Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Found this at Pam's House Blend. It's a letter from a high school senior whose mother died in the Oklahoma City bombing. He's not happy about Kern claiming that gays are worse than terrorists and he tells her so with great eloquence. Full text below the fold:
Rep Kern:On April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed my mother and 167 others. 19 children died that day. Had I not had the chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more. Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still suffer through their permanent wounds.
That terrorist was neither a homosexual or was he involved in Islam. He was an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.
As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worst than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you.
I was five years old when my mother died. I remember what a beautiful, wise, and remarkable woman she was. I miss her. Your harsh words and misguided beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance for themselves.
As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very clearly you are absolutely wrong.
You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?
I've spent 12 years in Oklahoma public schools and never once have I had anyone try to force a gay agenda on me. I have seen, however, many gay students beat up and there's never a day in school that has went by when I haven't heard the word **** slung at someone. I've been called gay slurs many times and they hurt and I am not even gay so I can just imagine how a real gay person feels. You were a school teacher and you have seen those things too. How could you care so little about the suffering of some of your students?
Let me tell you the result of your words in my school. Every openly gay and suspected gay in the school were having to walk together Monday for protection. They looked scared. They've already experienced enough hate and now your words gave other students even more motivation to sneer at them and call them names. Afterall, you are a teacher and a lawmaker, many young people have taken your words to heart. That happens when you assume a role of responsibility in your community. I seriously think before this week ends that some kids here will be going home bruised and bloody because of what you said.
I wish you could've met my mom. Maybe she could've guided you in how a real Christian should be acting and speaking.
I have not had a mother for nearly 13 years now and wonder if there were fewer people like you around, people with more love and tolerance in their hearts instead of strife, if my mom would be here to watch me graduate from high school this spring. Now she won't be there. So I'll be packing my things and leaving Oklahoma to go to college elsewhere and one day be a writer and I have no intentions to ever return here. I have no doubt that people like you will incite crazy people to build more bombs and kill more people again. I don't want to be here for that. I just can't go through that again.
You may just see me as a kid, but let me try to teach you something. The old saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom. Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.
Sincerely
Tucker
What is it with kids writing brilliant letters these days? Whatever it is, let's see more of it. Nice job, Tucker.
Comments
I had added a comment to the earlier Kern thread, but since it has rolled of the front page I will repeat it here. The gossip site perezhilton.com reports that Kern has a gay son I had seen one veiled allusion to that on an Oklahoma City based blog earlier.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 13, 2008 9:56 AM
That was beautiful. This should be spread far and wide.
Posted by: Vic | March 13, 2008 10:01 AM
Outstanding letter - and I think Vic is 100% right, it should be spread far and wide.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 13, 2008 10:06 AM
That is definitely a great letter! I hope Kern actually reads this and realizes the follies of his type of thinking. On a side not, it's nice to see younger people with writing skills in this age of text messaging.
Posted by: llDayo | March 13, 2008 10:20 AM
And silly me, I forgot the 'e' in note.
Posted by: llDayo | March 13, 2008 10:21 AM
Wow, that was brilliantly put. I especially like this bit:
Your harsh words and misguided beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance for themselves.
As for Sally Kern, well, she can lick my anus for all I care.
Posted by: Jacob | March 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Re Sally Kern has a gay son
Just like her fellow bigot, Phillis Schlafly.
Posted by: SLC | March 13, 2008 10:36 AM
I just want the mention the irony that Sally Kern still has a job in government while Elliot Spitzer doesn't.
Compare the potential for causing harm to others in their individual actions.
What does this say about what we consider important and what we don't?
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | March 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Alan Keyes also has a lesbian daughter.
Posted by: tacitus | March 13, 2008 11:12 AM
My only quibble with Tucker's letter is that I think it is incorrect to call Timothy McVeigh a "an extremist Christian". According to his own words he was at best a lapsed Catholic or possibly an agnostic.
Posted by: BenC | March 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Unfortunately, it is all too likely that arguments such as this will make little impact on people like Sally Kern, because they have learned to frame the issue in a way which places the blame for this kind of violence on "people who have turned away from God." If she were to respond to this young man, it would probably be with the reassurance that she IS on his side. She wants to stop the "homosexual agenda" of gaining social acceptance for 'deviance' because she grieves for all the victims of terrorism. She sees and feels the horrible results of sin, and wants to stop it by getting to the root of the problem, and not just treating symptoms.
In her world, it all comes down to our relationship with God. Always. Everything else is smoke.
For those with a magical view of cause-and-effect, rational analysis of direct physical causes for the bombing -- such as spelled out in the letter -- neglects to address the underlying, spiritual malaise which is the actual source, the real reason the Oklahoma bomber did what he did, and people died. We've failed to pay God His due respect.
She's the equivalent of someone who insists that the true cause of cancer is "imbalances in subtle life energies," which allow the cancer cells to take hold. This is a wall. You cannot argue against an unfalsifiable theory.
Posted by: Sastra | March 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Am I just a cynic, or does anyone else think that this part won't bother Kern at all?
This is a brilliant letter, and I hope Kern gets the message loud and clear.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 13, 2008 11:50 AM
Absolutely beautiful. WTG Tucker. I particulaly like how he explains the real work consiquences of Kern's speech, the fear, hate, and pain she's created.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 13, 2008 12:01 PM
Can I take a mulligan on that last sentence? I should read: I particularly like how he explains the real world consequences of Kern's speech, the fear, hate, and pain she's created.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Sastra - wha?
Dayo, the pain and sentiment was strong but I hope my sons write better than this when they're 18.
Posted by: Andrea | March 13, 2008 1:29 PM
So can we nominate this kid as an honorary inductee into the Order of the Molly, or is it still too early?
Posted by: BruceH | March 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Rep. Kern's anti-gay remarks are clearly bigoted and reprehensible not to mention unbelievably ignorant.
I especially liked the comment where she says no society that has embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a "few decades". Maybe she should read a bit about the role of pederasty in the birth place of western civilization, ancient Greece. Of course I'm betting she doesn't read above an eight grade level and probably only paperbacks from the local Christian bookstore.
Unfortunately her opinions probably reflect those of the majority of the people that voted for her.
She has the right to express these idiotic and hateful ideas under the first amendment. People in her district have the right to vote for her opponents, if they so choose, in upcoming elections.
I am an atheist but I must point out that, despite what young Tucker says in his plucky reply to Rep. Kern, Timothy McVeigh was not an "extremist Christian". He really wasn't a Christian of any stripe. In fact his own letters and interviews indicate he was something of an agnostic.
It would appear that in his zeal to reprimand Rep. Kern for making anti-gay remarks Tucker has tried to link the most infamous "terrorist" act perpetrated on American soil" to Christianity.
Maybe Tucker will be getting a letter recounting the plight of young "extremist Christian" (whatever that might mean)kids that are being threatened because of his "hateful" letter.
I think Tucker's point could have been made without attempting to demonize another group of people.
Posted by: Lance | March 13, 2008 5:43 PM
That's an excellent letter. I'm going to print it up and share it with some of my coworkers at OSU. It's especially poignant that Tucker is a victim of real, American-bred terrorism, which brings to light the mind-blowing absurdity and dangerous bigotry in Kern's rants. It pisses me off that drooling idiots like Kern have to open old wounds for people like Tucker just to serve their twisted anti-gay agendas. Absolutely sickening.
Posted by: Wes | March 13, 2008 5:49 PM
Beautiful piece of work, Tucker. If there were any justice in the world, this letter would be the Joseph Welch ("At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?") moment for the religious right.
Posted by: John | March 13, 2008 5:57 PM
Eloquent in the way Martin Luther King was eloquent. Tugging at the heart while making one think of how each of us can help make the world a little better, instead of harder.
This young man has a goal of being a writer. I have a prediction; his loss will make him stronger than he now knows. He will succeed because hurt he endured, and the loss he still feels will fuel his creativity, making him more sensitized to the world around him. Godspeed, Tucker.
Posted by: Shagata Ganai | March 13, 2008 6:14 PM
That, is perfect. I have been searching my heart for the words to reply to Sally Kern and her like-minded supporters...and then I found them here. Exactly the words that needed to be said, and now need to be heard.
I reposted that verbatim in my own humble journal. I hope you don't mind?
Posted by: ristin | March 13, 2008 6:43 PM
Tucker's response to the hateful Sally Kern is perfect. I could not have expressed it better myself, and I'm a writer. Besides, it comes from his own experience. His grammar and spelling aren't perfect(something he'll have to work on if he wants to be a writer), but the way he juxtaposes the pain he still feels at the loss of his mother at age 5, and the disgustingly ignorant comments of Ms. Kern, are "right on"! I think he *will* become an excellent writer one day. And I will eagerly await whatever it is he is going to write.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | March 13, 2008 7:30 PM
Really moving. I think it would do a lot better, however, if it didn't contain a probably factually inaccurate accusation about McVeigh's motivations at the beginning. McVeigh was an extremist and a Christian, but not an extremist Christian, and his views were not about religion, but rather hatred for the government and lionizing of things like Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Posted by: Bad | March 13, 2008 7:32 PM
That was an incredibly moving and eloquent letter. Absolutely perfect.
Posted by: Matthew Block | March 13, 2008 7:50 PM
BAD - within the context, is your complaint concerning "McVeigh was an extremist and a Christian, but not an extremist Christian" of any real relevance at all ?
Posted by: Venusian | March 13, 2008 8:18 PM
I especially like the part in her speech where she claims that homosexuals have shorter life spans and higher disease rates...well heres a fact for you kern, the highest demographic for contracting aids (a long thought "gay" disease) is young american girls age 13-16. her hatred is dispicable and i can not understand how she can call her self a person of god. everyone has a right to be themselves GOD gave me free will and judgement is reserved to only him. I'm not even a christian and i know this much.
Posted by: Mark | March 13, 2008 8:27 PM
I especially like the part in her speech where she claims that homosexuals have shorter life spans and higher disease rates...well heres a fact for you kern, the highest demographic for contracting aids (a long thought "gay" disease) is young american girls age 13-16. her hatred is dispicable and i can not understand how she can call her self a person of god. everyone has a right to be themselves GOD gave me free will and judgement is reserved to only him. I'm not even a christian and i know this much.
Posted by: Mark | March 13, 2008 8:29 PM
Tucker writes so very well for someone who is perfectly within their rights to completely fly off the handle. This woman is pathetic for attempting to grab political points by stirring up the sort of hate-filled mindset that cost this guy (and many others) his mother.
Posted by: devolute | March 13, 2008 8:37 PM
When we gays recruit one to our team do we still get a toaster? 'Cuz I've got my eyes on a nice Proctor-Silex 4-slicer with bagel toaster.
Posted by: Carl | March 13, 2008 10:10 PM
Oh no, Tucker. They gays have gotten to you and brainwashed your mind!! :)
Great letter, I hope she and her sick little fans get a chance to read it, but it seems the sort of people who agree with her are too busy panicking and having secret meetings! Probably building shelters to protect them fom us.
Posted by: Tim | March 13, 2008 11:06 PM
Why do we have these insane bigots running our country? Honestly i think every single gay person in america should send sally Kern a letter saying they are not violent,radical, or forcing their beliefs on people. All they want is happiness for themselves and their fellow American. All they want is to be left alone in the peace and comfort of their own home with the ones they love. It obviously seems that this sally kern would much rather see people suffering than happy.
Posted by: k | March 14, 2008 12:13 AM
And they say the public schools are failing...
Well said!
Posted by: John | March 14, 2008 5:00 AM
Religion Kills
Posted by: Wolfie Rankin | March 14, 2008 7:37 AM
". . . every single gay person in america should send sally Kern a letter saying they are not . . . forcing their beliefs on people."
It is accurate - no one is forcing anything by writing letters. Kern can just refuse to read. She will definitely make up her own mind. However, a deluge of letters saying they're not forcing ideas on anyone does have a touch of irony.
Posted by: SDyuaa | March 14, 2008 7:47 AM
This was an amazing letter. I doubt she'd ever read it or take it to heart. She doesn't sound like a very smart person.
Ah self proclaimed conservative Christians, so many are so un-Christ-like.
I guess what this really shows is how our education system is failing to teach people critical thinking skills. That woman is just not intelligent and sadly, I guess there are still so many wlike her and follow right along to dumb-dumbville.
Posted by: ks | March 14, 2008 9:42 AM
Lance, I believe that one limitation on freedom of speech is inciting hatred and violence, as it's likely to cause real-world hurt.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 14, 2008 11:36 AM
McVeigh wasn't an extremist Christian. He was totally uninterested in religion. But that aside, it is an extarordinary and powerful - and accurate - letter.
Posted by: Chase | March 14, 2008 12:57 PM
Monado FCD,
Rep. Kern's remarks while ignorant and reprehensible are completely protected speech under the first amendment. She is not inciting violence or making specific threats of harm to anyone. I see in above posts statements like "religion kills" that would no doubt be deeply offensive and hurtful to religious people.
As I believe our host Ed would concur the first amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no such protection.
Posted by: Lance | March 14, 2008 2:30 PM
Timothy McVeigh was at least strongly tied to, and Terry Nichols was actually a member of (according to his own brother), the "Christian Identity" (link goes to Wikipedia entry) movement.
That clearly links Christian extremism with the bombing.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | March 14, 2008 2:58 PM
Tucker is my hero today!
