BS that people's desires are something disembodied from who they are. You can't reject the act without rejecting the person. When someone does something wrong we don't put the act in jail, we put the person in jail. This idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a nonsensical lie - you hate what the person does then you hate a part of that person. When you disaprove of something that harms no one you're a bigot.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 6:05 PM
Caliban's right, if it weren't for the anti-gay bigotry in the bible Christians wouldn't have a problem with gays in the first place. No Christian comes to the opposition of gayness based on an objective examination of right and wrong, harm and good.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 14, 2008 6:11 PM
Priya Lynn wrote:
You either aren't listening at all or your reading comprehension skills need serious work. I've said many times that that they're wrong; I just don't equate wrong to bigoted.
You keep saying that but it's still bullshit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 14, 2008 6:31 PM
The notion that being black is not equal to being white causes harm to blacks, and we call such notions bigotry.
The notion that being female is not equal to being male causes harm to females, and we call such notions bigotry.
The notion that being homosexual is not equal to being hetrosexual causes harm to homosexuals, and we call such notions bigotry.
In each case it is irrelevent weather or not the person is doing it out of ignorance, religous beleifs or for any other reason.
The infliction of harm is the determining factor, not the intent.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 6:33 PM
kehrsam wrote:
This argument addresses the "gays aren't sinners" question, which I don't think is the problem here. This is not the Christian argument for why homosexuality itself is sinful. Nevertheless, in this construct gays still have at least one more sin than the rest of us to contend with.
The Christian argument for why homosexuality is wrong is essentially:
1. The bible says so
QED
This is not rationally defensible and may even be downright bigoted given what we now know about genetics, development and the breadth of human sexuality and sexual behavior. To deny that and cling to the "it's a choice" mantra is problematic at the least. Some might say the desperate clinging is indicative of a deeper bias. Perhaps even a kind of bigotry.
****
Part of my problem with Ed's argument is that I can't think of a case in which thinking homosexuality is wrong is rationally defensible. Perhaps I just have a lack of imagination, but there it is.
In any case, all of this reminds me of the sweet old Jehova's Witness lady I had call me on the phone (yes, they do that now). We had a cordial conversation after which I told her I was an atheist. She immediately exclaimed "Oh good heavens no, I don't believe it! You're much too nice to be one of those people."
No I didn't call her a bigot and jump down her throat. Do I think she is one? You better believe it. That doesn't mean I think she is a terrible person. As far as I'm concerned, she's lucky that I was as nice as I was about it ;)
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 6:51 PM
On what do you base that assertion? My experiences tell me otherwise. If one believes that another person's sin is between them and god, and no business of anyone else, then it's not that hard.
Sure you can. Folks separate people from their desires all the time.
It's not my bible! I happen to be an atheist and I'm generally fairly anti-religion. I just happen to disagree with you on this particular point.
Remember, a lot of Christians are not literalists. This allows them to pick and choose, to an extent, what they believe. Heck, I've known a mind-boggling number of Christians who believe in reincarnation! Not all Christians are hell and damnation. Not all Christians believe you have to be Christian to get into heaven. It doesn't matter if the bible actually says otherwise. They simply choose to believe that part doesn't count, like the bit condoning slavery or women not wearing men's cloths. I'm not saying it's logical. But it is unnervingly common.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 7:00 PM
Caliban -
Notions do not cause harm, actions do. Also, no one is talking about equality, people who believe themselves superior to others, are in all likelihood bigots.
Going back to my mother, she doesn't believe that she is superior to anyone. She simply believes that homosexuality is wrong. She doesn't think this means that she believes homosexuals are in any way less than she.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 7:03 PM
The point is it's possible to think that homosexual acts are a sin and still think that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal. They're simply sinners, like the rest of us.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 14, 2008 7:17 PM
DuWayne, Notions and beleifs are the springboard for actions. Bad beliefs inspire bad actions.
Abby, Hetrosexuals and homosexuals are not equal under a Christian belief system. The hetrosexual does not commit any sin simply for being a hetrosexual while the homosexual does.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 7:28 PM
Abby Normal, so do you think that condemning gays to sexless lives is an acceptable expression of that philosophy of equality? I mean, if it were equal, shouldn't any hetero sex be sinful? Why must gay people pay an extra price?
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 7:30 PM
DuWayne wrote:
Well, except for the fact that she thinks that any expression of physical love between two people of the same (or probably indeterminate) sex is "wrong".
So good on her, I guess. She can be a sinner and still get married, have sex and children, and experience the physical love of her chosen partner without being "wrong". Gay people can't. .
I guess I'm not prepared to accept this scenario as "equal".
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 7:44 PM
Caliban -
Notions and beleifs are the springboard for actions. Bad beliefs inspire bad actions.
Your making a huge assumption here. That just isn't always the case.
Leni -
She can be a sinner and still get married, have sex and children, and experience the physical love of her chosen partner without being "wrong".
Actually, she can't. She married an atheist.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 7:49 PM
DuWayne, So you think that bad ideas are more likely to inspire good acts?.....
If i have the belief that women are inferior to most men, do you think that such a belief is going to promote positive interactions with women or negative ones? .... Hint: this question is rhetorical.
Posted by: Caliban | February 14, 2008 7:55 PM
DuWayne,
Really? She thinks that her marriage is wrong because he's an atheist?
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 8:18 PM
Caliban -
No. I think that many ideas never inspire any acts.
Leni -
Theres a lot more to it, but put simply, yes. She definitely believes that it is wrong for Christians to marry non-Christians.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Just had to step in here.
Wednesday 13 Feburary 2008. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, appologied on behalf of himself, the Labor Party and the Parliament for the policies that removed Aboriginal children from thier families ("The Stolen Generation"). The opposition leader, Brendan Nelson got a strong negative response when he tried to argue that these policies were legal, carried out in good faith and improved the lives of those removed.
I've said it before, and I repeat:
Even if the intention was good, policies (banneing abortions, discriminateing against gays, removing children or whatever) can have long lasting, unintentional and extremely negative outcomes. Actions speak louder than words. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 14, 2008 9:31 PM
DuWayne wrote:
Well. That's interesting.
It doesn't make her opinion of gay sex any better, though.
I don't mean to be rude, but now she just seems like someone who hates not only her own marriage but everyone else's.
Posted by: Leni | February 14, 2008 9:52 PM
Leni -
I should really clarify that some. Remarkably, my parents love each other very much and their marriage is a pretty happy one. It is quite doubtful that my brother and I, could have been adopted by a better father.
The major conflict in their marriage, really the only one of significance, has been about religion. Not only is my dad an atheist, he is far closer to the Sam Harris type, than, say, the Carl Sagan type. He usually stops short of outright mocking of religion.
While my mother will grant that marrying my dad was ultimately a very good thing, she has serious issues with being "unequally yoked" as it were. There are a lot of intense psychological issues at work in this whole paradigm, that are really not my place to disseminate.
DJ -
I like you and rather enjoy your comments (Excepting that Evile quip about treky cons), so please don't take this rudely, but as interesting as your factoid is (I was completely unaware that Australia had done that), I fail to see the relevance.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 12:05 AM
Priya reminds me very much of some of the commenters on the recent post about whether it was possible to be pro-life without being misogynist.
S/he and those people just don't have the mental subtlety to see that people don't fall into their neat binary categories. Ironically, they're actually moralist--they see people as wholly wrong if they're not wholly right.
The only redeeming quality is that they're not religious--if they combined religious beliefs with their innate moralism, they'd be fundamentalist fanatics out to burn heretics at the stake.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 15, 2008 12:11 AM
Here we go with Christians condemning, Christians judging. That is not true of all Christians.
There are Christians who do not think less of someone simply because they're a sinner. There are Christians who believe that a liar (bearing false witness) is no less a person than someone who is always honest, that a mouthy teenager (disrespecting one's parents) is no less deserving than one who is always respectful. They believe that sin is an issue between the sinner and god and that no one else has the right to judge that.
Why else have I had Christian friends encourage me to accept and love myself? (Remember, I'm bi.) Why have I had Christian friends encourage me to be out and proud, or march with me in a gay pride parade? Why have I had Christian friends fix me up on same sex dates?
I have straight out asked, "How can you do that if you believe homosexuality is wrong?" Answers have differed, but it's basically come down to, "Who am I to try and force my beliefs on others? Christianity works for me. But you should find what works for you." It seems to me they understood the difference between choosing to have a belief and knowing a fact.
Another told me they believe that god loves me, that he has a plan, and that it is so far beyond their understanding that to judge me would be the height of arrogance, a sin for them. They accept that they have their beliefs and I have mine and that it's okay we don't 100% agree on what's right and wrong. To me that is a far cry from bigotry.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 15, 2008 12:16 AM
Just because some Christians have a problem with gays that doesn't mean they all do. In fact I'm sure there's lots of Christians out there who think Jesus was really gay himself and Satan was his lover.
I mean, just because the bible says that gays are an abomination doesn't mean that all Christians care about what the bible says. That would be silly!
It's unfair to accuse Christians of bigotry just because their holy book has some passages in it about killing gays.
And just because the bible says that gays are an abomination and must be killed doesn't mean that that sentiment is bigoted either.
Commandments to kill gays has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry. It's more about ancient hygiene practices for the Old Testament Hebrews.
Besides, those passages were written a long time ago and Christians don't have to follow those old Jewish commandments nowadays. Jesus came and did away with all that! That's why the Old Testament isn't part of the Bible anymore.
A Christian today reading such passages would NEVER come to the conclusion that God thinks there's something wrong with gays. God changes his mind all the time. It's not like his Word is eternal and holy or something. Heck, maybe he really thinks that hetrosexuality is the real sin. Ever think of that!
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 1:07 AM
For crying out loud Caliban, there is a Christian commenting on this thread who believes that homosexuality isn't a sin. I have a number of gay friends who are Christians and don't believe they are inherently sinners, by virtue of being gay.
There are brutally vile Christians, who are the worst sort of anti-gay bigots, such as the wrong reverend phelps.
There are Christians who believe there is just something nasty about the gay, and use their faith as justification for their bigotry.
There are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, just like their church dogma tells them. They have no antipathy for gays, indeed many of them will care for and offer their support and friendship to them. For any number of reasons and in any number of ways, they shy away from the hateful, violent and evil aspects of the bible.
And there are Christians who flat out reject the bible, or at least the parts they don't like. They don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They believe differently than the bible says they should, on any number of issues. They certainly believe differently than the majority of churches say that Christians should.
You have now moved from blanket assertions about people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, to making blanket assertions about people who wear the label of Christian. I disagree with you on the first, but don't see it as all that unreasonable a position. But this last is patently absurd.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 3:35 AM
Caliban, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Obviously some Christians reject the idea that homosexuality is a sin. What we're talking about are folks that think homosexual acts are a sin, but also think that sin is a personal matter and not something by which one should judge others.
I find it similar to my feelings about marijuana. I choose not to do it for my own reasons. But I don't think less of those that do and I vocally advocate its legalization.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 15, 2008 8:44 AM
My previous post was intended to be a snark-fest. I had grown weary of the debate. I think Ed is right in that we simply have different conclusions about which ideas & actions are bigoted.
I just find the idea amusing that someone can think of themselves as Christian and not care what the bible has to say about things. Perhaps that's what you get when you cross a Christian with a hippie or something.
It's like saying i'm a Muslim but i also worship Buddha or that i'm an atheist but still beleive in the Moon goddess.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 12:16 PM
I pointed out to duwayne "the vast majority of anti-gay bigots think being gay is a sin because the bible says so, not because they think gays are harming themselves."
Duwayne responded "Again, the assumption that these are somehow mutually exclusive. They're most certainly not.
Duwayne, the bible commands that gays be put to death. Obviously it is not stating that being gay is a sin because its concerned that gays are harming themselves. No one gets the idea that gayness is a sin because its harmful from the bible.
Duwayne said "Going back to my mother, she doesn't believe that she is superior to anyone. She simply believes that homosexuality is wrong. She doesn't think this means that she believes homosexuals are in any way less than she".
That's total BS. If you believe someone is doing something wrong you believe they are less than someone who isn't doing something wrong or you wouldn't believe they were doing something wrong in the first place.
Abby Normal said "The point is it's possible to think that homosexual acts are a sin and still think that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal. They're simply sinners, like the rest of us.".
Nonsense. You can't think that somone is sinning and think that this in no way diminishes that person. The idea that we've all done an equal amount of wrongdoing is preposterous on its face. No one thinks a murderer and a liar are equal in terms of morality, and its just as ridiculous to assert that a liar and a gay who's harmed no one are equally immoral.
I pointed out previously that when you disaprove of something that harms no one you're a bigot.
Ed replied "You keep saying that but it's still bullshit.".
Ed your hiding from reality won't change it a bit.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 12:22 PM
Man, skip a day and all hell breaks loose. I just have a couple questions, for the sake of my own clarity.
Caliban, do you consider one of the requirements to be Christian to follow everything in the Bible literally? In my experience, I've never met a Christian that takes everything the Bible says literally. Many Christians I have talked to over the years have basically said that a lot of the "morality" expressed in the Bible was based on the times it was written in, and just isn't applicable today, such as killing women for sex outside of marriage or putting gays to death. I don't think that makes them any less Christian.
Priya, based on what you're saying, I guess I'm a bigot when I tell my friend that he's an idiot for doing cocaine. He does it in the privacy of his own home, he does not drive under the influence, he does not go out and commit crimes when he's high. He harms no one by doing cocaine, yet I think he's wrong for doing so. Does that really make me a bigot?
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 12:54 PM
Jason, as long as he's supporting himself and not harming anyone its his right to do with his body whatever he damn well pleases. And if you disagree with that you're a bigot.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 1:00 PM
Jason,
The entire reason why the vast, overwhelming number of Christians has problems (in varying degrees)with gays is because of what the bible says about it. (it's an "abomination") This is the primary reason for homophobia. Do you really want to defend an explicit commandment to fucking KILL people? There can be no positive reinterpretation of something like that.
Taking cocaine is a choice. Being gay is not a choice.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 1:04 PM
I don't disagree at all that it's his right to do with his body whatever he pleases, as long as he doesn't harm anyone. I still think he's an idiot for doing cocaine, because I think cocaine has harmful effects on a person, not to mention it's illegal, and he could get in serious shit if he's caught. Am I still friends with him? Yes. Have I ever considered reporting him? Nope. So I really don't see how I'm a bigot for thinking something that someone is doing is wrong, even if it's not harming anyone.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 1:08 PM
You've said that before. I vehemently disagree. I assert that people are capable of believing that sin does not devalue a person. Why do you assume that how moral someone has behaved determines his or her value? Some believe that everyone has intrinsic value that cannot be diminished.
Yes, you've asserted that several times. But that is not the definition of the word bigot. Repeating it over and over will not make it the definition. Actually, if you can get enough other people doing it too, it might. But until then, simply making up your own definition does not presuade me.