I know that Kern and her ilk have a picture in their minds of what the gay agenda is (to make everyone gay, of course, booga BOOGA!) However, I believe that deep in their deluded hearts that they know this is untrue.
They have to think this way because they dare not allow themselves to realize what their REAL fear is:
If LBGT folk are allowed to have all the rights and privileges accorded to every citizen, they'll prove to be happy, healthy, productive and contributing members of society. Which would make the gay-bashers and their god WRONG.
Posted by: twincats | March 14, 2008 3:48 PM
Benjamin Franz,
I have attended many Catholic masses and many of my closest friends are catholic, does that mean that if I bomb the Pentagon that we could say that it was "clearly linked" to Catholicism?
Timothy McVeigh has been used by many opportunistic people and groups, such as the slimy Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center, to try to smear everything from the "Christian Identity" movement to the "Aryan Nation" to "militia" groups.
While many of these groups are despicable in their own right they were not responsible for Timothy McVeigh's actions. Timothy McVeigh was responsible, along with the assistance of Terry Nichols, for the bombing.
That you continue to try to exploit the issue to demonize a group with only the most tenuous connection to the incident demonstrates either ignorance on the issue or an attempt to exploit the situation to malign a group that you personally disdain.
Posted by: Lance | March 14, 2008 5:31 PM
Re Lance
1. Mr. Lance, the leading global warming denier over at the intersection blog, weighs in with a smear against Morris Dees who he refers to as slimy. Mr. Lance is the slime off the bottom of the cesspool.
2. Earlier on, Mr. Lance invoked freedom of speech to defend Ms. Kern. Well, I am going to use my freedom of speech to declare that Mr. Lance is a lying, fucktard asshole.
Posted by: SLC | March 14, 2008 7:28 PM
Too bad Timothy McVeigh never claimed to be killing for God or Christ, never quoted scripture to justify his deeds. Why? Because Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. This article is full of fail.
Posted by: James | March 14, 2008 8:32 PM
"Full of fail"? You found one *possible* yet unproven inaccuracy, and now it's full of fail?
You're full of quite something else, James.
Posted by: Rob van Kan | March 15, 2008 4:49 AM
Gays are more dangerous than terrorists! I would rather live next door to a Muslim extremist than a queer property value-ruining American!
Posted by: The Wire | March 15, 2008 10:39 AM
Absolutely brilliant piece. Today, more than ever, our elected officials are too careless with their words and actions. I am glad that this story is receiving tremendous press, for it highlights the stupidity that is growing in America.
Posted by: Meg Henessy | March 15, 2008 10:54 AM
Wow. Tucker, you are right on the money. Gays are a threat to no one except maybe those who question their own manhood. They are not a disease that is contagious. You can not "catch" gay. However, you can be killed by a terrorist. Kern's bigoted and discriminatory remarks are disgusting. Kern and her kind are more dangerous for America and the world then the gays could ever be. By spreading her bigotry and hatred she has become a terrorist herself. Probably why she doesn't see terrorists as a threat, since she is one.
Posted by: Alec | March 15, 2008 11:14 AM
Here's my suggestion. Send Ms Kerns a picture every day of someone killed by McVeigh. Just a picture and a note enclosed to say killed by a Christian terrorist.
This way every day she opens the mail she can get a good look at how completely ignorant and incompetent she is as a human.
Excellent work rocking the vote Oklahoma
Posted by: Bill Lehecka | March 15, 2008 11:18 AM
I was just about to comment on how respectful people seemed to be...and then the last couple of posts proved me wrong.
Coincidence that Fark just linked to this site?
Way to go, Farkers. Thanks for adding to today's troll ratio.
Posted by: Allison | March 15, 2008 11:18 AM
Kern is a deeply religious woman. She is not homophobic, she is not anti gay. She is against the agenda of gays who seek not equality but superiority in our society. She resents the elite status that gays receive in education, the media, the arts and culturally. She feels that as gay power expands, her traditionalist power will suffer as a result.
To simply say she is just a hater with a black heart is the epitome of disingenuousness. Rather than try to understand her it is easier to label her as one who is evil and thus anything she says need not be considered.
Imagine for a moment that if in the community you live in experienced a sudden influx of Mormons. Hundreds of Mormon families moved in and soon they began exercising their political clout. Imagine that they became influential with the local school board and a new, very Mormon friendly curriculum was put in place. Would you embrace the new curriculum with open arms or would it cause you some pangs unease?
If you did not support the new Mormon friendly educational changes would you be rightly considered an anti Mormon bigot? Would your opposition mean that you were promoting violence against Mormons? No, clearly you would not. You would merely be just a parent who was concerned that a different educational scheme might teach your children lessons you did not agree with. Does that make you an evil person?
Kerns is merely feeling the pinch of a zero sum game in which her beliefs are being squeezed out while gay friendly beliefs are expanding.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 11:19 AM
Japanese samurai got much samurai trainee booty. And as we all know, Japan has crumbled into the sea.
Shudō (衆道, shudō) is the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century.
In other words, those brave samurai were pounding their trainees.
Posted by: Namae | March 15, 2008 11:23 AM
thank you tucker. no one could say it any better.
although i did not lose a loved one, i remember that day too well.
i had just turned the tv on when scenes were being shown of the building. i was playing with my son after breakfast, and at first thought it was a movie. not untill my son was playing with the dog did i pay attention.
when i did i began to cry. when my son stopped and ran to me wondering what was wrong, i had to turn the tv off.
i picked him up and let him know how much he was loved.
for an elected official for that area to be that callous and biggoted, it goes beyond anything i would think of.
kerns needs to retract and step down.
by the way, if i lived there, it could have been my son there too. he was 4yr old at time. this military father and sheriff deputy at the time cried knowing it could have been mine there.
Posted by: jstesprit | March 15, 2008 11:33 AM
"Queer property value-ruining American" Come on The Wire. Everyone knows gays have better style and taste and will enhance the property value with their redecoration. Plus you don't have to worry about them running off with your wife. I've met more gays and lesbian with respectable values and morals than heterosexuals. /okay that was a stereotype but The Wire should be thrown into the same needing an ass whooping crowd as Sally Kern.
Posted by: Lady A | March 15, 2008 11:33 AM
Nice job, Tucker! Good luck in your future endeavors - you're going to do well out there!
Posted by: Al Denton | March 15, 2008 11:38 AM
No, Kern is frustrated that her absolute dominance and ability to command and control is threatened. It isn't that she's worried about gays gaining "superiority" (and nobody is trying to get "superiority"; that's a load of hogwash). It's that she is worried she's going to lose HER superiority.
There's no "zero sum" game in freedom. Extremists love to paint things that way-- that it's always "us" versus "them," and somebody has to win, and somebody else has to lose. It's not true. Don't buy it.
Everybody can be free and everybody can be equal. It just requires people like Sally Kern to stop being "more equal" than everybody else.
The price you pay for freedom is that you don't have the right to tell everybody else how they're allowed to live. What you get for that price is that nobody else can tell you how you're allowed to live either.
This country is still firmly and extremely slanted in the direction of the puritanical prudes (like Kern) telling everyone else what to do. They're slowly losing their stranglehold on discourse... and that's a good thing.
Posted by: spatula | March 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Who is running against this Kern bigot and where can I sign up to support him or her? She is a blot on the escutcheon of Oklahoma city and sounds a follower of the loathsome Fred Phelps, the Utah Taliban leader who desecrates the funerals of Iraq vets because the Army contains some homosexuals.
Great letter. The young man would make a much better congressman than Ms. Kern.
Posted by: Willobie | March 15, 2008 11:44 AM
"Rather than try to understand her it is easier to label her as one who is evil and thus anything she says need not be considered."
Oh, I'm considering what she said, all right. Remember that part? That gays are more dangerous to America than terrorists? Even given the maximum benefit of the doubt, that is still profoundly ignorant and demonstrates a clear lack of perspective on what is important to her country.
Not to mention, as well, Tucker's well-described effect her words have had on young homosexuals. That also makes Kern's words thoughtless as well as foolish.
"She is against the agenda of gays who seek not equality but superiority in our society. She resents the elite status that gays receive in education, the media, the arts and culturally."
You are on a completely different planet, aren't you? One on which you don't actually know any gay people, and therefore buy into every single stereotype you hear. Your own ignorance is as deep as Kern's.
Posted by: Matt | March 15, 2008 11:45 AM
to wire and the ilk that agree with him/her.
i am glad tucker has more compassion than you. for you foment hatred and intollerence.
i trully hope you are not of my community!
Posted by: jstesprit | March 15, 2008 11:46 AM
Ken J wrote:
You say that as though there was some conflict between being "deeply religious" and being an anti-gay bigot. In fact, they often go hand in hand. Kern is deeply religious AND she's an anti-gay bigot. The fact that she thinks gays are worse than terrorists is all the evidence one could possibly need for that conclusion.
Great. Now if there actually was such an agenda, she might have a point. But there isn't. The only place such an agenda exists is in the fevered imagination of ignorant bigots.
Why don't you go and tell the 80% of gay teenagers who are the targets of harassment, intimidation and, far too often, outright violence, all about their "elite status." I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear how elite their status is while their classmates are yelling "faggot" at them as they walk down the hall, stuffing them in their lockers and beating them up on the way home from school. Go tell the family of the 15 year old in Florida who was killed by a classmate because he asked him to be his valentine that they should stop whining about their son's murder because gays have an elite status in our society.
Close. She's afraid that as society increasingly recognizes that gays are human beings with all the same rights as every other human being, she and her fellow bigots will no longer be allowed to discriminate against them and throw them in jail. Gosh, I'm so sorry that she's feeling bad about that. Really, I am. I hear the world's tiniest violent playing in the distance.
You mean like she does when she dismisses gays as worse than terrorists?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 15, 2008 11:57 AM
Ken J:
"Superiority"? "Zero-sum game"? The most charitable way I can interpret your comment is that you're accusing Kern of tilting at windmills. The fact is that what you describe -- a paranoid reaction to influences perceived as unfamiliar -- is the very essence of prejudicial hate.
Posted by: Brian X | March 15, 2008 12:03 PM
"You are on a completely different planet, aren't you? One on which you don't actually know any gay people, and therefore buy into every single stereotype you hear. Your own ignorance is as deep as Kern's."
Thanks Matt, you proved my point exactly. Don't like my opinion? Then don't debate it, merely criticize me as a person instead.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 12:04 PM
If you're going to try an analogy, at least use a correct one.
Let's say some Mormons start moving into my neighborhood, to use your example. (I personally wouldn't care.) Then let's suppose that neighborhood kids start beating up the Mormons just because they're Mormon. The Mormons don't like this, so they try to get a rule passed in the HOA that says it isn't okay to beat up Mormons. And then I start the "Campaign to Protect Families" to oppose the rule, saying that it equates to "special rights" for Mormons that my kids aren't allowed to beat them up.
Then I say that Mormons are a bigger threat than terrorists but proclaim that I'm emphatically "not anti-Mormon" (some of my best friends are Mormon). I just want "my own kind" to have a "fair" shake, which I presumably cannot do if Mormons are allowed to exist without getting beaten up by my kids.
Posted by: spatula | March 15, 2008 12:13 PM
KenJ wrote:
In order for your analogy to work, the "new Mormon-friendly educational changes" would have to be along the lines of reassuring the school children that "Mormons can be good citizens and have happy families, too -- welcome them to the neighborhood!" So yes, if I were to argue that Mormons, simply by being Mormon, no longer deserve to be treated with ordinary consideration and judged on their individual merits of character and behavior, then I would rightly be considered an anti-Mormon bigot.
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 12:17 PM
"The fact is that what you describe -- a paranoid reaction to influences perceived as unfamiliar -- is the very essence of prejudicial hate."
Great point Brian. Using your logic, if Kerns had instead said "Republicans were worse than terrorists" then you would denounce her for being paranoid and prejudicial. Good to see that you are carrying the GOPs water Brian.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 12:21 PM
This will be a free country when people are comfortable living anywhere in it without fear of being judged by their inherent characteristics.
Good job, Tucker. You'll do well as a writer. You're already expressing yourself far better and more clearly than most of the "journalists" on either end of the political spectrum.
Posted by: sparticle | March 15, 2008 12:23 PM
Once in a while, there's a discussion on catholicfundamentalism.com that sympathetically brings up the point that those in the gay community have life expectancies about thirty years less than heterosexuals.
In that way, there is a real danger to a movement that encourages life-shortening practices.
Appreciate it if someone would help us understand how that result is different than terrorism's.
Posted by: badams | March 15, 2008 12:26 PM
"In order for your analogy to work, the "new Mormon-friendly educational changes" would have to be along the lines of reassuring the school children that "Mormons can be good citizens and have happy families, too -- welcome them to the neighborhood!""
It goes further than that Sastra. Gay people can and are good citizens, they can and do have happy families, and yes they are welcome your and my neighborhoods. I think Kerns is concerned about not just acceptance but the promotion of the gay lifestyle. To make the gay lifestyle an elite, protected class separate and above the 90% of Americans that are straight.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 12:33 PM
The Book says, " and a little child will lead them". If they will listen. Thanks Tucker
Posted by: Skypilot | March 15, 2008 12:37 PM
"No, Kern is frustrated that her absolute dominance and ability to command and control is threatened. It isn't that she's worried about gays gaining "superiority" (and nobody is trying to get "superiority"; that's a load of hogwash). It's that she is worried she's going to lose HER superiority."
Spatula, your comments show that you have a firm grasp of Post Modern philosophy. Do you really believe that Kerns and other born again Christians enjoy absolute dominance?
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 12:38 PM
Ken, your comment kills me with irony.
You DO know the Mormons wound up in Utah because, you know, they kept getting beat up and driven out of town by their neighbors, yes?
As other commenters have observed - there is not a gay agenda for superiority. They don't have elite status in anything in our country. They are discriminated against in just about every way possible.
No, it sounds to me like you and Kern and others of your stripe fear for your own comfort and cultural supremacy.
Posted by: The Rotund | March 15, 2008 12:45 PM
badams, could you explain what these life shortening practices are, and how they are being encouraged?
Posted by: Matt | March 15, 2008 12:46 PM
Excellent letter, Tucker. Extremely well written. Your words will hopefully bring change in the hearts of many.
Posted by: JB | March 15, 2008 12:48 PM
Ken: your response to my post is logical gibberish and I won't dignify it with a defense. Suffice to say you're a liar as much as you're an apologist to hate, and I will let better debaters than I complete the process of tearing your "argument" to shreds.
Posted by: Brian X | March 15, 2008 12:52 PM
"They are discriminated against in just about every way possible."
Rotund, this is why gay people have elite status. They have achieved the special status of being uncriticizeable. Do you realize that I could stand in the middle of Times Sq with a loudspeaker yelling "Born again Christians are lying, power hungry, oppressive, evil bastards" and nothing would happen to me. But if I wrote a letter to the editor of a tiny local news paper stating that I had moral issues with schools promoting the gay lifestyle, that I would be hated, harassed, and most likely be fired and treated as an outcast?
Rotund, that kind of power my friend is of the kind only the true elite enjoy.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 1:05 PM
"Thanks Matt, you proved my point exactly. Don't like my opinion? Then don't debate it, merely criticize me as a person instead."
Truly your masterful rhetoric has led me right into your trap!
OK, here's your debate: show me where gays have an elite status. Show me where they seek an agenda of superiority. Go on. Show me anything to back up your opinion, and we'll discuss it.
Posted by: Not that last Matt, first, different Matt | March 15, 2008 1:05 PM
Just when I think I'm too jaded and desensitized to be brought to tears by anything someone writes something like this! If more of todays youth have Tucker's mindset there might be a future for the USA yet. Does anyone know if Rep. Kerns office commented on this?
Posted by: Bret | March 15, 2008 1:06 PM
"But if I wrote a letter to the editor of a tiny local news paper stating that I had moral issues with schools promoting the gay lifestyle, that I would be hated, harassed, and most likely be fired and treated as an outcast?"
Being in Tennessee, I see letters to the editor like that all the time. The authors are scarcely considered pariahs, nor do they face any reprisals that you imagine. Try again. Kern is facing public scrutiny like this because she is a public figure elected to represent ALL of her constituents.
Posted by: Same Matt | March 15, 2008 1:08 PM
"Ken: your response to my post is logical gibberish and I won't dignify it with a defense. Suffice to say you're a liar as much as you're an apologist to hate,..."
Thanks Brian for your kind words. It is heartwarming to know that two adults who have never met can have a rational discussion, stick to the facts, and not let emotion and invective enter into the fray.
Well done sir!
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 1:10 PM
To both Matts, sorry if I am confusing you with one another.
"Kern is facing public scrutiny like this because she is a public figure elected to represent ALL of her constituents."
Good point and I agree with you.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 1:13 PM
Ken J wrote:
I am having problems figuring out what you mean, specifically -- where the "elite" part is coming in here. My understanding is that gay people want to be accepted into the mainstream, and not singled out and treated differently just because they are homosexual. The "promotion of the gay lifestyle" is nothing more than promoting it to be placed on the same level as the heterosexual lifestyle, one variation of sexuality. When relating to gays, one should 'set aside' the differences as less important than the similarities.
Gay people have no special system of "beliefs" akin to the Mormon religion which can be taught or promulgated. In your analogy, the implication was that the schools were going to teach Mormon theology as truth, and treat the Mormons as God's chosen people with privileges over others. A closer analogy, as I said, would be encouraging the children to set aside their differences and accept them as ordinary people, first.
And Sally Kern does indeed have a problem with that sort of "acceptance." She doesn't want them seen as ordinary -- but as dangerous deviants, moral criminals. She's the one who wants the differences promoted, for that reason.
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 1:22 PM
"Truly your masterful rhetoric has led me right into your trap!
OK, here's your debate: show me where gays have an elite status. Show me where they seek an agenda of superiority. Go on. Show me anything to back up your opinion, and we'll discuss it."
No trap intended Matt. In fact I rarely ever wear a toga anymore.
The agenda of superiority exists in government:
The attempts to give Gay people special status. Assault is illegal to commit on anyone gay or straight, yet gays seek special laws making it a more serious crime to shove a gay person than it is to shove a straight person.
The agenda of superiority exists in entertainment:
Gays are always portrayed on tv and films as thoughtful, creative, generous, curious, unbiased defenders of truth and justice. Granted a majority of gay people (as well as straight people)posses these qualities but you will very rarely see any negative portrayals of gay people in films or tv. (the exception is the repressed republican who is a closeted gay and acts evil because he is ashamed of himself)
The agenda of superiority exists in education:
Similarly as with the media, educators at all levels present the gay lifestyle as an almost evolutionary jump in human development. Being gay is what we should all aspire to be.
The agenda of superiority exists in culturally:
Gays are considered an oppressed minority group that is owed something by our evil corrupt racist culture. Many African Americans take umbrage with the notion that gays are an equally oppressed and equally suffering minority group.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 1:38 PM
The endless talk of "teh gay lifestyle" is tedious and pointless.
It's like bemoaning "the model train enthusiast lifestyle" in that they both are found in poor, middle class and rich people and folks of all races, religions, nationalities, education levels and political parties. There are probably even gay model train enthusiasts! The lifestyles of gays and model train enthusiasts are pretty much the lifestyles of anyone in the country.
Please note that I'm not saying they're equivalent. No one actually complains about the model train enthusiast lifestyle, of course, but in the scheme of things, who a person chooses to spend his/her life partnered with amounts to about as much if you're talking about "lifestyle."
Posted by: twincats | March 15, 2008 1:38 PM
Sastra I see your points and thank you (truly) for your intellectual arguments. People should be able to hold different opinions and debate subjects without insults and anger.
That said, why is it that openly gay people let everyone know that they are gay within a very short period after meeting them? If being gay was such a terrible, dangerous, burden to bear why is it gay people are so quick to self identify themselves as being such? Maybe it is because it bestows a special elite status upon the gay person.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 1:53 PM
Tolerate, tolerate, tolerate. Never take a stand! With that kind of illogical statement, it's no wonder the world is heading for more and worse wars.
It's oppression to make people tolerate something they find repugnant or do not want in their lives. "Tolerance" favors the parasitic. While I don't agree with Kern's statements on gays either, I think we need to realize this street goes both ways.
Posted by: burnitdown | March 15, 2008 2:03 PM
All of these problems could be solved if it was really true that homosexuality was in fact genetic. If it was then we can simply abort the gay babies and exterminate homosexuality once and for all. Of course that would seriously screw up the interior decorators and most of us would be unable to color coordinate without a queer, but the world would be a better place without them.
Posted by: jeff | March 15, 2008 2:26 PM
Because, if there has been anything that has driven humankind to war time and again, it is an overabundance of tolerance for their fellow human beings?
Posted by: GoodGrief | March 15, 2008 2:27 PM
Kinda hilarious watching Ken J and Sally Kern and others like them get negative reactions to their anti-gay lies, and then moan and whine about how mean everyone is to them. They start off the whole conversation with vicious slanders and then when someone rises to the bait, they start whining about, "People should be able to hold different opinions and debate subjects without insults and anger." Hypocrites and babies who want to be exempt from the inevitable consequences of their rhetoric - if you're a nasty liar, a lot of people won't like you, and some of them will say so. Revelation!
I look forward to the point in our country's development a few decades from now when people like this are pretty generally recognized for the cranks they are, and marginalized in public discourse because of the simple fact that most people think they have nothing to say worth listening to.
Posted by: MPW | March 15, 2008 2:32 PM
Ken J wrote:
Do they? How do you know?
Perhaps 90% of the gay people you've met have never mentioned it. After all, your definition of being "openly gay" may come down to "those who let everyone know they are gay within a very short period after meeting them." In which case, it's not surprising that there's a correlation there.
I don't think I've ever had that happen to me, except in situations where it's significant to the discussion. So I don't see your point. I suppose that if that happens to you there might be a sense of "gay pride" on display, but that's hardly ominous. I see no more reason to think they want special elevated legal status because of that any more than someone who says "by the way, did you know I'm part Cherokee" or "I've been Born Again" or even "Guess what, I'm a Mormon!" I've had that sort of thing happen, and I'm not meant to feel intimidated or second class. At least, I assume I'm not.
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 2:33 PM
"They are discriminated against in just about every way possible."
...this is why gay people have elite status. They have achieved the special status of being uncriticizeable.
Ken, do you realize that you just said: "Gays have elite status because they are discriminated against in every way possible"?
Do you see how this statement is entirely contradictory?
Gays are not "uncriticizeable," by the way. However, BECAUSE they are so widely discriminated against, attacking them has more repercussions and is likely to cause a lot more obvious damage than attacking groups that enjoy the status of being in the mainstream. It's the difference between flicking a knife at a river reed and a 100-yr old oak tree.
Do you realize that I could stand in the middle of Times Sq with a loudspeaker yelling "Born again Christians are lying, power hungry, oppressive, evil bastards" and nothing would happen to me.
Amazingly, you could do the same thing in regards to gays. You really could! I've seen people do it! And preachers do it from pulpits all the time.
But if I wrote a letter to the editor of a tiny local news paper stating that I had moral issues with schools promoting the gay lifestyle, that I would be hated, harassed, and most likely be fired and treated as an outcast?
If I wrote a letter to the editor saying that I had moral issues with the Christian lifestyle, I assure you I would get a lot of negative reaction too. Because it's no one's business to tell other people what to do with their "lifestyle" so long as it doesn't hurt people.
However, I see that you said schools were "promoting the gay lifestyle." How do they do that exactly? I went to a public school in one of the most liberal states in the country, and I was not even allowed to talk about gay rights as part of a debate assignment because it was "too controversial," while another girl was allowed to talk about her pro-choice stance on abortion.
So I assume that by "promoting" you mean the part where teachers tell students it's not ok to insult gay people and that homosexuality isn't inherently evil. Which amounts to "I want it to be ok to be mean to gay people. I don't like people telling kids that accepting them is good and insulting them is bad."
that kind of power my friend is of the kind only the true elite enjoy.
Kind of like in ancient Rome, when Christians were being persecuted, right? They were truly elite and powerful then.
Posted by: Teri B. | March 15, 2008 2:43 PM
Ken J wrote:
Some of them definitely do. They aren't in politics for the money.
Hate crime legislation applies to everyone. If a a gay man assaulted a straight man because of his straightness, the gay man could be charged with a hate crime. It works both ways. Further, this type of legislation typically covers other areas such as race, ethnicity, disability, and gender. Do you make the same arguments against those groups?
(I'm not a huge fan of hate crime legislation, so please note that I'm not arguing for it, but your characterization of it as creating special classes is pretty superficial.)
Will and Grace character Jack McFarland is about as far away from those things as it is possible to be. He's superficial, slutty, thoughtless, histrionic, lazy, petty. And not a terribly good dresser.
Probable bi, possible homosexual Andrew from Buffy was a cowardly, amoral sycophant who murdered his best friend. (But was still really funny.)
Queer Eye is about as shallow as it gets. I have yet to see The L Word, but I'm betting those characters have the same kinds of problems and failings that straights do. I don't imagine the show would be terribly interesting if they didn't.
In fact, Buffy is one of the first mainstream tv shows I can think of that had a gay major character who was portrayed in a positive way. She is the first openly gay character in a committed, long term relationship that I saw. There may have been others, but I am at a loss to think of them. Anyway, suffice it to say that I think you are wrong.
Yes, Ken. And when the gay police find out you aren't sucking enough cock they're going to throw you in prison and force you to watch Madonna videos until you do!
Posted by: Leni | March 15, 2008 2:44 PM
burnitdown: "It's oppression to make people tolerate something they find repugnant or do not want in their lives."
That would also be hilarious if it weren't so creepy. Another, slightly more subtle variation on the ever-popular, "You're oppressing me if you don't allow me to oppress others." Gays are in your life and your world whether you like it or not, and you can't get rid of them, or exempt yourself from dealing with them, except by forcible removal, or forcing them to hide who they are out of fear. People who don't want to tolerate gays have every right to stay in their homes with the doors locked, the curtains closed and the TV and radio off. They do not have the right to push gays out of public view and into the closet, in order to spare themselves the discomfort of seeing and hearing gay people and gay influence in the culture.
Oh, and you're a stupid bigot.
Posted by: MPW | March 15, 2008 2:44 PM
Ken J wrote:
This is absolutely ridiculous rhetoric. First of all, let's get this very straight: there is no 'gay lifestyle.' It doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. There is no more a "gay lifestyle" than there is a "straight lifestyle." Every gay person has only one thing in common with other gay people: being gay. That does not give them a common lifestyle, any more than you and I share a common lifestyle by virtue of both being straight.