I'll agree that often disapproval leads to bigotry. But I don't agree that it is always true. I think you are underestimating people.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM
Priya: You truly are a fool if you don't think anyone is being harmed in the various networks that farm coca leaves, process the drug, and then export it and distribute it in this country. If opposing this be bigotry, I gladly join Jason I as a bigot.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 15, 2008 1:14 PM
Yeah, right abby, so Hitler had an intrinsic value that couldn't be diminished, he was your equal in that he was a sinner just like you. I'm sure most people would agree with you on that...
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 1:22 PM
Kersham, if you want to make the case that the drug trade harms people then you would be disapproving of that which harms others which I said is not bigotry. Jason I was asserting that no one was harmed by his friends drug use and I accepted that premise on which basis he's a bigot.
The reason why we have harm associate with the production, distribution and sale of drugs is its illegal status. When alcohol was prohibited organized crime moved in to fulfill the demand and this lead to turf wars, murder, the rise of Al Capone and others and all manner of illegal activities. When the government legalized and regulated the alcohol trade it took the profit incentive out of illegal booze running and crime diminished dramatically as a result. We now have the same situation with the bankrupt war on drugs. Instead of the government profiting from the sale of drugs and putting that money into harm reduction programs it allows criminals to corner the market and fight over it. No moral, just, and responsible society makes mild alteration illegal.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 1:29 PM
That last sentence should read "No moral, just, and responsible society makes mind alteration illegal.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 1:33 PM
Caliban, I don't disagree that the Bible is the source for the problems, in varying degrees, that Christians have with homosexuality. Are many of them bigots? Absolutely. I just don't agree that disapproving of something automatically makes you a bigot. Many Christians disapprove of drinking. Drinking is generally harmless for most people. Does this make those Christians bigots against anyone who drinks? I just don't think so.
And I don't think anyone here has attempted to defend killing gay people.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 1:39 PM
How did I know Hitler was coming? Nothing beats ol' Adolf when you're trying to trump reasonable discussion with an emotional response. But since you brought it up, yes, there are people who believe that Hitler, by virtue of being a human, created in gods image, has the same value as anyone else. They condemn his actions, would fight against him, and do whatever was necessary to stop him. They would do it for the same reason most anyone else would, because he is harming millions of other people. Not because he's less than human.
When did we start discussing what most people think? I thought the question is, is it possible to believe homosexual acts are a sin and not be a bigot.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 15, 2008 1:45 PM
Abby, previously you said "There are Christians who do not think less of someone simply because they're a sinner. There are Christians who believe that a liar (bearing false witness) is no less a person than someone who is always honest".
So tell me these same Christians do not think any less of Hitler because he's a sinner. Tell me that they don't believe that Hitler is less a person than someone who is always honest.
Abby you previously said " One can think an act is bad without thinking that someone who commits that act is a bad person. When one say homosexuals are bad, that's bigotry. When one says homosexuals are good people, worthy of the same love and respect as every other sinner (everyone), then I still fail to see how that is bigotry."
So, by the same token tell me that you don't think Hitler was a bad person, tell me you think Hitler was a good person worthy of the same love and respect as every other sinner.
This idea that you can call someone a sinner and not look down on them and consider them your equal is BS. Let's hear you say Hitler was your equal, let's hear you say that Hitler had the same value as a person as you, that he was a good person, that just his acts were bad.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 2:15 PM
Priya -
No one gets the idea that gayness is a sin because its harmful from the bible.
I didn't say they do, I said that is an assumption they make. How do I know this? Because I was raised by a women who explained it in exactly those terms. Because I discuss this on a regular basis, with Christians who feel this way. Is it inconsistent with what the bible actually says? Certainly, I never said it wasn't. That does not mean that isn't exactly what a lot of Christians believe. There are plenty of Christians who eat shell-fish and pork, who don't believe they should be put to death for it, in spite of the fact that this too, is inconsistent with the bible.
For that matter, there are plenty of Christians who believe that homosexuality isn't a sin at all. This too is inconsistent with the bible. Yet there you have em.
That's total BS. If you believe someone is doing something wrong you believe they are less than someone who isn't doing something wrong or you wouldn't believe they were doing something wrong in the first place.
Umm, I hate to break it to you, but you couldn't be more full of shit. I see people doing things that I find exceptionally distasteful, on a daily basis. Yet I know that I'm not perfect either. Not only do I engage in behaviors that other people find distasteful, I engage in some behaviors that I find distasteful. Some of them I am aware of, like my nasty tobacco habit, others are just unconscious. So no, just because I see others doing things that I disapprove of, doesn't mean that I assume they are less of a person than I. Indeed, anyone who actually does feel that way, is reprehensibly arrogant.
I pointed out previously that when you disaprove of something that harms no one you're a bigot.
And I pointed out that your distaste for such people, even when they're not hurting anyone, makes you a bigot. At least it is if we take your definition for bigotry to a logical conclusion. And this is exactly why I strenuously disagree with your definition. It makes the whole concept of bigotry, absolutely meaningless.
Jason, as long as he's supporting himself and not harming anyone its his right to do with his body whatever he damn well pleases. And if you disagree with that you're a bigot.
Listen up, you obnoxious little git. I have friends who have, some who still do, use cocaine. I support their right to do it and would make it legal, if I could. That doesn't mean that I approve of it. I most certainly do not.
The guy that I trained to take over for me, at the roofing company I left when I move out here, is a huge coke head. He supports himself and manages to run two crews. His drug use has never hurt anyone else. But at twenty seven, he has had three heart-attacks. His doctor flat out told him, if he doesn't stop, he will not survive to thirty.
I have watched several friends over the years, alienate themselves from their friends and other loved ones, because of the cocaine. So yes, I strongly disapprove of people using cocaine. And fuck you for thinking me a bigot for it.
Caliban -
I just find the idea amusing that someone can think of themselves as Christian and not care what the bible has to say about things. Perhaps that's what you get when you cross a Christian with a hippie or something.
First, though I am not keen on using the term, because of it's connotations, I consider myself a Christian. I reject the notion that the bible is the word of any god, as I reject all notions of revealed religion. I don't even presume to know who/what or even if there is a God. I call myself a Christian, because I try my damndest to live the way that Jesus taught. Although, the cross with hippie, isn't really far from the mark in my case.
But there are plenty of far more conservative Christians, even most fundamentalists, who just ignore portions of the bible. They eat pork, they eat shell fish. They work on the sabbath, if that is necessary. They do all sorts of things that are dead contrary to biblical commandments. Indeed, I have never met a Christian, who believes they should stone their child to death for misbehaving - not a one.
I prefer to actually find out what people believe about various issues, than to make assumptions about them, even assumptions based on the dogma of their holy books.
Do you really want to defend an explicit commandment to fucking KILL people?
No one here has done that. Not a single person on this thread.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 2:21 PM
DuWayne,
My point about barbaric bible passages isn't that i think most Christians want to kill gays (as their almighty God apparently commanded) because most people (at least today and in America) simply aren't that insane, but what they take away from those awful passages is that God thinks homosexuality is wrong. And not in a minor, inconsequential way if it carries a death penalty with it.
My point is that this is where anti-gay sentiments are born. The belief, as explicitly expressed in the bible, that a certain group of people are wrong for simply existing. If that isn't bigotry, than nothing is.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 2:34 PM
This has been an interesting thread. While I admire the determined stand that a few of the commenter's have taken against the belief that homosexuality is wrong, I am afraid that it is all just window dressing when it comes to the reality of everyday life. And I am totally unconvinced that those who have taken that stand are consistent when it affects them, personally. Labels rarely solve problems, in my experience.