Second, this argument about wanting the same rights and protections that you and I already have amounting to an "elite status" is absolutely idiotic. Gays are routinely harassed, intimidated and subjected to violence. No sane person doubts this. Gay teenagers, in particular, are often subjected to the most brutal treatment by their peers. The schools have a responsibility to protect them from such bullying. Again, no sane person doubts this. How this gives them "elite status" to ask for such protection is beyond me.
Gay couples do not have the same rights and protections for their committed, loving relationships that you and I have and just take for granted. Tell me again who has the "elite status" in that situation. It ain't them, it's us. Your argument comes down to "if we let them have the same rights and protections we already have, they'll be above us." No, they'll be equal to us. Any other claim is simply stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 15, 2008 2:52 PM
A well-written letter, albeit a few grammatical quirks.
And to those spouting off about Kearns' son being gay: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080315_1_A13_NWorl52386
Posted by: Ted | March 15, 2008 2:53 PM
Oh my god her poor son.
He is not in the ministry, and says he is "not gay" but has "chosen to celibate."
Normally I have no problem with people being celibate if they want to, but I get the feeling that what this man really "wants" may be something else entirely... but he is unable to accept it due to his upbringing.
The poor man. :-(
Posted by: Teri B. | March 15, 2008 3:12 PM
"The attempts to give Gay people special status. Assault is illegal to commit on anyone gay or straight, yet gays seek special laws making it a more serious crime to shove a gay person than it is to shove a straight person."
When the motivation for a crime stems simply from someone being different, should it be handled differently? I'm a hippie liberal, so my inclination is to say yes; your mileage may vary. Hate crime legislation is a tricky business, though.
"...but you will very rarely see any negative portrayals of gay people in films or tv."
Actually, I think I'll give you this one, at least as regards "evil". The closest to negative you tend to see is the Ineffectual Fruit (itself negative, but hardly malevolent). But the argument that could be made here is that you very rarely see realistic portrayals of gay people in media.
"Similarly as with the media, educators at all levels present the gay lifestyle as an almost evolutionary jump in human development. Being gay is what we should all aspire to be."
Unmitigated crap. The so-called "gay lifestyle" has existed in humanity for thousands of years. You'd think by now we'd have come to terms with it. I reject your contention that educators are promoting homosexuality. Provide sources. Preferably something other than where a class had to read a book about gay people. I had to read the Iliad; this was not encouragement by my teacher to strap on bronze armor (heavy!) and stab people with spears. Or to be gay, come to think of it.
"Gays are considered an oppressed minority group that is owed something by our evil corrupt racist culture."
First, I do not consider our culture as a whole to be particularly corrupt, evil, or racist (though we've had our bad times, and our bad people). This is all the more reason to try and stop it when we encounter it. Gays are a minority group, and it's fair to consider them oppressed as long as there are unconstitutional laws on the books regarding "gay" behavior.
"Many African Americans take umbrage with the notion that gays are an equally oppressed and equally suffering minority group."
Where has that notion been put forward? And I've never met an African-American who thought that just because they had been oppressed and had suffered, that other groups were not also worthy of protection from the same.
Posted by: Matt | March 15, 2008 3:15 PM
Even those who insist on dictating diatribes of malaise will learn one day the quotidian struggles of people who are disenfranchised.
Posted by: CD | March 15, 2008 3:28 PM
I believe this is a wonderful letter and should be mentioned on the local news stations. What saddens me is that she is representing Oklahoma and that is not what Oklahoma stands for. We have seen many hard times, tragedies, and suffered a great deal of loss over the years and have always come together to overcome such things. We represent the "heartland". Unity is what kept us together during acts of terrorism like in the OKC bombing. We represent during times of tragedy that people can come together regardless of preferences, skin color or gender. For her to insinuate that gays are in the same category as terrorists means that she is not a fellow Oklahoman, she does not know what it means to be one. She was not there that tragic day and did not see the volunteers that were in the middle of what looked to be a war zone on April 19th, 1995. We as Oklahomans came together and showed the world what unity really is. People from all races, colors, gender, sexual preferences and religions united that day. There were gay men and women who helped pull people from the rubble, who wiped blood off the face of someone they had never met before, and held someone who they didn't know because that is all they could do. She is glib. We as Oklahoma do not share Sally Kern's opinion and we do not stand behind her. She does not represent us or what we stand for.
Posted by: 1only | March 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Ken J:
your an idiot.
Posted by: andrew | March 15, 2008 4:04 PM
Since when does the media portray ANY people completely accurately? Where would be the entertainment in THAT? TV isn't real, folks. They may call it "Reality TV," but calling it so does not make it so. In my Book, killers are the worst sinners. What would Jesus do? Have dinner with all the gays, of course. And love them, exactly as they are.
Posted by: Sunshyn | March 15, 2008 4:16 PM
What an well worded letter. It fills my heart with pride when I read that the youth of today...actually no. Being gay can be a choice for people but not always. What is fact is that it is a mental illness, do we give the mentally ill rights to harm themselves and people around them? Of course not that would have a terrible effect on society at large. It amazes me how everyone misses the point.
Posted by: Rumphu M'per | March 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Well said. It really is a shame in this day and age people still experience so much hate.
Posted by: laura | March 15, 2008 4:27 PM
This Young Man Is Far Removed From Being A "Kid" And Clearly Possesses Far More Insight Into This Life Than Sally Kern Ever Will...
Posted by: Nuclear Midnight | March 15, 2008 4:47 PM
"Ken J:
your an idiot."
Thank you Andrew, I value your learned opinion as much as I value your editing skills.
Posted by: Ken J | March 15, 2008 4:57 PM
Actually, yes we do. People have every right to engage in unhealthy or self-destructive behaviors whether they are mentally ill or not. I just had some Caramel Delight girl scout cookies and there wasn't a damn thing you could do to prevent it!
That said, being gay isn't self destructive. It's the ill treatment and abuse gays receive at the hands of others that's harmful. The only social harm that I think results from homosexuality are the reactions of people like you and Sally Kerns, who seem to think imminent destruction will reign from the sky if you don't keep it bay with a constant barrage of stupidity and lies.
Posted by: Leni | March 15, 2008 5:07 PM
"Actually, I think I'll give you this one, at least as regards "evil". The closest to negative you tend to see is the Ineffectual Fruit (itself negative, but hardly malevolent). But the argument that could be made here is that you very rarely see realistic portrayals of gay people in media."
Silence of the Lambs
Monster
High Tension
Basic Instinct
Cruising
A few examples of 'evil' portrayals of LGBT characters.
Posted by: Sigrid | March 15, 2008 5:25 PM
"Many African Americans take umbrage with the notion that gays are an equally oppressed and equally suffering minority group."
What about African-Americans who are gay? I don't want to put words in my ex-girlfriend's mouth here, but so far as I could tell she considered herself oppressed both as a Black woman and as a lesbian. When you assume that everyone fits into a nice box: THIS group or THAT group, you're bound to miss a lot of people.
Posted by: stainless | March 15, 2008 5:26 PM
Actually, no; that's not a fact. It's the other one--a lie.
Posted by: Skemono | March 15, 2008 5:26 PM
So I see that Ken J is happy to respond to oneliner insults, but not so much to the longer, nuanced arguments made against his posts.
By the way, re: the whole "gay people are portrayed exclusively positively on tv!!!"
Portrayal of gay characters is STILL not necessarily positive, and they are usually used as props for straight characters or comic relief: it's still a big deal if there is actually a gay love story that is explored on a mainstream show. Most gays in mainstream film and television are neutered and unsexual, to avoid making people "uncomfortable." Tell me quick how many gay sex scenes you see in Hollywood films--yeah, "Brokeback Mountain," and what else? Now tell me quick how many Hollywood films have a gay relationship between its MAIN characters, again excepting the sole and lonely "Brokeback Mountain."
More than that, just the fact that tv portrayals of gays are not outright hostile is only as recent as this decade. Watch "The Celluloid Closet" sometimes. Through most of Hollywood's history, gays have been portrayed as deranged, mentally instable, dangerous predators and killers.
Posted by: Teri B. | March 15, 2008 5:27 PM
Homosexuality was also removed from the DSM in 1973.
The psychiatric community no longer considers it a mental illness. The closest item in the DSM is "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation". Which implies that if the social stresses that are currently inherent in coming out were to be eliminated chances are this diagnosis would disappear as well.
Posted by: Sigrid | March 15, 2008 5:31 PM
Handy reference!
Posted by: Skemono | March 15, 2008 5:54 PM
Sigrid wrote:
Don't forget Death Trap.
Posted by: Leni | March 15, 2008 6:50 PM
The Talented Mr Ripley
Posted by: Caliban | March 15, 2008 7:00 PM
Hey, 1only:
Then why do you elect her and her ilk (i.e., Inhofe) to represent you in government?
Posted by: allison | March 15, 2008 7:59 PM
Sally Kern is a representative of one district. The vast majority of Oklahoma is no more responsible for her position than somebody from Canada.
Inhofe is another question, especially since Oklahoma is mostly democratic. Maybe he does other good things?
Posted by: Brandon | March 15, 2008 8:45 PM
I found this on a Michigan forum...WOOD-TV Grand Rapids and Michigan, from the same Elizabeth, I suspect, since the city and state are automatically entered from your IP address once you post.
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/wood/TSG5B8P35IEIR7IMS/p122
From Elizabeth, Oklahoma City, OK
Wednesday Mar 12
I want to thank the kind words that you have given my nephew Tucker about his letter. I want to thank the person who published it on its own website at http://www.geocities.com/lettertosallykern/
The letter is gaining national attention. Tucker was contacted by producers from the Ellen show wanting him to come on the show and read his letter in front of a national audience, since Kern has barred the delivery of the letter to her office. So please be watching for that
Posted by: CBEntr | March 15, 2008 9:29 PM
Not that anyone seems to care, but McVay was not a Christin. He was a branch Davidian. The Oklahoma City attack was his revenge for the events in Wacco, Texas. Im not defending him, just clarifying.
Posted by: Joshua Crisp | March 15, 2008 9:33 PM
SLC,
Well, well. What got your panties in such a twist?
Anyone that can read knows that I hardly "defended" Rep. Kern. I referred to her remarks as "reprehensible", "bigoted", "ignorant" and "hateful". I responded to comments that she had no right to make these remarks with the fact that the first amendment of the US constitution guarantees her this right.
As it does my right to say that Morris Dees is "slimy".
It is a sign of your delusional state of mind that you hoped to malign me in this blog by calling me a "global warming denialist". What exactly does my opinion of the role of anthropogenic CO2 in the earth's climate system have to do with the subject at hand?
Your post is a pathetic display of politically motivated, childishly profane drivel. Do you suppose you could form a cogent response to my points?
Posted by: Lance | March 15, 2008 10:14 PM
Sorry Ken, being gay (or straight) is most likely to to be caused by a developmental cascade in a foetus' early development, but it MAY have a genetic component too. Thus sexual orientation is neither disease, mental illness, lifestyla choice or "sin"; it is part of the continuum of human expierence; has been (probably) for at least 100,000 years.
You talk of "recruitment" and "special status" and "positive protrayal" where is your proof?
Sigid, Leni et al. - You forgot the lesbian seduction secene in "The Hunger", although Miram Blayloke is not a lesbain per se but a predator. Vampirism, not sex was the intention in this case. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 15, 2008 11:42 PM
I was a medic at the bombing. I am so sorry that you had to go through that horror, but you have become a brilliant and caring person and I wish you the best! You are a wise young man.
Posted by: Ellie | March 16, 2008 1:22 AM
My boyfriend and I were absolutely outraged when we heard of the Oklahoma representative's remarks, and I'm absolutely thrilled a young man like this had the audacity to put her in her place.
Posted by: Chuck | March 16, 2008 1:52 AM
Terri B said:
"Most gays in mainstream film and television are neutered and unsexual, to avoid making people "uncomfortable." "
Really?
http://www.aboutgaymovies.info/list.htm
http://www.glaad.org/eye/tv_listings.php
Terri please reread my comments. I have addressed most "nuanced" criticisms of my comments.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 11:19 AM
The anti-gays want their kids to be able to yell F@#$%t at gay teens, and harass them, without even being sent to the principal. Then the kids grow up to fear and despise gays like Tucker. That's the "free speech" the anti-gays are really defending.
Posted by: AR | March 16, 2008 11:34 AM
This young man has his act together. I listened to this lady`s "comment on a web site and couldn`t believe my ears. I am an openly gay man. I sent this on to the Gay Organization I belong to in Syracuse, NY. Hopefully the PFLAG asnd Rainbow Coalition will force this woman to retire with no retirement benefits whatsoever. She is disgusting, and as far as I`m concerned, does not belong to the human race.
Posted by: JOEZIP1747 | March 16, 2008 12:40 PM
Ken J said:
Really?
http://www.aboutgaymovies.info/list.htm
http://www.glaad.org/eye/tv_listings.php
Terri please reread my comments. I have addressed most "nuanced" criticisms of my comments.
Your first link was to a bunch of mostly NICHE, FOREIGN and INDEPENDENT gay movies with tiny budgets and even smaller viewing audiences, whereas I was talking about MAINSTREAM. Ie, what you see on your basic cable tv and in the local multiplex. The movies you linked to that have gay love scenes, you'd have to seek out and special-order if you wanted to watch them.