My Nan often says things about people of different cultures and ethnicities that I wholly disapprove of. I tell her so, and I attempt to educate her. That makes her a racist. Great. Then what? We have identified that an 85 year old women, who took part in a war that allows us to argue about these things, and who has lived in a completely different era to that which I grew up in, is a racist. Feel better, now? More importantly, has she learned anything by being labeled as such?
And, we need to be very careful with the labeling of people, in my opinion. Many times it is perfectly valid, but the meaning of words can become completely devalued if people insist on throwing them around at whoever they feel like. While it is technically true that anyone who holds an irrational fear or dislike of a person of different color is a racist, it is dangerous to simply lump all people together like that. I am in full agreement with DuWayne in that we should separate those who are simply ignorant, from those who are willfully antagonistic and have the potential to do real harm--either mental or physical.
However, although I didn't see anybody address this specifically, I believe that the point that some were attempting to make is that simple ignorance can often provide cover for those who really do have the potential to do harm. That still doesn't mean that we should lump everyone together, though. I am a strong believer that we shouldn't encourage beliefs that don't have a test in reality, but I fully accept that it is all too easy for me to become dogmatic about all religious believers, as well as those who hold to similar untestable claims.
Also, when Priya Lynn talks about whether a belief/action is harmful, who decides such a thing? It is not entirely rational to claim that you don't disapprove of anything that doesn't cause harm, and then label those who hold an opposite point of view - whatever the circumstance - as a bigot. For all I know, s/he might have a completely different standard of what constitutes harm, and that could mean that s/he is completely irresponsible (as well as immoral) for not believing that it is wrong. That is why we must be careful when discussing these issues, as it is often the case that it is entirely subjective. Education, not labeling, is the key.
Posted by: Damian | February 15, 2008 2:42 PM
For anyone still masochistic enough to be reading this undead thread, here's Wikipedia's definition for bigot:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."
That sounds pretty broad to me. I suppose the key word in the definition would be "intolerant". Which would probably lead to a whole new discussion about what kinds of beliefs are intollerant and which aren't.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 2:48 PM
Damian, I don't think anyone is talking about running home to grandma and pointing at her and screaming "bigot"!
The disagreement, i think, is more about weather are not certain beliefs are intrinsically bigoted or not.
I fully concede that i have bigoted bias's toward certain groups or beliefs that i find offensive. If anyone claimed not to, i would frankly assume they were lying (either to me or themselves).
It's not as if the world is full of only people who are 100% free of all forms of bigotry and people who are 100% bigoted. There's lots of grey areas.
That being said, i still stand by my claim that people who have a problem with gays are bigoted in that instance.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 2:57 PM
Duwayne, you're the one that's full of shit. And a liar. There's no way anyone believes someone can do something wrong and not think less of them than they would if they hadn't.
You said "And I pointed out that your distaste for such people, even when they're not hurting anyone, makes you a bigot".
You moron, they ARE hurting gays. They are damaging the reputation of gays, making people think there is something wrong with gays when gays have harmed no one. The are committing a wrong and at the very least they deserve to be punished for it by pointing out that they are bigots.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 2:59 PM
You seem to disaprove of what Duwayne is saying here. It's just his opinion, harming no-one. Does that make you a bigot according to your own standard?
Posted by: Dave S. | February 15, 2008 3:05 PM
Damian said "Also, when Priya Lynn talks about whether a belief/action is harmful, who decides such a thing?".
I am a female by the way. The people who decide are those involved and society If anti-gay bigots want to claim gays are harming others the onus is on them to make the case. When they and those they accuse can't agree the broader society/justice system will decide.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Dave, his promotion of the idea that you can disaprove of gays and not be a bigot is harmful. It fosters continued injustice towards gays, it gives cover for those who would oppress gays.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:09 PM
So now you're saying disapproval = "I think less of you as a person" = "I'm bigoted toward you". We've traveled from the bizarre to the insane. This just has to be a disagreement about definitions and degree. In my world, disapproving of something is a much lesser degree than "I think less of you as a person", which is still a lesser degree than "I'm bigoted toward you and all who act like you".
Here's an example (if this doesn't fit, please explain why):
My daughter fidgets at the dinner table. She's constantly moving, bouncing or changing position. Can she help it? Not really, she's 5. Five year olds do this. On occasion, it has caused her to spill her food or drink. I disapprove of her doing this. It bugs me. Under Priya's definition, I not only think less of my daughter as a person, I'm now a bigot toward my daughter, and possibly all five year olds, and all children who fidget at the dinner table. That's just fucking stupid.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 3:14 PM
Dave S: ALL extremists MUST be shot!
Posted by: kehrsam | February 15, 2008 3:15 PM
Dave, I think the issue here is does belief X harm a particular group of people unfairly?
Yes, i am 100% bigoted toward Nazis. That's because i believe that that philosophy hurts people unfairly.
-Just like the belief that it's wrong to be gay hurts gays unfairly.
A lot of people here seem to think that beliefs have no consequences. I don't want to engage in a long, tedious debate about it, but that belief is self-evidently wrong.
Beliefs define who we are as individuals and how we interact with the outside world. If i believe it's wrong to be gay, that's going to have an impact.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 3:19 PM
Jason said "So now you're saying disapproval = "I think less of you as a person" = "I'm bigoted toward you".
Now you're being stupid. Sometimes its apropriate to disaprove, sometimes its apropriate to think less of a person. There isn't a parent in the world that wouldn't think it would be better if their five year old didn't fidget and spill their food or drink, your suggesting otherwise is just base dishonesty. No matter how slight the difference one's going to prefer a child that behaves well over one that doesn't - you're just too politically correct to admit it.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:21 PM
Jason, your example doesn't fit because, well, it's really stupid. You're talking about how the behavior of a single child irritates you and then trying to apply this to bigoted notions about groups? You're right, that is insane.
It's a false analogy.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Caliban, you're absolutely right. If you believe its wrong to be a gay its going to have an impact. The idea that Duwayne proposed, that you can have such an attitude and it have no effect whatsoever on your actions is absurd.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Is change possible?
There are some whose disdain for homosexuality is visceral. They can't just change their minds.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 3:27 PM
John, i think huge numbers of teenage boys probably do have a visceral reaction to gays because of the kind of culture we live in. Thankfully, some of them grow up and learn to think more rationally about it.
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 3:35 PM
Speaking of dishonesty, Priya, never once did I suggest that a parent would want their child to spill their food or drink. You're the one that read those words into my post. And despite your asinine suggestion, I would not prefer a non-fidgety kid over my daughter.
Caliban, in general I disapprove of kids being fidgety. I know they can't help it. However, I don't see that as me being bigoted towards kids. People keep trying to equate disapproval to bigotry. They just aren't the same thing.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM
Priya -
Does this make me an anti-gay bigot in your eyes?
My gay friends would find the notion that I am doing them harm, absolutely laughable. As laughable as the notion that I give anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, any sort of cover.
You seem to be mistaking the fact that I don't consider them all bigots, with the idea that I just give them a pass. I most certainly do not. I don't even give the few people I know, who think homosexuality is wrong, but still advocate for gay rights a pass.
Duwayne, you're the one that's full of shit. And a liar. There's no way anyone believes someone can do something wrong and not think less of them than they would if they hadn't.
Just because you're small minded enough to believe that you are superior to others, just because they live in a way you disaprove of, doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. Again, the assumption that you're perfect, that your better than anyone else, is arrogant in the extreme.
You moron, they ARE hurting gays.
Really? Even the ones who are very vocal proponents of gay rights? The ones who believe that even though some people do things they disapprove of, is no excuse for discriminating against them? My gods your fucking insane.
They are damaging the reputation of gays, making people think there is something wrong with gays when gays have harmed no one.
Of course they are. Who cares about the actions they might take. We should entirely focus on the fact that they disapprove.
The are committing a wrong and at the very least they deserve to be punished for it by pointing out that they are bigots.
Of course. Because it is entirely pointless to actually try to educate them and relieve them of their ignorance. Far better to alienate them, by calling them a bigot.
Again, what do you hope to accomplish, by accusing everyone of bigotry? What positive effect do you imagine that this happens? And how exactly do you differentiate those who are flat out evil, such as the reverend phelps, from those who are just not? Or is it actually all the same to you?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM
Jason, I am not equating disaproval to bigotry. It is disaproval of those who harm no one that is bigotry. Most parents would say that a fidgety kid doesn't harm anyone and would accept that this is inevitable in children. They'd accept a child's shortcomings as a necessary evil to growing up.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:42 PM
And Jason, your suggestion that you would not prefer a nonfidgety kid over your daughter is besides the point. You stated that you disaprove of your daughter being fidgety thus its clear you'd prefer your daughter being non-fidgety over fidgety.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:45 PM
Duwayne, said "Again, the assumption that you're perfect, that your better than anyone else, is arrogant in the extreme.".
I never said I was perfect you liar. and I most definitely am better than Hitler - how about you?
I pointed out to Duwayne "You moron, they ARE hurting gays."
Duwayne said "Really? Even the ones who are very vocal proponents of gay rights?".
I don't believe such a person exists. I think you're a liar, you just can't let go of the position you've staked out and you'll say anything to avoid admitting your wrong. Unless their keeping their opinion that its wrong to be gay to themselves they are harming the reputation of gays and providing false justification to those who would deny gays equality and fairness. Your suggesting that its harmless to promote the idea that being gay is a sin is preposterous. Some hypothetical person going around and saying "equal rights for gays - but they're sinners you know" isn't doing any gay any good.
Duwayne said "Again, what do you hope to accomplish, by accusing everyone of bigotry?".
I never accused everyone of bigotry - you're lying again.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 3:56 PM
That's exactly how I feel. It doesn't stop me from disapproving of kids being fidgety. As far as I can tell, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot.
Like I said earlier, I think what this "debate" comes down to is a difference of definitions. If someone does not like the fact that two people of the same sex actually have sex, but supports their right to do so, supports their rights to have access to all of the same things that heterosexuals do, has friends that are homosexual, and treats homosexuals just like every other person they encounter, I just don't call that bigotry.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 15, 2008 4:00 PM
Jason, a fidgity child isn't really harming anyone and such disaproval isn't bigotry. The idea that someone can be opposed to gay sex and never have this affect their treatment of gays in a negative way simply isn't credible.
That's like saying your disaproval of your child being fidgety doesn't in any way cause you to try and discourage her from spilling her food or drink.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 4:07 PM
"The idea that someone can be opposed to gay sex and never have this affect their treatment of gays in a negative way simply isn't credible."
I am married to a woman who is just that way.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 4:13 PM
Priya,
I pointed out previously that when you disaprove of something that harms no one you're a bigot.
OK maybe you need a more extreme example as to why your definition is garbage - Let's use Necrophilia - It doesn't hurt anyone but most people would disapprove of this behavior and yet, by your definition, all who disapprove of this behavior are bigots and you too are a bigot unless of course you without reservation would be willing to support Necrophilia.
Posted by: Anna | February 15, 2008 4:20 PM
You know Priya, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I don't even care if they call me names. But you have taken it way to far.
I am not a liar. I am a lot of things, I have a host of negative attributes. But I am not dishonest. The mere fact that your wee, simple little mind can't comprehend what others may believe, doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are a lot of people who value personal freedom and liberty, more than they value oppressing ideas or activities they disagree with. I strongly disapprove of people using a whole variety of drugs, yet I am a voracious advocate for the legalization of those drugs. I disapprove of a lot of things that people spew from their mouths, yet I am a voracious defender of their right to say it. I disapprove of people who have their heads up their asses, having children, but I wouldn't dream of interfering with their right to do so.
Some hypothetical person going around and saying "equal rights for gays - but they're sinners you know" isn't doing any gay any good.
Tell gays who want those rights that. Anyone who is actively helping them achieve equality, is doing them good, regardless of their personal feelings.
and I most definitely am better than Hitler - how about you?
Not Hitler, not Pol Pot, not Stalin or chairmen Mao, not even the rev. Phelps or GW Bush. Do I think these people are/were wrong? Certainly. Do I think that they committed horrendous atrocities? Absolutely. Do I think that every single one of them, was absolutely batshit crazy? Yes. Does any of this make me superior to them? Absolutely not.
Nor do I think that I am in any way superior to the drunk throwing up on his shoes. Nor am I superior to the guy rocking back and forth in his chair, drooling on himself. I'm not even better than the lady who decided to drown her children.
I have certainly made better choices than some of those folks. I have probably made a better contribution to my society than many of them. I certainly deal with my own neurological issues than most of them. Does this make me better than them? I really don't see how.
I never accused everyone of bigotry - you're lying again.
By your definition, everyone is a bigot, because there is absolutely no one, who doesn't have opinions that fit your definition. But assuming your not;
Again and with feeling. What do you hope to accomplish, by accusing some people of bigotry? What positive effect do you imagine that this happens? And how exactly do you differentiate those who are flat out evil, such as the reverend phelps, from those who are just not? Or is it actually all the same to you?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM
Anna, necrophilia isn't done with a consenting adult, that's why its wrong.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 4:26 PM
Duwayne said "I am not a liar. I am a lot of things, I have a host of negative attributes. But I am not dishonest.".
Bullshit Duwayne, you said "Again, the assumption that you're perfect, that your better than anyone else, is arrogant in the extreme.".
I never said I was perfect you are a liar.
You said "Again, what do you hope to accomplish, by accusing everyone of bigotry?".
I never accused everyone of bigotry, that's a lie.
Thanks for admitting that you're no better than Hitler. Being a liar is a small thing in comparison.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM
Priya - Where is the consent needed? Your talking about a corpse and what if there was approval prior to death? Or yet another example - Incestuous relations between consenting adults?
Besides, I also personally know an older (NOT BIGOTED) man who believes that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong but has never discriminated against a homosexual and actually fought side by side a gay gentleman in war. He may believe that it is a single disgusting behavior but not enough to make a judgement on a person for it or to think any differently about him or her. Some people don't care enough about how other people find or perceive love or relationships. What does he most remember about the guy, he was a trustworthy competent soldier and a good friend. Oh yeah and he happened to be gay. The fact that this soldier was gay was only used by the older gentleman to point out that he didn't think that being gay should have any effect upon how a person should be treated. So yes there are not bigoted folks out there that disapprove of the idea of homosexuality rather than homosexuals.
Posted by: Anna | February 15, 2008 4:56 PM
Anna, of course consent is needed. I suspect most people would feel it an offense against them if someone had sex with their corpse. If someone gives consent to another to have sex with their corpse after their dead its not for any of us to say no. As to incestuous relations between adults I'd want to hear what the psycological experts have to say. It may be that a person in that kind of close family relationship can never be free enough from undue influence to give informed consent.