Your second link was just to a list of shows where gay people happen to appear. Please tell me about all the love scenes between men I just happen to have missed on such sexually-charged shows as "Your Mama Don't Dance," "Mad Tv" or "Big Brother 9."
As for your responses, I still await your response to my first post here, where I went through one of your posts point-for-point, and I have not seen you acknowledge any of the points I (or others) have made in that regard.
Posted by: Teri B. | March 16, 2008 12:40 PM
Terri you wrote:
""They are discriminated against in just about every way possible."
...this is why gay people have elite status. They have achieved the special status of being uncriticizeable.
Ken, do you realize that you just said: "Gays have elite status because they are discriminated against in every way possible"?
Do you see how this statement is entirely contradictory?"
Terri I took a quote from another poster and commented on it. I did not contradict myself.
Terri you wrote:
Do you realize that I could stand in the middle of Times Sq with a loudspeaker yelling "Born again Christians are lying, power hungry, oppressive, evil bastards" and nothing would happen to me.
Amazingly, you could do the same thing in regards to gays. You really could! I've seen people do it! And preachers do it from pulpits all the time.
If I criticized or insulted gay people with a loudspeaker in Times Sq, within a few minutes a crowd would gather to denounce me. I would be shouted down, spat upon, and physically assaulted. That would not happen if I said the same things about born again Christians.
As for your comment regarding hate speech from the pulpit aside from Jeremiah Wright (Obama's minister)that rarely happens. Yes you can find some oddities like the crazy Westboro Baptist Church but it is extremely rare.
Terri you wrote:
"Because it's no one's business to tell other people what to do with their "lifestyle" so long as it doesn't hurt people."
I agree with you 100%
Terri you wrote:
"I see that you said schools were "promoting the gay lifestyle." How do they do that exactly?"
pre schoolers must be taught gay lifestyle
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072505.html
Judge orders gay lifestyle taught to kids
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
Parents react to gay lifestyle taught to their children
http://jimphelan.vox.com/library/post/supreme-court-case-families-claim-elementary-schools-teaching-gay-lifestyle-is-violating-rights.html?_c=esv1
Resource guide for teaching gay lifestyle
http://members.tripod.com/~twood/guide.html
Professor teaches class on "How to be gay"
http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/01/15/worldnetdailycom-u-m-professor-teaches-being-gay-with-taxpayer-funding/
2nd graders taught about gay lifestyle
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=448&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
Terri there are many more examples out there including the promotion of "Gay-straight alliance groups in HS.
Terri you wrote:
"Kind of like in ancient Rome, when Christians were being persecuted, right? They were truly elite and powerful then."
Terri, gays have elite status in the US today because of a two sided coin. On one side gays are complimented for being so especially creative, sensitive, caring, free spirited, accepting, and lovers of justice.
On the other side of the coin, gays are considered brave and courageous for enduring an unrelenting barrage of hate and violence directed at them. They are the ultimate victims.
The result of these dual themes is what makes gay people members of an elite class.
If I were a rich neurosurgeon and bragged to everyone I met that I was a rich neurosurgeon who drove a Mercedes, most would think I was an egotistical jerk. But if I told everyone I met that I was gay, then I would be not be considered an egotistical jerk.
Why? Because the gay person is considered a victim and hating him would be wrong. He is bragging that he possesses the good qualities listed above but because he is a victim he is given a free pass in the braggart dept.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 1:41 PM
Terri you wrote:
""They are discriminated against in just about every way possible."
...this is why gay people have elite status. They have achieved the special status of being uncriticizeable.
Ken, do you realize that you just said: "Gays have elite status because they are discriminated against in every way possible"?
Do you see how this statement is entirely contradictory?"
Terri I took a quote from another poster and commented on it. I did not contradict myself.
Terri you wrote:
Do you realize that I could stand in the middle of Times Sq with a loudspeaker yelling "Born again Christians are lying, power hungry, oppressive, evil bastards" and nothing would happen to me.
Amazingly, you could do the same thing in regards to gays. You really could! I've seen people do it! And preachers do it from pulpits all the time.
If I criticized or insulted gay people with a loudspeaker in Times Sq, within a few minutes a crowd would gather to denounce me. I would be shouted down, spat upon, and physically assaulted. That would not happen if I said the same things about born again Christians.
As for your comment regarding hate speech from the pulpit aside from Jeremiah Wright (Obama's minister)that rarely happens. Yes you can find some oddities like the crazy Westboro Baptist Church but it is extremely rare.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 1:53 PM
cont.
Terri you wrote:
"Because it's no one's business to tell other people what to do with their "lifestyle" so long as it doesn't hurt people."
I agree with you 100%
Terri you wrote:
"I see that you said schools were "promoting the gay lifestyle." How do they do that exactly?"
pre schoolers must be taught gay lifestyle
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072505.html
Judge orders gay lifestyle taught to kids
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
Parents react to gay lifestyle taught to their children
http://jimphelan.vox.com/library/post/supreme-court-case-families-claim-elementary-schools-teaching-gay-lifestyle-is-violating-rights.html?_c=esv1
Resource guide for teaching gay lifestyle
http://members.tripod.com/~twood/guide.html
Professor teaches class on "How to be gay"
http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/01/15/worldnetdailycom-u-m-professor-teaches-being-gay-with-taxpayer-funding/
2nd graders taught about gay lifestyle
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=448&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
Terri there are many more examples out there including the promotion of "Gay-straight alliance groups in HS.
Terri you wrote:
"Kind of like in ancient Rome, when Christians were being persecuted, right? They were truly elite and powerful then."
Terri, gays have elite status in the US today because of a two sided coin. On one side gays are complimented for being so especially creative, sensitive, caring, free spirited, accepting, and lovers of justice.
On the other side of the coin, gays are considered brave and courageous for enduring an unrelenting barrage of hate and violence directed at them. They are the ultimate victims.
The result of these dual themes is what makes gay people members of an elite class.
If I were a rich neurosurgeon and bragged to everyone I met that I was a rich neurosurgeon who drove a Mercedes, most would think I was an egotistical jerk. But if I told everyone I met that I was gay, then I would be not be considered an egotistical jerk.
Why? Because the gay person is considered a victim and hating him would be wrong. He is bragging that he possesses the good qualities listed above but because he is a victim he is given a free pass in the braggart dept.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 1:54 PM
cont.
Terri you wrote:
"Because it's no one's business to tell other people what to do with their "lifestyle" so long as it doesn't hurt people."
I agree with you 100%
Terri you wrote:
"I see that you said schools were "promoting the gay lifestyle." How do they do that exactly?"
pre schoolers must be taught gay lifestyle
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072505.html
Judge orders gay lifestyle taught to kids
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
Terri there are many more examples out there including the promotion of "Gay-straight alliance groups in HS.
Terri you wrote:
"Kind of like in ancient Rome, when Christians were being persecuted, right? They were truly elite and powerful then."
Terri, gays have elite status in the US today because of a two sided coin. On one side gays are complimented for being so especially creative, sensitive, caring, free spirited, accepting, and lovers of justice.
On the other side of the coin, gays are considered brave and courageous for enduring an unrelenting barrage of hate and violence directed at them. They are the ultimate victims.
The result of these dual themes is what makes gay people members of an elite class.
If I were a rich neurosurgeon and bragged to everyone I met that I was a rich neurosurgeon who drove a Mercedes, most would think I was an egotistical jerk. But if I told everyone I met that I was gay, then I would be not be considered an egotistical jerk.
Why? Because the gay person is considered a victim and hating him would be wrong. He is bragging that he possesses the good qualities listed above but because he is a victim he is given a free pass in the braggart dept.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 1:55 PM
Ken,
What is the gay lifestyle?
Posted by: argystokes | March 16, 2008 1:57 PM
[quote]Gays are more dangerous than terrorists! I would rather live next door to a Muslim extremist than a queer property value-ruining American![/quote]
The Wire, have you actually MET any gay people?? When we first moved into our house 13 years ago, our next door neighbor was a single gay man. Not only did he NOT try and force the alleged "gay lifestyle" on us or anyone in the neighborhood for that matter, but he was also one of the NICEST people I have ever lived next door to. In fact if not for the rainbow flag he flew on his house, no one would likely have ever known he was gay.
And contrary to your "property value-ruining" rant, he kept his yard immaculate, the house was clean, and even his car was kept spotless. If anything, probably RAISED property values in our neighborhood.
Try getting to know some gay people before bothering to rant. You might just expand your horizons.
As for the article, that boy has a bright future ahead of him and I wish him all the success in the world. Hopefully that Sally Kern will read that and really take it to heart that terrorism is indeed more dangerous than gay people ever will be. However, I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Anne | March 16, 2008 2:27 PM
Sally Kern (R-Liquor Store) is a naive child who doesn't understand the significance of terrorism, including 9/11. She is totally unfit for office.
Posted by: TTT | March 16, 2008 2:48 PM
"Ken,
What is the gay lifestyle?"
Argystokes, that is a misnomer and I have used it for lack of a better term. I did not mean to use it in any negative way. That being said, I do think there is an agenda to promote gay people to an elite status far beyond the noble quest to promote acceptance. I accept gay people implicitly and have no moral issues regarding any aspect their lifestyles. I am against any group claiming special elite status which is what I oppose in this forum.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 2:48 PM
Ken J wrote
No, you haven't. You've been given several examples of mainstream films and television shows that have portrayed gays as not only shallow or silly, but downright evil.
I just found a few additions on Cracked today, of all places:
Look Ken, evil fags. Happy now?
OOh. Rocky Horror Picture Show, lol.
Posted by: Leni | March 16, 2008 2:53 PM
Ken, if you think "gay lifestyle" is a misnomer (and I agree), could you then clarify what exactly you mean when you say:
Also, in order to make your posts easier to read, you should consider putting other people's text in blockquotes (as I have done above). This is done as follows:
[blockquote]Someone else's words blah blah blah[/blockquote], but replace the square brackets with angle brackets, ie the greater than and less than symbols.
Posted by: argystokes | March 16, 2008 2:55 PM
Well, according to the links that Ken gave us, "forcing the gay lifestyle" on other people means "explaining that gays exist and it's not okay to harass them for it."
But according to Ken, saying that it's not okay to be a homophobe just accords gays "elite status". He's got some pretty fucking low standards for what he considers "elite", then.
Posted by: Skemono | March 16, 2008 3:12 PM
Leni, cracked is a silly humor site. I hardly view it as a legitimate source for serious discussion.
Leni you wrote:
"Look Ken, evil fags. Happy now?"
Thanks Leni but I don't think objectifying me is any more helpful than objectifying gay people as "evil fags".
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 3:43 PM
Predictably, Ken J continues to push this absurd notion that schools are teaching a non-existent thing called the "gay lifestyle." I've informed him that there's no such thing, but he seems to be ignoring all the substantive replies to his comments. What he calls "teaching the gay lifestyle" is really only teaching that gay people exist, have always existed, will always exist, and should be treated like human beings no matter what one thinks about homosexuality. That is precisely what the schools should teach and that is what they most often do. The notion that schools are "promoting" or "teaching" the "gay lifestyle" is simply idiotic rhetoric that objects to any teaching that isn't straight out of Leviticus. The anti-gay crowd doesn't want to hear that gay people have always existed and will always exist, just as they exist in every other species of mammal we've observed and always will, because they prefer to think that the gay can just be prayed away. So they wildly exaggerate that into "teaching the gay lifestyle", as if schools were actually telling kids to be gay. That's absolutely ridiculous. We've got gay kids in every single school being harassed, intimidated, beaten up and even killed (twice in the last month, we've had students in school killed by classmates because they were gay in this country) and the anti-gay crowd is complaining that the schools are teaching that those kids are human beings that should be treated equally. Their priorities are clearly screwed.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2008 4:10 PM
Nothing negative about thinking gay people lower property values, or that their petitioning government for the same rights I enjoy goes beyond the 1st Amendment to asking for "special rights." Same old tropes. But nothing negative in any of it, mind you. In fact, some of my best friends are niggers, I mean fags, really they are.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 16, 2008 5:39 PM
Ed, I respect your opinion but let me clear a few things up here. I am not a religious fanatic. I am not a born again Christian and do not attend church. I harbor no hate or animosity towards gays, lesbians, or transgendered people. I live by the philosophy of live and let live.
The reason I began defending Kern was because I knew she would not be fairly debated for her views but instead she would be vilified and objectified as an evil heartless hater. She is a living person with feelings just as valid as anyone else's who posts here. You may not agree with her in the slightest but that is no reason to spew venom at her. Debate her and prove she is wrong.
I feel that the schools, the media, and government are pushing not a gay lifestyle as in they want everyone to be gay but for a different reason. I think it goes beyond mere acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I think it is the creation of an elite class of people who are immune from criticism and praised for their superior artistic and social justice sentiments. It is an elite class who are praised for having endured violence and intolerance against it. Anyone who questions or criticizes gay people are immediately cast as objects and are no longer people. They are hateful, religious nut cases who are akin to Nazis.
Tell me Ed, if being gay is such a heavy burden to bear. If it is such a magnate for those who would commit violence and hate why is it that gay people are so quick to self identify themselves as gay? When I first meet someone I don't tell them my personal sexual orientation. Only gay people do this. In Nazi Germany, did the Jews walk up to fellow Germans and within 5 minutes tell them that they were Jews? Of course not because they faced real danger, real violence.
For gays to so quickly and so freely self identify themselves as being gay there must be a reason for it. That reason is most likely beneficial to the gay person in some way. Could it be a certain level of elite status?
Yes there are incidents of violence against gay people as there are incidents of violence against straight grandmothers. All groups face violence occasionally but is there statistical proof that gay people face more violence than any other group?
Ed, my whole premise is that I reject any elite group obtaining special status. That includes rich people, politically connected people, white people, black people green people, men, women...Any group, gay people included.
One final note. I would never, ever have this debate with anyone in public or identify myself online. Why? Because societies revenge would be swift and merciless. I would be threatened, probably lose my job, and even open myself up to physical violence.
For those that think I'm full of crap, let me suggest an experiment: Put bumper sticker on your car for a week that says "Kill all the straight people". Then take it off and put on a bumper sticker that says "Kill all the gay people" and drive around for a week. At the end of those two weeks you will know who the elite group is.
Thank you Ed for an enjoyable forum.
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 5:50 PM
Ken J wrote:
Now if only you didn't repeat the same idiotic rhetoric that those who do fit that description do.
So it's okay that she spewed venom and hatred at gays and called them worse than terrorists, but you just had to step in and make sure no one reacted to her hatred by saying anything mean about her. Glad you've got your priorities in line. The things she said were indefensible and filled with venom and hatred; she deserves to be condemned and in harsh terms.
Utter nonsense. Individual gay people can be just as vile and horrible as individual straight people. And no one is suggesting otherwise. What you call creating an "elite class of people who are immune from criticism" is just so much exaggerated rhetoric, like your claim that schools are "teaching the gay lifestyle." All it really means is that we want gays to be judged as individuals, not as a group based solely on the fact that they're gay (which is precisely how Kern judges them). But the undeniable fact is that gays have faced enormous prejudice, discrimination and violence in this society, just as blacks did for centuries. What is wrong with praising those with the courage to stand up to such bigotry? Should we not celebrate Martin Luther King for standing up to the same kinds of hatred and violence?
Jesus fucking Christ, Ken, are you really this fucking clueless? It hardly seems possible. Until the last couple decades, coming out of the closet meant, at the very least, putting one's job at risk and quite possibly their lives. In the last 25 or 30 years, because a few brave people were willing to stand up publicly and take a stand against the bigotry that kept gay people in the closet for so long, more and more people are now feeling safe enough to openly be who they are. And you think think this is a bad thing? Society is changing on this issue and that is a very, very good thing. Coming out is still dangerous. It can cost someone their family and friends. If you don't believe me, try talking to actual gay people about their coming out. I know a great many people for whom that process cost them enormously. But they're still doing it. Why? Because life is worse in the closet. Because denying who and what you are is psychologically devastating. Try walking in their shoes for a while before you spout this moronic bullshit.
There are reams of such data. Look it up. It's not hard to find. But here's the flaw in your analogy: do you know of anyone who was killed BECAUSE they're a straight grandmother? We can document a great many people harassed, intimidated, discriminated against, beaten and killed specifically because they were gay (just like so many blacks were treated the same way specifically because they were black). To compare the two is ridiculous. It is absolutely undeniable that a hugely disproportionate number of gay people are mistreated because they're gay. Anyone who denies that is living in a fucking dream world.
Why put either sticker on? They're both vile and bigoted. This is really a ridiculous hypothetical. Do you know of any gay person who actually thinks all straight people should be killed? I don't. But I can name you lots of straight people who think all gay people should be killed. There are churches full of them all over the country (though they are a minority even among fundamentalist Christians). If one of them put that bumper sticker on their car, they would rightly be condemned for it (but not legally punished, of course). You're simply beating up a straw man here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2008 6:20 PM
Thanks for the debate Ed. I believe we have reached an impasse. Keep up the great site.
Ken
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 6:31 PM
Actually, I suspect that you do. You do if, like most men, you wear on your left ring finger, not just a symbol of you sexual orientation, but of the fact that you have a regular sexual partner. It wouldn't be unusual for many men to display a photo of their sexual partner and possibly even the result of their sexual activity on their desk at work.
The hardest part of getting people to understand about heterosexual privilege is getting them to understand that such privilege actually exists.
Posted by: Narc | March 16, 2008 6:53 PM
Translation: "Lalala, I can't hear you! Gays are an all-powerful elite cadre! Lalala!"
Posted by: Skemono | March 16, 2008 7:53 PM
Ken J wrote:
And yet even they seem to know a lot more about mainstream media than you do.
Nice response to Ed by the way.
Posted by: Leni | March 16, 2008 7:58 PM
Ken J wrote:
Translation: I can't answer your arguments anymore so I'm slinking away.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2008 8:38 PM
Where are you meeting these people? *shake hands* "Hi, I'm Ken." "Hi, I'm gay. I mean Bob. Nice to meet you."
Posted by: Brandon | March 16, 2008 8:42 PM
Teri B wrote:
Ken responded:
This was followed by Ed providing a thorough and nuanced (and quite devastating) critique of one of Ken's comments. Even though he hasn't yet, if Ken could come up with a reply that was equally valid and substantive, then people just might start to agree with him.
So how did Ken reply? ...with:
Ken, what a pathetic response, you chicken-shit!
(That was my one-liner insult... so please reply... lol... What follows is a more "nuanced" response. If you find it convincing, please feel free to ignore it, or better yet, suggest that we 'agree to disagree' on this one... okay?)
*rolls eyes*
Where do you live? Seriously, do you live in a blue state where there are relatively few people who are openly bigotted towards homosexuals? Do you work in a company that has a very progressive diversity policy? Have you lived such a sheltered life, or are so completely naive, that you don't realize the discrimination that gay persons face?
I ask because this is the only way that I can imagine a reasonable, rational, non-bigotted person could possibly not realize how terrible virtually all gays are treated. Special treatment? ... nope... they merely request (and deserve) equal treatment.
If you lived in an area of the country where you frequently saw first hand how they were treated, you'd soon come to realize that such a request is justified. (assuming, of course, that you aren't a bigot like Kern who finds it impossible to empathize with them.)
First of all, I think you'd be very surprised at how many gay men you know actually don't self-identify themselves like that. If they aren't effeminate, and they just avoid the subject, then how would you know whether or not they "freely self identify themselves as being gay"? It's obviously impossible, so it's also illogical for you to claim that they all feel free to self-identify as gay for the benefit of being "elite". Do you not realize that many gay persons, possibly including Kern's son, are still forced to remain in the closet?
But more importantly, I'm curious how exactly these gay people go about self-identifying themselves to you. Somehow, I doubt that they go about introducing themselves to strangers with "Hello, My name is Butchy McGay and I just moved into the house down the street. Oh, and in case you weren't sure based on my name, I just wanted to confirm that yes, I am indeed a homosexual. Ooooo... nice curtains! Who designed them??"
Nah... it's probably just casual conversation where they mention it just because they feel comfortable enough not to hide it.
For example, imagine if you and I were to meet in real life and started a conversation. After discussing the weather and the local sports team, let's say that you asked me if I went to the game last weekend... I would probably respond by saying something like "Nah, I didn't have a chance, my wife and I went to the movies instead."
In this hypothetical situation, it probably wouldn't even register to you that I just self-identified myself, a male, as a heterosexual. But if a gay man that you previously assumed was straight had answered "Nah, I didn't have a chance, my life partner and I went to the movies instead."
In this case, a bigotted person would probably jump all over such a comment and claim that they were forcing 'teh gay agenda' on you. But in actuality, their comment would be just as innocent in intent as mine was.
One certainly doesn't have to be religious to be bigotted towards the GLBT community. But if you truly lived by the philosophy of live and let live, then how in the world could you possibly claim that the quest for equality is the same as demanding an elite status?
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 16, 2008 10:05 PM
I hate to be skeptical, and i love the message, but who is "Tucker" ? I am a skeptic at heart, so i naturally wonder if there even is an actual "Tucker" or just an exceptionally poingnant, albeit shy, ghost writer. Ah, it doesn't matter. Everyone should repost this. my.barackobama.com
Posted by: M.Crosby | March 16, 2008 10:14 PM
Ken - (if your still lurking) any word on the growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is due to a developmental cascade in the early stages of foetal development (about the same time as the hypothalmus buds)? To clarify, this means that who you love is tied firmly into your psyche long before your born, it exists in a deep, emotional centre of every human's brain (even yours!). Since sexual orientation is innate there can be no "gay lifestyle" any more than there is a "hazel eyes lifesytle". Get it? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 16, 2008 10:21 PM
" Thanks for the debate Ed. I believe we have reached an impasse.
Translation: I can't answer your arguments anymore so I'm slinking away."
WOW Ed, I expected more from you. Would it have helped if I swore and insulted you?
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 10:54 PM
No... but it would really help if you were to start arguing against actual points instead of complaining about people's rudeness... lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 16, 2008 10:59 PM
DingoJack: Your comment had no bearing on ANYTHING I have commented on. Why did you direct your comment at me? Have you bothered to read anything on this thread?
Posted by: Ken J | March 16, 2008 11:03 PM
You pop out for lunch and Ken resurfaces.
So Ken any answer(s)? DO YOU GET THE CONCEPT? *crickets cry & Owl hoots* -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 16, 2008 11:04 PM
Ken, please read DingoJack's comment at March 15, 2008 11:42 PM.
This is just another example of the nuanced comments that others are making that you choose to ignore.
DJ is just giving you another chance to show that you have something of substance to contribute.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 16, 2008 11:07 PM
Hmm actually I would ask the same of you Ken.
There is no "gay lifestyle" so nobody can be promoting such a thing since it does not exist. Sexual orientation is formed before birth and is connected with the areas of the brain that regulate (amongst other things) mood, emotion and memory. What several posters have tried to argue is that sexual orientation should NEVER be a basis for discrimination since it is innate (like gender, skin colour, eye colour &etc.)
But the mainstream media (such as free-to-air TV) have seem happy to show gay men as immoral, shallow, simpering priapetics rather that ordinary people, this hardly puts them in the position of "an elite".
By sterotyping, the media can simply box-up gays (or any other group) into a neat type that thier veiwers can point at, laugh at, beat up or kill simply for being WHO THEY ARE. And if you think the being gay is "protected" you should get out more.
To get back to this Kerns woman, she states that: "gays are worse than terrorists". If, Ken, you want to defend this statement, offer proof of it's validity. -DJ
Posted by: DinGoJack | March 16, 2008 11:27 PM
Perhaps Sally Kerns has crudely forged documents that prove the men who hijacked a plane then flew it into the World Trade Centre were part of Saddam's special cadre of Iraqi Interior designers. Maybe the last seconds of the plane's blackbox recording sounded like:
Hijacker1: International Style is just soooo unispiring.
Hijacker2: And all that asbestos-lined floating ceilings, like hello, so last century.
Noise cuts out as the plane slices into the building.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 16, 2008 11:51 PM
Hey! Get in line!
I believe I've been waiting for an acknowledgment that the Ken J's full of it about the "no bad gays" for like, several hours longer than DJ.
Except ok, whatever. The Hunger was a good call. Still. It wasn't that good ;)
Posted by: Leni | March 17, 2008 12:10 AM
Yeah Ken don't forget "The Hunger" :D (thanks Doc) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2008 12:14 AM
Ken J:
Ken, if you're gonna make up persecution fantasies, at least try to make them more plausible. I've worked in midtown Manhattan for several years and I often catch the train at Times Square to go home. For years, during the evening rush hour, there has been a Christian zealot group at a spot a couple blocks from Times Square with a PA system, blasting their vitriol at high volume. One of their most frequent verbal targets is gay people. The worst thing I've ever seen happen to them is my flipping them off, which I've done a few times. Mostly they get ignored, and the same thing would happen to you.
At least they're more honest than you about condemning gays:
"I have nothing against Jews - I just don't think it's healthy for one group to completely control the financial and entertainment industries and American foreign policy."
Not only are you a bigot, you don't even have the guts to admit it - maybe not even to yourself, from the looks of it.
Posted by: MPW | March 17, 2008 12:43 AM
Still waiting Ken.
Or to put another way. The "Kinsey Report On Male Sexuality" was published in 1948 long before the the Stonewall riots in 1969. He reported (although I accept that his work has many methodological faults) that around 27% of men interviewed had some homosexual encounter(s), and since only around 10% report to being attracted to men only, this means better than than 1 in 6 straight men try-out for the other team first. Are these intra-sexual jaunts sort as bad as terrorism? Kinda ramming a claped out icecream van into disued factory with the back full of wet horse-shit? -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | March 17, 2008 1:47 AM
Leni - YES I admit it. I was merely supporting your view (in this case), but can you hear "The Flower Duet" (Sous le dôme épais) from Léo Delibes' opera Lakmé, WITHOUT thinking of that scene? Or "Trio No. 2 in E-flat major for piano, violin, and violoncello" (D. 929) by Schubert without visualizing of the end scene? ;} -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | March 17, 2008 2:09 AM
Ken's comparison of gays to Jews in Nazi Germany is an admission that gays are persecuted people. And, like the Jews, they would be crazy to reveal their identity because of the "real dangers". So speaking up is both dangerous and beneficial, according to Ken.
No wonder Ken has slunk away. He has been caught out with the morals of an alley cat.