We've heard stories like your supposedly non-bigoted soldiers before. It simply isn't believable that one can think gay sex is wrong and in no way have this negatively effect how you treat gays at some point in time in some way. Promoting the idea that its wrong to have gay sex in and of itself harms the reputation of gays and encourages people to think gay inequality is justified.
Anyway, I've dealt with enough absurdities and have had enough lies told about me, I'm done with this thread. I'll leave you with what Caliban said:
The notion that being black is not equal to being white causes harm to blacks, and we call such notions bigotry.
The notion that being female is not equal to being male causes harm to females, and we call such notions bigotry.
The notion that being homosexual is not equal to being hetrosexual causes harm to homosexuals, and we call such notions bigotry.
In each case it is irrelevent weather or not the person is doing it out of ignorance, religous beleifs or for any other reason.
The infliction of harm is the determining factor, not the intent.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 15, 2008 5:13 PM
Priya - To be more exact your quote: "when you disaprove of something that harms no one you're a bigot."
There was no mention of consent in your quote only harm and in necrophilia tell me how a corpse is "harmed". We're talking about a corpse here. A dead body with no sensory abilities.
As for the Penguins - You go boys!
Posted by: Anna | February 15, 2008 5:20 PM
Priya said:
How did my beliefs enter into this? If I were to say that Hitler was less a person than I am that still would not prove that it's not possible for someone to feel that way?
I'm not even religious, much less Christian. I don't believe in god, sin, or morality. I have values and act in accordance with them, ethics rather than morality. I've never made any claim that thinking in the way I've outlined is good or bad (it seems to have elements of both). I'm not defending a point of view. I only say that it exists.
And yes, I have personally seen a group prayer asking for the forgiveness of Hitler. These people were not anti-semitic. They detested what Hitler did every bit as much as you or me. I've seen some of them weep while watching History Channel documentaries on the concentration camps, just as I did. For them, universal love is the highest ideal.
And I still say it isn't. You keep making this assertion as facts without backing it up. I have provided several contrary examples that you continue to ignore.
If you say no one can do it than obviously you include yourself. So, by your own admission you are incapable of not looking down on those whose principles you disagree with. I can see why that would make it hard for you to understand how anyone else can. My experiences tell me otherwise. If we cannot agree that two people can have differing views of right and wrong and still respect each other, then I don't see how we can come to a consensus.
Yea sure, lets say I do as you ask. I say that then you twist it to mean that I admit I'm no better than Hitler, just like you did to DuWayne. You are attempting to cloud the discussion with emotion and equate me with Hitler.
Unsuported assertions as fact, ignoring evidence, invoking Hitler, poisoning the well... I've seen these tactics before and I find them dispicable. I will have no further part in this discussion.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 15, 2008 5:42 PM
Anna: Why bring the penguins back into a perfectly good mud wrassle?
Posted by: kehrsam | February 15, 2008 5:46 PM
Kehrsam-
I was just so tired of reading Priya Lynn I thought some comic relief at about this point might help us remember where we started (TeeHee)
Posted by: Anna | February 15, 2008 5:52 PM
Priya:
and:
Hmm. Is that a tiny contradiction I see?
And:
Wonderful. Masturbating over Playboy isn't done with a consenting adult either. Oh, those wicked schoolboys.
Posted by: pedlar | February 15, 2008 7:01 PM
kehrsam -
Mud wrassle?!? I was thinking more along the lines of a "bitch, back up off my babies daddy," sort of thing. Maybe not quite that low brow, but certainly not on a par with mud wrestling. That is, I'm assuming you meant a nude mud wrassle.
All in all, I agree with you though, the poor penguins should definitely have been left out at this point:)
Of course, I'm just a big old liar, so my opinion is probably suspect.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 7:19 PM
James Hanley wrote:
I don't think you possibly could have offered a less nuanced and more condescending description of the argument I was attempting to make. Which is not, by the way, "if they disagree with me they are bigots, quick everybody grab a pitchfork".
Further, I find this totally superficial statement offensive. Bigot. ;P
Posted by: Leni | February 15, 2008 7:52 PM
Leni,
I believe you have just proved James Hanley's point.
Posted by: Anna | February 15, 2008 8:39 PM
Leni -
Further, I find this totally superficial statement offensive. Bigot. ;P
Yeah, well I find your gratuitous use of the word bigot, highly offensive. Meanwhile, your accusations of condescension are totally rooted in anti-condescender bigotry.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 15, 2008 9:12 PM
Abby Normal wrote:
I never said it was. I merely asked you:
I don't think that can be reasonably construed as saying ALL Christians are anything. Further, some Christians don' think homosexual sex is sinful at all, so naturally they would be excluded.
(Technically I couldn't "remember" that you are bi since I never knew it in the first place. But I'll let that one go ;) )
Again, you seem to think my point is "All Christians are bigots". Sorry, let me clarify: I only think that the ones who are prejudiced against homosexual sex are bigoted. LOL. That was tongue in cheek but it's not wholly inaccurate.
That's nice. Nevertheless, they still think gay sex is bad for no rational reason. It's good that they they don't want to hurt others by being pushy or annoying about it. But the fact that otherwise intelligent, caring people think irrational, unjustifiable things about gays because they think the bible tells them is greatly disturbing to me. And I think it's obvious that they are simply clinging to a prejudice because they... get this... choose to.
To me it is another kind of bigotry. I don't think bigotry is one identifiable behavior, expressed solely in acts of hatred and abuse accompanied by lame picket signs. That's one kind, definitely. And what you are describing is pretty much the mildest version of it. I guess you could call it prejudice, that might be a kindler gentler sort of bigotry. The kind you might expect from friends, lol.
That was a joke. But more seriously, I'm not moralizing about this because I don't I'm free of bigotry. I'm not. I've internalized a lot of worthless, harmful cultural baggage too. It comes out in surprising and horrifying ways sometimes.
What I'm suggesting is that it's better to recognize it for what it is. Take a good hard look and ask yourself, or god forbid your step-mother, why believing gay sex is bad even though you know your reasons for it aren't good. Why bother even holding onto it if it ultimately doesn't matter and doesn't influence your actions? It's useless prejudice, hanging around, doing no one any good, and doing harm when it does surface. Abandon it then! Don't assuage it by patting yourself on the back for still managing to treat your gay friends and family with the default respect you automatically and unquestioningly accord everyone else.
This is another big part of my problem. I think we're sometimes too willing to give Christians props for being decent to gays and atheists and other people who will never make it into heaven as they are. It's like we know how hard it is for them, how they're bucking the system, so we should lower the bar. If anyone went around self-righteously saying to their left-handed friends "I believe that left handedness is sinful, but far be it for me to interfere with what God has in store for you", you'd be puking on your shoes. Because even if you aren't prepared to call it bigotry, it's more than a little presumptuous and rude. And I'd be holding your hair back and saying "See what I mean now?" :)
For some reason we don't do this when they talk about homosexuality, or gay sex if they make that ever so subtle distinction. Why would that be?
....
That said, I totally confess to being a bigot with respect to necrophiliacs. I don't think it's rational either. It just creeps me the frak out. Strangely, I'm ok with that.
Posted by: Leni | February 15, 2008 9:14 PM
I get the impression that the two sides here mean different things with the word bigot.
One side (i think) views bigot as BIGOT. And visions of Fred Phelps and Hitler immediately jump into their heads. For them, the word bigot is reserved for the worst of the worst and has nothing to do with the day to day behaviors of their loved ones which they have gone on at length here to defend.