Posted by: debbyo | March 17, 2008 2:13 AM
Deb - Now that's just being unfair to alley cats, they have feeling too (whoo whoo feeelllings). :D -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2008 2:36 AM
I know I'm way down the line, Leni and DJ (and others).
But my question to Ken is: Since you admit that gays are persecuted people, and you now know that what they are asking for is not to be persecuted (not special status as you have argued and have been shot down in flames), then what's your problem? You think homosexuals should be persecuted? Doesn't that contradict your live-and-let-live philosophy?
Posted by: debbyo | March 17, 2008 2:40 AM
Deb - "A hit, a palpable hit".
It's irritating isn't it when you have to either stay up really late to comment at the beginning of the thread or come in at the tail end when the brain-dead trolls have slunk away licking their wounds. Grrr 8| -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2008 3:02 AM
Tell me about it, DJ. You get all fired up and you've got no one to punch. But if you do get in early (by staying up late) you run the risk of being attacked while you're sleeping and unable to defend yourself. I hate that.
Sorry everyone, just the mutterings of posters from another time-zone. I suppose we could be blogging on Australian sites but, with no disrespect intended to America, we are not as captive to extreme religious views or such obvious gay-bashing in our country. Religious beliefs are private. It's quite a spectacle for some of us to see religious loonies in action. It's also extremely encouraging to see the level of debate of those who oppose them.
Posted by: debbyo | March 17, 2008 4:15 AM
This letter is like little ray of light in the face of Kern's medieval darkness. Way to go, Tucker. This is a real win for the good guys.
Posted by: James | March 17, 2008 10:39 AM
No I did not slink away. I have other things going on in my life such as kicking puppies, pouring used motor oil into ponds, and yelling at kids to stay off my lawn.
Interesting how this site has focused so much energy on the homophobic religious comments of Ms Kern and nothing on the racist preachings of Rev Jeremiah Wright.
[crickets]....
Posted by: Ken J | March 17, 2008 12:45 PM
MPW: regarding your "I have nothing against the Jews" quote (who said that, anyway? Nobody famous, but I know I've seen it...), it reminds me of (I think) de Tocqueville's comment about race relations in the United States, about how Americans force black people to shine their shoes and then denigrate them for being bootblacks. The medieval Jews were forced into financial and mercantile occupations by Christians who didn't want to get their hands dirty handling money at interest, and the medieval Christians' ignorant descendants wonder why the Jews seem to be so good at it.
Something different applies to gays, I think -- most of these same ignorant modern Christians would rather kick them to the curb and ignore or eliminate them, but accuses gay people of having a privileged place if they get any positive (or even neutral) coverage at all. One presumes it's compartmentalized thinking.
Posted by: Brian X | March 17, 2008 1:08 PM
Ken J wrote:
Interesting how you seem to find plenty of time to engage in these pointless little comments, but can't find the time to answer substantive arguments. But then you whine when I point out that you keep skipping over the arguments you can't answer and then slink away, returning only to leave these meaningless taunts. You're making quite a fool of yourself here, Ken.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM
kenny boy - Speaking of crickets & owls.... still waiting. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2008 1:20 PM
Ken J,
You wrote about a hypothetical where a group takes their political clout to further their agenda; Kerns is doing just this! She is using her political position to further her agenda based on her faith. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own view points and beliefs, but I don't think anyone, including Christians, gays, etc. should push their agenda on anyone else. She is no better than the gays she claims are pushing their agenda while she is doing the very same thing with her beliefs. While this nation was founded on many Christian beliefs and ideals, we also have separation of Church and State. I do not feel as though any school is pushing a homosexual agenda, however, if anyone feels their child is in a learning environment they are not comfortable with they have the option of private school or home schooling their child. Also, I believe it is quite the cop out for parents to say the schools should be teaching our children about personal values and beliefs. That is not to say, however, that they shouldn't reinforce civilized behavior, but in my opinion it should all start at home. Parents should be responsible for teaching their children what views and beliefs they hold valuable. I feel that pushing it off on the schools is just a way to have an excuse if your child later decides not to follow your path of ideals. Then you can say "Well if it weren't for public schools teaching those things..." rather than taking responsibility yourself OR being understanding of the fact that even your children have the right to their own decisions when they are capable of making them. We, as parents, have the responsibility to raise our children to the best of our ability, not the school system.
PS - Quite possibly the reason this site is focused on Kern's comments is because this specific post is a direct response to Kern's comments, not a general post about general closed-minded comments of political or influential leaders.
General reply:
Kerns has every right to her beliefs and opinions, however, I feel that stating that gays are a threat greater than terrorists is an ignorant statement based on fear of something different. Not to equate the oppression of gays with slavery, but it is a civil rights issue in its own right. I'm not sure how any educated person could possibly believe that gays are going to single-handedly bring down America by loving someone. Homosexuality is about love and personal preference, not about pushing an agenda, or gaining control. Fear, based ignorance, is an oppression of its own. I'm for someone being in office that has an interest in human rights, not Christian or Muslim rights, or heterosexual or homosexual rights, just human rights.
It is good to see our youth stepping up and having a voice; sharing their own experiences and showing us that tragedy and life experiences transcend age. I feel that Tucker's letter made many good points about intolerance breeding hatred. Kerns is in a position of responsibility and should carefully choose her words as others will always follow, but that again, in no way excuses us of our own actions. If someone uses her statements as excuse for violence or harassment it is just that, an excuse! If more people would stop being lazy and using other people's opinions in place of forming an opinion of their own we might not have as much ignorance in influential positions!
*This subjects hits home for me on several levels; including as a resident of Oklahoma.
Posted by: AV | March 17, 2008 1:40 PM
"That is precisely what the schools should teach and that is what they most often do."
Why should the schools be teaching any of this stuff(meaning sexualin general)? Schools should educate on academic subjects. I think most people start to have a problem when the schools start to become the parent. This is the tendency of certain perspectives on education. It gets the schools embroiled in controversies that are needless if we let parents do the parenting and schools focus on academics. To bring in any of this stuff at all on either side makes the schools a place for social engineering.
This gets lost when we even begin to debate what that should look like. You seem to see this in the Science debate and the loss that education takes when one group tries to high jack the schools. This is not a gay or straight issue to me so much as what constitutes the schools infringing on what parents should be doing. I do not agree with Bill O' Reilly all that often but I do agree with him on this.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 17, 2008 2:20 PM
AV you made some very valid points and I agree with you on a lot of them. I especially agree with your statement:
"I don't think anyone, including Christians, gays, etc. should push their agenda on anyone else."
DingoJack, I have tried to answer any comments that people above have directed towards me. Please forgive me for being so slow but would you please repeat what it is you want me to respond to?
Thank you
Posted by: Ken J | March 17, 2008 2:51 PM
KoI:
Think of it in public health terms. The government, the schools, the health care industries, and families all have a vested interest in making sure that students receive accurate information about sex -- responsible, comprehensive sex education (as opposed to abstinence education or no such education at all) reduces pregnancy and STD rates as well as the number of students who partake in sex before they're emotionally ready, as well as helping them understand their bodies better at a time when everything they've known all their lives is changing drastically within the space of about five years.
Since virtually all children go to school, and virtually all people have to live in human society, the question is not "why should the schools be doing this" but "why shouldn't they, and how can they be doing it better?"
Posted by: Brian X | March 17, 2008 3:42 PM
And let's be clear...what a lot of people are confusing are descriptive education with prescriptive education--they're conflating describing what's out there with what SHOULD be done out there.
Schools are a perfectly fine place to teach the former....
Posted by: gwangung | March 17, 2008 3:50 PM
Gwangung: a good point that I kind of missed. And indeed abstinence-only is very prescriptive, whereas good sex ed should not be. The problem is that a lot of people on the political fringe feel that striving towards descriptivism is a mistake, since they don't really understand the difference to begin with.
Posted by: Brian X | March 17, 2008 3:58 PM
"Think of it in public health terms. The government, the schools, the health care industries, and families all have a vested interest in making sure that students receive accurate information about sex -- responsible, comprehensive sex education (as opposed to abstinence education or no such education at all) reduces pregnancy and STD rates as well as the number of students who partake in sex before they're emotionally ready, as well as helping them understand their bodies better at a time when everything they've known all their lives is changing drastically within the space of about five years."
Call me paranoid but I am at least consistent I think. My number 1 issue that trumps all others is maintaining a free society. I think my views on why this is so important to me have been made clear beyond a shadow of a doubt on many posts here.
The single greatest threat to maintaining a free society is if one ideology, not matter what it is, hijacks the schools. Marx was a big proponent of government run schools and so was Hitler. I am not saying that people that disagree on this are Hitler. Calling everyone Hitler that does not agree with you is stupid and that is not my point.
What I am saying is that I have been to Communist China. I see what government run schools do to a population. Let me clarify what I mean by govenment run. I mean too much meddling from the Federal Government. In some cases I think it can mean the State Government. The schools become the center of the propaganda of the controlling group.
I do like the one comment about the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. I just think that when it is my cause I tend to want to use the former and when it is someone else's cause I tend to want to use the latter. In many ways, we are all hypocrites. That should cause us to be patient with other but also cautious about what we let into our schools. No matter whose cause it is.
Read about Llasa in the paper and what is going on over there. I have been to these monasteries. I even had a Tibetan guy I know ask me to send him a copy of Seven years in Tibet. I just ignored him because as I was told by many if you talk about God and do it discreetly they will look the other way butif you talk about Tibetan Independence that's when people get killed. I sure this poor kid does not fully understand that so I just had to ignore him. Hey Ed, how about a post on that? Be interesting to hear your views on how this issue relates in other countries. I do not think I have ever read a post about situations overseas as far as religious freedom. Just an idea.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 17, 2008 4:42 PM
Ken - You think you are slow to respond! :)
Ok these were the two threads of my arguement (basically, for more detail see above):
a) Human sexual orientation is innate so should not be used to discriminate (like eye colour, skin colour etc.)
b) Kinsey found that c27% of men report having some kind of homosexual encounter(s) but only c10% reported being atrracted to men only. Are the better than 1 in 6 men who try it once or twice sort-of terrorists?
c) What evidence is there that homosexuality IS worse than terrorist as Sally Kern says?
Sorry for the delay in getting back. -DJ
KoI - Students should be taught about sex in schools not just for public health reasons (I bet you were shown films about the dangers of not washing your hands) but also for social reasons. To teach kids that their bodies are normal and desireable counters body dysmorphia and reduces teen suicide rates. It also shows kids that everyone is different and the same (if you know what i mean) which aids group cohesion and co-operation. Teaching that sexual discrimination is not acceptable also does this.
By allowing kids to ask questions and find answers they learn to think critically, and not just believe what adults force down their necks.
Failing to teach about human sexuallity in schools puts the burden on individuals untrained to teach. The result is widespread ignorance and stratospheric teen pregnacy, STD, and sexual vioence rates. As seen in the US -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 17, 2008 10:24 PM
Brian X:
Well, I wasn't quoting anyone in particular, just paraphrasing some common enough anti-Semitic doublespeak that I've read or heard a number of times, as have many others here, I'm sure. Well, sure, but my point was a somewhat different, if related, one: I was pointing out a similarity in phrasing and tactics - claim you don't have any hostility or opposition to a group in the first half of the sentence, then in the second half make up an utterly false accusation that the group has undue influence and is using it to the detriment of other groups. A blatant self-contradiction just thinly veiled enough to fool those who wish to be fooled.
Doublethink, more than compartmentalization, I'd guess - although there's plenty of the latter as well. Or maybe just lying. Again, how consciously aware the bigots are of their own dishonest rhetorical tactics is often difficult to tell.
Posted by: MPW | March 17, 2008 10:27 PM
Dingojack, I don't dispute anything you say. I don't agree with Kern saying that gay people are worse than terrorists. My point was that I felt gay people were pushing for not equality but elite status in our culture. I also objected to Kern being vilified for her opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even wrong opinions. Being gay should not bestow elite status anymore than being Christian should condemn someone to sub human status.
Posted by: Ken J | March 17, 2008 11:34 PM
My point is not that Sally Kern is not permitted to have an opinion, but that her opinion is WRONG. The evidence is pointing toward the conclusion that human sexuality is innate. Terrorism is not innate, but a learned behaviour. Saying (with no supporting evidence I might add) that an innate characteristic (like iris colour) is WORSE than a murderous learned behaviour (like terrorism) is either foolish or dangerous (depending on her level of awareness).
Nobody stopped Sally Kern from making an idiotic statement from her position of power, and nobody should stop "Tucker" from saying how much such statments hurts real victims of terrorism and homosexuals from his postion of anonymity.
As to the notion of a "Gay Elite" having a "Gay Lifestyle" I ask only what I would ask of Ms Kern, where is the (hard) evidence? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 12:13 AM
King of Ireland posted:
There is no such thing as a "free society". Laws and social customs infringe on people's freedoms - for good reasons. People's freedoms can impose on other people's freedoms. You might like the freedom to bang your tambourine on the bus, but I'd like the freedom to enjoy my ride home in peace, thank you very much. Whose freedom is paramount is decided differently in different places. The freedom to bear arms is more important in the US than in my country. We've decided that the freedom to walk the streets without getting shot by a crazy person is more important.
Though not defending Communist China and its appalling human rights record, it's always easier to see other folk's education as propaganda. After all, isn't that part of what schools do - prepare you for the society you are going to live in? There's been a recent argument in Australia that teaching students about the massacres of Aborigines is left-wing propaganda. Others say not teaching it is right-wing propaganda. It's very difficult to decide what objective education is. Except for perhaps in science and mathematics.