Then there's the other side which uses a "small-case" bigot and thinks of it more the way Christians think of sin, in that everybody has bigoted parts they have acquired in life, some justified and some not. For instance, i confess to being completely bigoted against Nazis. I would never vote for one and wouldn't want one as a neighbor either.
Having an irrational stance on gays serves no positive purpose. Even if that belief doesn't come out in big, ugly ways, what good could it ever possibly do? Yet the possibility for it to harm is always there and the country is already full of people who already do just that.
Ed makes the distinction between being "wrong" and being "bigoted". Yet why would anyone want to defend a wrong belief?
Posted by: Caliban | February 15, 2008 9:47 PM
Ha. I thought that exact same thing while I was writing it.
I don't deny it. Sometimes it's hard to face the truth, but that which doesn't kill you makes you less bigoted >=D
Posted by: Leni | February 15, 2008 9:57 PM
Caliban -
We are definitely operating under different definitions of bigotry. Though your characterization of mine, is a ways off the mark.
To me, bigotry denotes that the bigot, feels an innate superiority to the object of their bigotry. To the bigot, the object of their bigotry is less than human, in some way or another.
In the case of the anti-gay bigot, rather than merely believing that homosexuality is wrong, they believe that anyone who performs homosexual acts, is inherently less of a person. That they are somehow better than a person who commits such acts.
Whereas the people that believe it is merely wrong, do not have some sense that they are better, because they are not gay. Or more to the point, they don't feel they are better, because they don't perform such acts. Unlike at least some actual bigots, they also don't believe that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
Indeed, I don't imagine that actual bigots care if homosexuality is innate or not, unless they have a deep seated hope that it is, to make their assumed superiority that much more complete.
There is also something I think you're missing in my "defense" of people who I don't consider bigots, yet who believe that homosexuality is wrong. I am parsing a fine line with that. The fact that I don't believe they are bigots, does not mean that I am giving them any sort of a pass. I never have and never will.
The firm majority of my friends are gay. Back in my days of experimenting, I performed homosexual acts myself, it never caught on, but I figured I should try it. I am very much the oddball, as Ed will attest to. The people who were most accepting of me, who didn't care how I dressed or the strange things that I think and say, were (and are) gays. I feel a compulsion to return the favor, not only by accepting gays myself, but by fighting tooth and nail for their acceptance by the rest of society.
I do not believe in tolerance. Tolerance is great as a stepping stone, but nothing more. Acceptance is far more important. My mother is tolerant. The people I am talking about are tolerant. Bigotry and tolerance just don't really mix. And for the record, there are a lot of tolerant people out there, who fight for equality, who are not, OTOH, accepting.
So I guess to put it more simply, the difference between a bigot and someone who thinks it is merely wrong, is tolerance. I am not defending tolerance. I am merely pointing out that the there is a important distinction to make between that and bigotry. A distinction that in part, keeps the word bigotry from becoming as meaningless in political discourse, as words like fascism have become.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 16, 2008 12:17 AM
Well, I've been a bit busy the last couple days, so I've missed most of the fun. Anna got what I was saying, and I think DuWayne did. They must be really cool, non-bigoted people who regularly cheer for gay penguin sex.
Actually I wasn't being condescending toward priya (and apparently, Leni--s/he wasn't my target, but did take offense). I'm not being condescending by calling someone a moralist who's only saving grace is that they haven't allied with religion for the purposes of killing others. I hate those types far too much to be merely condescending.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 16, 2008 12:29 AM
DuWayne - Sorry it too so long to get back.
Yes I love you too (and on Valtines Day too, classic). The point of mentioning The Australian PM's apology, and the Opposition Leader's (sort of) apology, to the Stolen Generation was two fold:
1. It was HUGE here. A moment that stopped the nation after 10 years of Howard denial. I feared that it would be buried under the Hillary/Obama show and ignored. I bubbled over, sorry.
2. It dovetailed with my point. Sometimes good intentions have evil consequences.
Your gran might be a lovely little old lady, a regular Miss Marple. But her attitude, although legal, held in good faith and well intentioned causes real suffering to those real people who are the target of her distain.
If you take an intrinsic feature of a person (sexuality),confuse it with something they can somehow choose, then label it as something bad or evil (a sin) then you devalue persons who have that charactistic because humans naturally think "bad" peop;e = "lesser" people. Then you can discriminate against them without your conscience pricking you.
Brendon Nelson is right, there was no intention to hurt the children who were taken away, it was done in accordance to the law and it may (or may not) have improved thier lives - but it left them never knowing thier parents, siblings and all thier other relatives. White Australians, like me, simply labeled "abos" as lazy, dirty, shifty and criminal people incapable of looking after children; so we took the children away. This caused a multi-generational spiral of substance abuse, sexual assault and violence that tore (what was left) of Aboriginal culture apart.
Kevin Rudd's apology is the first step in giving back the most important thing white colonisation took from Aboriginals - thier dignity.
(If I was too verbose & unclear, for this I am truely sorry -DJ)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 16, 2008 12:31 AM
DuWayne Wrote:
You've reiterated this repeatedly. I don't know about Caliban, but your definition wasn't lost on me. It's not the one I would have chosen, but I don't think it's totally off the mark either.
For example, the opinion that homosexual love and/or sex are wrong is a double standard. It's ok for me, but not for you. What's ok for straight people is not ok for gay people. And for mostly really stupid reasons. I don't really see any way around that. And a double standard like this is nothing but a remark on another person's inferiority.
Posted by: Leni | February 16, 2008 4:32 AM
I'm stealing this for my blog: "The Faithful Penguin" I'll make sure to credit you.
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 8:29 AM
DuWayne,
The idea that if i do X it's okay, but if you do X then that's wrong and sinful is fucked up, stupid, irrational and yes, hypocritically superior.
In what other area of our lives would this be given a pass except for when it comes to how religious people choose to think of gays?
Posted by: Caliban | February 16, 2008 8:55 AM
Who knew fairy penguins would turn out to be gay! ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 16, 2008 9:26 AM
Leni -
I reiterate it mainly because, rather than accepting that I am trying to make a distinction, folks seem to think that I am trying to give a free pass to folks who think homosexuality is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth and I rather resent the insinuation that I am. Indeed, people who fall into the non-bigoted category, will get a lot more of an earful from me, than actual bigots.
I also think that like Priya, a lot of people want to use accusations of bigotry as a "punishment." While this might be cathartic, it is less than effective when it comes to fomenting change in people. By making the situation less adversarial, it makes it easier to show people their mistaken thinking. Making a solid distinction between people like those I have described and people who actually think that homosexuals are subhuman, it makes the situation less adversarial.
I also reiterate it, because I think that failing to make a distinction, renders the very notion of bigotry meaningless. It creates a simplistic dichotomy, which allows us to dismiss everyone who fall into this expansive category, rather than addressing the issue with anyone. I don't want to dismiss such folks, because I know full well, that such people can be changed. I know this because I was and I know this because I have not only seen it in others, but have helped others see the problem with their stance.
Caliban -
The big one that jumps out at me, is poverty and the ghetto. There are a lot of people, many of them decent, compassionate folks, who make rather broad assumptions about people in my neighborhood and neighborhoods like it. Even the most liberally oriented, diversity supporting folks, can fall prey to it. Assumptions that are made;
People that live in these neighborhoods are stupid. If they were smarter, they wouldn't live in poverty.
People who live in these neighborhoods are dangerous thugs, either drug dealers or druggies or both. If not drugs, they are prostitutes.
People who live in these neighborhoods all contribute to the general malaise, with very few exceptions.
As a member of the working poor, these generalizations really piss me off, as nothing could be further from the truth. The truth of the matter, is that the dangerous thugs, are a small minority. Does that mean I think that everyone who thinks that way is a bigot? Hell no. They're just bloody well ignorant. OTOH, there are plenty of folks who believe these things who are bigots because of it.
There are also plenty of folks who make certain assumptions about illegal immigrants. Such as the notion that all (or nearly all) illegals are criminal layabouts, looking to leech off American social services. For that matter, they also make the assumption that all illegals are brown people, from Mexico.
Again, though there is a racial component to these assumptions, they are not always based on racism and xenophobia, no matter how much folks want to paint it that way. It's just not always bigotry.
There are plenty of atheists who would love to see all religion and similar notions go the way of the dodo. Some of them even make fairly outrageous generalizations about theists. Does this make them all anti-theism bigots?
I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.
I could go on and on,
Posted by: DuWayne | February 16, 2008 2:25 PM
217 Comments?
I have learned the hard way most of my life that no one wins a pissing contest. This is one. I will call myself a bigot just to get you all to stop arguing over this.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 16, 2008 2:43 PM
DuWayne wrote:
I accept your distinction and went even further to acknowledge that there are a range of behaviors. However, it makes me think that you are a bit too quick to write off the prejudice because you will not acknowledge the double standard inherent to the idea.
I have repeatedly said that there are a range of behaviors and ideas that I consider to be bigoted. How one earth does render the notion of bigotry meaningless to acknowledge that not every act of bigotry is a wild Phelpsian fiasco?
I didn't argue that every negative thought about another person was bigotry. Or that thinking someone is wrong is bigotry. Those inclusions would render it meaningless, but that's not actually what I said. I argued that to choose to cling to this particular double standard in the face of what we know, and for the pathetic reason that you think God said so, is an act of bigotry.
I also didn't say you gave anyone a free pass. I said the refusal to acknowledge the double standard inherent in the idea was akin to lowering the bar. In other words, I don't think the pass is free, merely cheaper than it is for other issues.
So this is really getting to the point where I think you are more interested in discussing what you think I'm saying about you than what I am actually saying.
It's been nice debating with you, I think you're a nice guy and I don't hold it against you for disagreeing with me or anything. But I still stand by the notion that thinking it is wrong for gays to act upon their desires to be with the people they choose is an inherently prejudiced double standard, and therefore nothing more than a kind of bigotry.
****
Ha ha! KoI's a bigot, I win!
Posted by: Leni | February 16, 2008 3:47 PM
"Ha ha! KoI's a bigot, I win!"
It is worth being known as a bigot to stop this argument that became ridiculous 100 comments ago. Ed tried to get you guys to stop so I figured I would try. Life is too short!
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 16, 2008 4:34 PM
I think the people that believe you can be recruited or converted to homosexuality are just projecting their own underlying urges. I for one like women and am turned on by them. I don't care how good looking a man is, I don't ever find myself feeling the urge to have sex with one, or fantasizing about one when I masturbate. So I don't think all urges are created equal. It's not as if I could get equally aroused by Maggie Gyllenhaal (whom I've had sex with....in my mind)and Jake Gyllenhaal. I think the reason these folks think it's a choice is because they could see themselves engaging in some hot man on man action if they didn't fear eternal damnation by a loving God.
Posted by: soboco | February 16, 2008 4:45 PM
Here's a idea (just to prove ANYONE can be a bigot).
How about we smear these idiot parents in anchovy paste a drop into a colony of hungry (male) King Penguins in the middle of the Antartic winter. Fairy Penguins are cute little guys but Kings weight 40-60 Kilograms [88-132lb] and can reach 1-1.3 metres [3.28-4.265ft] in height. Oh and did I mention that by then thier REALLY REALLY hungry. :D - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 16, 2008 10:21 PM
Gods forbid, I not let this drag out even further.
KoI -
No, dammit, your not!?! Honestly, for my part, the earlier discussion about you, had nothing to do with why I went on so prolifically. I also really couldn't say you are or aren't, time will tell as you converse here more (which I certainly hope you will).
As for life being too short, it is, but I am both an insomniac and because of my severe ADHD, I can get hyper-focused on things (not to say that this is all that I have been dealing with, just that I am occasionally unable to just let go. I should also note that I really enjoy debating, especially with people like Leni and Caliban. Disagreement doesn't stop me from respecting them and enjoying this. Not so much with people like Priya, but they often piss me off enough that I don't want to let it go.
Leni -
Honestly, I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying or implying those things. Just that I feel like these are things that others here are implying. The only place that I felt I was miscommunicating with you, was exactly what I think bigotry is. I do however, feel that Caliban was both misunderstanding what I mean by bigotry and at least to a degree, felt I was defending some anti-gay sentiments. I can guarantee that Priya wasn't getting it.
I do want to answer this one; How one earth does render the notion of bigotry meaningless to acknowledge that not every act of bigotry is a wild Phelpsian fiasco?
It does to me, because I reserve he word for people who actually believe that others are subhuman. This is something that I find so unbelievably vile, that I have absolutely no use for such people. Honestly, I would refuse to do any work for one, I don't care what the offer is. This does not necessarily mean this person did anything more than expressed their view on the matter, in private, to me. I still see a wide range, within my definition of bigotry. I have met people who are not even overtly rude or in the least bit unpleasant to the objects of their bigotry. It is the fact that they feel a sense of superiority that I cannot stomach.
A perfect example of what I am talking about, happened to me, while hitch-hiking through the panhandle of Texas, to get to I-75. I had multiple earings in both ears, my pack had a bedroll, boots, a pan and my camp-burner tied off on the outside. I was wearing my travel clothes, which were comfortable and wicked away sweat well, they also made me look like a hippie. I got picked up by a couple who mindlessly concluded that I was obviously inferior to them. They were more than a little polite, they bought me dinner, as well as a little food for the road. They gave me a ride about forty miles past their destination. They talked to me about Jesus. They also made me absolutely nauseous, because it was like a given to them, that they were far superior to me. Had I not been in the middle of nowhere, when I figured that out, I would have gotten out after ten minutes in the truck with them.
Ignorance on the other hand, I can deal with, though I am not terribly fond of it. I really don't feel like ignorance is giving someone much of a break. And again, within this realm, there is still plenty of room for degree. I just feel that there is enough of a difference here, that a different term is reasonable.
Oy. Like you too, BTW, enjoy arguing with you too.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 17, 2008 12:02 AM
If a person thinks that the sex of the person I have sex with is a moral issue, that person's beliefs and values are seriously screwed up.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 1:03 AM
Soboco, DuWayne and MAJeff (and myself, of course) -
Cease and desist, the King has left the building, so therefore we have to as well. (As if).
Posted by: DingoJack | February 17, 2008 1:13 AM
DJ: So, you want to be coated in Fish Whiz, tied up, and dropped into a group of animals that look like nuns. I thought I was the only person with that fantasy. But you forgot the 'Nilla Wafers.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 17, 2008 12:37 PM
MAJeff -
I certainly agree with that and would even take it further. People who perform the psychological gymnastics required to avoid being flat nuts about it (i.e. stoning their children, because they are misbehaving), yet still claim to be biblical literalists, cause serious cognitive disassociations.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 17, 2008 2:37 PM
Kehrsam - I'll bring the wafers if you volenteer. :)
Nope- I was thinking of the "idoit parents" -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 18, 2008 7:05 AM