I agree.
That's true. So what about teaching students to be critical thinkers? Imagine the Chinese children criticising Communism and American students critiquing capitalism. Christians examining Atheism and Atheists examining Christianity. Then everyone would be better equipped when those pesky propagandists come knocking.
I know you didn't ask my views but - in Australia, (like many European countries), we are a little more willing to give up individual rights for groups rights. Many of the arguments I see on American blogs use the word "freedom" as if it was in opposition to totalitarianism, whereas I think they are using it as a synonym for individual rights, as opposed to group rights. I'm not criticising this, just giving a perspective from another culture (which is not that different).
For example, the argument that a universal free health care is somehow a threat to individual freedom would not really fly in my country. The right of everyone to be protected is paramount.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 4:42 PM
Posted by: debbyo | March 18, 2008 12:15 AM
Dear sweet Tucker: Thank you for your brilliant letter. You will be a great writer someday with the gift of writing from the heart. Your mother would be so proud.
Posted by: justus949 | March 18, 2008 12:33 AM
Thanks Deb you hit the nail on the head (and thanks Gough and Mal for Medicare).
Mary Mallon was locked up, not because she had done anything wrong, but because she was a natural carrier of typhoid fever (and she insisted on working as a cook). Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). -DJ
PS having read your post elsewhere I get the BYO thing now.
Posted by: DinjoJack | March 18, 2008 12:33 AM
And as people have repeatedly pointed out, you're wrong.
Posted by: Skemono | March 18, 2008 12:44 AM
To further Skemono's point. If I repeatedly say "I own the Brooklyn Bridge" you'd probably say "Ok show me proof of ownership". Simply stating something don't make it true. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 1:01 AM
Debbyo stated:
"That's true. So what about teaching students to be critical thinkers? Imagine the Chinese children criticising Communism and American students critiquing capitalism. Christians examining Atheism and Atheists examining Christianity. Then everyone would be better equipped when those pesky propagandists come knocking."
This is a loaded statement that I agree with totally. But it gets into the whole Science classroom debate again. I agree with what you stated at the beginning of this comment about freedom. By definition, my pursuit of freedom my infringe upon yours. I guess it could delve into a discussion on positive and negative liberty also.
I think I learned more a church meeting I used to attend than anywhere in my life. The first time I went in I could not even tell the people there were Christians. Why? They actually laid a question out there and debated it from all angles. They used what they called the Socratic Method. The idea was to ask a good question and keep asking questions until the level of discussion was raised. In short, the idea was to challenge assumptions through critical questioning. It was real good until they started quoting from the Bible. It turned churchy at the end.
There was a branch of Domican monks I think that were called Scolastics. This was there method of learning as well. I think it was 12th and 13th centuries. I think this is the best way to learn. I also see this trend coming back into education. This is more of a Post-Modern concept. That is why the whole science classroom debate is coming. I am not sure the materialist assumption that material explanations are the best way to explain the world will make it into the next generation.
This actually scares me because if it goes too far then Science and progress will suffer. I do see Ed's point in this and it is valid. Questions are good but at some point we have to come up with answers. I think this is where philosophy is good and dangerous at the same time.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 11:54 AM
Debbyo stated:
"I know you didn't ask my views but - in Australia, (like many European countries), we are a little more willing to give up individual rights for groups rights. Many of the arguments I see on American blogs use the word "freedom" as if it was in opposition to totalitarianism, whereas I think they are using it as a synonym for individual rights, as opposed to group rights. I'm not criticising this, just giving a perspective from another culture (which is not that different). "
No, it was an open question. I think we get so caught up in the American bubble that we do not realize that relgious freedom and human rights issues are the topic of the day in the world. I think as Americans we got it right 200 years ago for the most part on this issue. I think it is why we have survived this long under our government without a revolt or challenge other than the whole Civil War and slavery issue that we got wrong at first so paid for.
But I hear what you are saying and it illustrates clearly the difference in my mind of the old "conservative" vs. "liberal" debate of the 18th and 19th centuries that gets lost here with the modern definitions of what these terms mean in America. Conservatives tend to lean toward collectivist thought and liberals toward individual thought. I think both can be dangerous for different reasons so I am more of a "Pluralist". I seek to achieve the best for society as whole without violating the rights of the individual.
The fascinating thing to think about for me is how all this will play out in Asia. Their cultures are collectivist and traditional to the hilt. But the younger generation is on You tube and My Space and watching western movies. They see the commericials that tell them to have it "my way". It scares the hell out of the older people. You want to know why the Middle East is a powder keg now like at no other time? They see how the next generation is taking to the Mc Donald's culture and it scares the hell out of them. But it goes beyond the Middle East. Most Muslims do not even live in the Middle East. We also forget about the any hundreds of million Buddhist and Hindus in Asia.
If these issues are not talked about we could have a world of total caous even more than we do now. I worry because I have studied the French Revolution and other events in history where caous always leads to totalitarian tyrants that come and say, "I will give you order and people figure anything is better than the caous and give in." Watch V for Vendetta. The gays and the "dissenting" religions were banned.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 12:11 PM
KoI-
Hmm yes. No wars (except for the "great big war" of 1860-5, and the rest).
Australia never had any really sucessful general rebellions (the closest started, characteristically, with a murderous barroom brawl [The Eureka Stockade], although there have been relavitely peaceful coups de etat [The Rum Rebellion]) and all this without all them "new fangled" bills of rights that allow a person to lug a nuke around, I wonder how we mangaged to do it? ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 12:27 PM
KoI-
Hmm yes. No wars (except for the "great big war" of 1860-5, and the rest).
Australia never had any really sucessful general rebellions (the closest started, characteristically, with a murderous barroom brawl [The Eureka Stockade], although there have been relavitely peaceful coups de etat [The Rum Rebellion]) and all this without all them "new fangled" bills of rights that allow a person to lug a nuke around, I wonder how we mangaged to do it? ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Oops. No wonder my browser had a spack attack. Apologies. DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 12:47 PM
"all this without all them "new fangled" bills of rights that allow a person to lug a nuke around, I wonder how we mangaged to do it? ;) -DJ"
I acknowledge our "Imperial" tendencies for sure as a nation. I did not mean to gloss over the warts in my statements. But, in comparison to the rest of the world I think our government has done well as far as the structure of it. In fact, I would argue that most of the bad things have occured when we got away from the founding principles.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 12:59 PM
One "war" or "intervention" every 14 months, seems kinda excessive in the "slips & mistakes" department. The sooner ALL of us face our histories honestly, the sooner we can ALL grow to point where we don't repeat them. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 1:10 PM
"The sooner ALL of us face our histories honestly, the sooner we can ALL grow to point where we don't repeat them. -DJ"
Valid point well taken.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 1:35 PM
When will WE ever learn> When will WE ever learn? - more in sorrow than anger DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | March 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Public flogging would be too good for this "lady".
Kenney
Posted by: Kenney Shaeffer | March 18, 2008 3:43 PM
I have trying to find anything good in this Sally Kern situation. Until I read Tuckers response I had given up on anyone holding this terrible woman accountable for her vile, hate filled words. Thank you Tucker, for redeeming my faith in humanity. I am terribly sorry to hear of the loss of your mother. I can tell from your kind and wise words that your mother was a very special person whose impact has now touched the lives of 100's of 1000's of Americans. Any plans to run for office? You have my vote.
Posted by: chadnnocal | March 18, 2008 5:47 PM
Bullshit. I attended UC Berkeley as an undergrad (generally regarded as the most extreme of liberal liberal arts schools), and even there, no class ever taught the gay lifestyle as "superior." There was, in my literature and art GE classes, virtually no discussion of homosexuality at all. Where they were infrequently mentioned, they were treated as any other class of people, complete with foibles and imperfections. Show me where homosexuals at large are demanding any kind of reparations or repayment for past discrimination. Don't quote me some random internet kook as a counter...there will always be fringe beliefs, but by and large, there doesn't appear to be any concerted effort to make "our evil corrupt racist culture" pay homosexuals what they are "owed," except in your imagination. Homosexuals simply don't want to be discriminated against. This is a simple and straightforward concept -- I don't know why it is like rocket science to some people that they insist on confounding it and blowing it up into this imaginary "gay agenda" high-powered conspiracy.
Posted by: AL | March 19, 2008 1:23 AM
Hope springs eternal, eh?
Posted by: Jason | March 19, 2008 9:28 AM
AL - Yep agree totally. See above for list of gAy villians. I have not seen "The Kite Runner" but I thought the villian was a pedophile. Pedophiles are more likely to hetrosexual men than homosexual men. (Of course there are alway exceptions that prove the rule). I would say, as I have many times earlier in this thread to those who disagree with our position, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 19, 2008 9:52 AM
AL - Yep agree totally. See above for list of gAy villians. I have not seen "The Kite Runner" but I thought the villian was a pedophile. Pedophiles are more likely to hetrosexual men than homosexual men. (Of course there are alway exceptions that prove the rule). I would say, as I have many times earlier in this thread to those who disagree with our position, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 19, 2008 9:55 AM
AL - Yep agree totally. See above for list of gAy villians. I have not seen "The Kite Runner" but I thought the villian was a pedophile. Pedophiles are more likely to hetrosexual men than homosexual men. (Of course there are alway exceptions that prove the rule). I would say, as I have many times earlier in this thread to those who disagree with our position, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 19, 2008 10:09 AM
Ken J said:
You still haven't shown where anyone is bestowing elite status on gays. Making it a hate crime for assaulting people because they are gay is no more elite than if they were assaulted for their race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. Teaching people that it is okay to be gay is no different than teaching them that it is okay to be left-handed, short, or disabled. And if you don't think Cracked is a legitimate source for serious discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting links to LifeSiteNews, WorldNetDaily, American Family Association and Concerned Women for America.
Posted by: camanintx | March 19, 2008 12:29 PM
Ken,
I will pray for you. I've read all your posts and you have some real issues. I feel very sorry for you.
Posted by: Mark | March 19, 2008 6:10 PM
Ken,
I will pray for you. I've read all your posts and you have some real issues. I feel very sorry for you.
Posted by: Mark | March 19, 2008 6:11 PM
King of Ireland said: "Conservatives tend to lean toward collectivist thought and liberals toward individual thought."
No, socialists are collectivists, liberals are individualists - and conservatives just like to keep things the way they, whether collectivist or individualist (e.g. a communist is a conservative in China). Naturally it is the more privileged that usually to want to keep things the way they are.
"I am more of a "Pluralist". I seek to achieve the best for society as whole without violating the rights of the individual."
And "pluralism" would work if there was a level playing field. But, as you can see by the discrimination against gays, that the field is a bit tilted towards straight.
"If these issues are not talked about we could have a world of total caous even more than we do now. I worry because I have studied the French Revolution and other events in history where caous always leads to totalitarian tyrants that come and say, "I will give you order and people figure anything is better than the caous and give in." Watch V for Vendetta. The gays and the "dissenting" religions were banned."
I'm not sure what you mean by chaos - but if you mean revolution, I think you will find that it has brought a lot of freedom to people too. Isn't the French Revolution what inspired the US's "freedom, equality and fraternity" thing?
Posted by: debbyo | March 20, 2008 4:18 AM
Not to nitpick, but the American Revolution is what inspired the "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" thing in France.
Posted by: Mister DNA | March 20, 2008 5:01 AM
The American Revolution was, in part, influenced by the English Civil War (c1642-5) and the Whig Ascendancy in it's aftermath (c1688-1710). -DJ
"And don't the ladies love it" :D
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 7:38 AM
Great words of wisdom from such a wise man. I will pray for you...thank you for sharing.
Posted by: amorales | April 16, 2008 6:51 PM
If you would like to get a film, mp3 file or software or more from Megaupload I would recommend you to visit http://megauploadfiles.com/
There you can find everything- I did!
Posted by: verra | February 5, 2009 8:00 AM
If you are looking for new music, soft or games, you can find it on http://newfileengine.com/
It is the best search engine in the internet.
Posted by: tako | February 8, 2009 6:17 PM
Tucker: 1
Kern: 0
Posted by: Levi | March 24, 2009 9:33 AM
That is a powerful letter. I think that Kern is wrong to voice his opinion in the way he did, he can have his own opinion but need to be careful how he voices it.
Posted by: thecityoflouisburg | August 26, 2010 2:10 PM
This really is a powerful sentiment. I have a gay friend who helps me with furniture repair and he is one of the best people I have met. I find it sad that they are judged so harshly. The bottom line is that he does his job for me, he is my friend and he has free agency. What ever he does behind closed doors and with who, is none of my business that is between him and whatever god he chooses to worship. It's not my place to judge him.
Posted by: Shyloh Furniture Repair | March 3, 2011 5:31 PM
While I believe homosexuality to be wrong, I still unconditionally love and respect my gay friends.
Do you support their right to marry the ones they love? If not your claim to "unconditionally love and respect" them is a load of shit.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2011 10:39 PM
Mr Jefferson loved his slaves too. - Dingo
----
Wow! Re-reading this thread has been a real 'blast from the past' .
Missing Kersahm, infuriated with KoI and enjoying Debbyo. Shit, if I don't stop soon I'll break-out my Babs and warble a chorus or two of 'The Way We Were'. :(
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2011 2:06 AM