…and this is a 
Open season on gay men, apparently
Category: Evil • Religion
Posted on: July 16, 2007 9:15 AM, by PZ Myers
Religion can be used to justify anything. Even the virtues of killing the innocent. It's amazing how the combination of needing to control sexual behavior and the presence of an accommodating religious impulse can lead to deeply deranged behavior.
A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God's work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.
"I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet," said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. " ... I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing."
Interviewed in the Brazoria County Jail Saturday morning, Mangum said he feels no remorse for killing 46-year-old Kenneth Cummings Jr., whom relatives described as a "loving" son who never forgot a holiday and a devoted uncle who had set up college funds for his niece and nephew. He worked at Southwest for 24 years.
Mangum, who described himself as "definitely not a homosexual," said God called on him to "carry out a code of retribution" by killing a gay man because "sexual perversion" is the "worst sin."
Think for a moment for a few words to describe yourself. Would "definitely not a homosexual" be one of the first phrases to come to mind? Somebody is a little obsessed.
And if sexual perversion is the worst sin, how come it didn't make it into the ten commandments? "Murder" is in there, though. This fellow who studied the Bible for "thousands of hours" seems to have missed that.
Comments
It's always open season on gay men. Unfortunately, we've gotten used to it.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 9:32 AM
"It's not that I'm a bad dude," he said, expressing concern that people might view him as "strange." Pausing briefly, he said, "I love God."
Uhh no, we don't think your strange, we think your are delusional.
Posted by: Southy | July 16, 2007 9:41 AM
Let's just hope he doesn't get a minimum sentence. Life in prison, without parole or the possibility of a reduced sentence, would be perfect.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | July 16, 2007 9:46 AM
Are you kidding?
That's how I introduce myself!
"Hello, Paul D, definitely not a homosexual. Nice t'meetcha."
Posted by: Paul D | July 16, 2007 9:47 AM
I live in the Montrose area of Houston. (It's just about the closest I can get to a liberal place in Houston). Horrible. My sympathies to the family.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 16, 2007 9:47 AM
Thanks to W, it's impossible for this to be officially labeled a hate crime in Texas. Lovely man that he is, W, worked behind the scenes to kill the James Byrd Hate Crimes bill because it included sexual orientation.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Life in prison, without parole or the possibility of a reduced sentence, would be perfect.
In most cases I find life without parole excessive. But it is clear that if this man is ever on the streets again more people will die. Even if he's just psychotic and responds well to anti-psychotics, could he really ever be trusted to live independently again? He might stop taking his meds. He might stop responding to them...and more innocent people would die. There really is no other good solution besides putting him away where he can't hurt anyone else.
Posted by: Dianne | July 16, 2007 9:49 AM
Well, I think we need to look at this in perspective. Homosexuals, Jews, secularists and atheists are in league with the Devil. I, for one, am glad that a God-fearing, righteous man who is certainly not a homosexual, did what the Good Book said we should do to people we don't like.
Cut the man some slack!
Posted by: drunkentune | July 16, 2007 9:51 AM
Well, I think we need to look at this in perspective. Homosexuals, Jews, secularists and atheists are in league with the Devil. I, for one, am glad that a God-fearing, righteous man who is certainly not a homosexual, did what the Good Book said we should do to people we don't like.
Cut the man some slack!
Posted by: drunkentune | July 16, 2007 9:51 AM
How'd that double-post? Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: drunkentune | July 16, 2007 9:52 AM
Did anyone else find it odd that Mr. Mangum used the phrasing "I believe I'm Elijah.."? If he considered it true, wouldn't he have said "I'm Elijah.."?
Posted by: Ben | July 16, 2007 10:10 AM
Closet case goes berserk with self-hatred. Film at 11.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 16, 2007 10:17 AM
another Houstonian here. This is awful.
there shouldn't be any hate crime laws though.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 16, 2007 10:17 AM
Utterly brilliant dissection!
Bravo, PZ. You are on a roll. You must have been eating your Wheaties lately.
Posted by: Freaked-Out Canadian | July 16, 2007 10:22 AM
It is easy to forget about the doctrine of 'Original Sin' sometimes. To this man, there truly are no innocents in this world.
Posted by: Trep | July 16, 2007 10:23 AM
Except for fetuses...excuse me Baybeeeeeez
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 10:25 AM
Unfortunately, PZ, the 10 commandments don't matter when it comes to murder. The Good Book has innumerable examples of god commanding his/its/her followers to murder people who are different/outsiders/sinners. Dawkins is right about the god of the bible. It always amazes me when people talk about the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god as a "god of love." have they never read this guy's books?
All that to say that appealing to Christian/Jewish/Muslim zealot's sense of morality and compassion by appealing to their books will never get justice for us perverts.
Posted by: Todd O. | July 16, 2007 10:25 AM
Would "definitely not a homosexual" be one of the first phrases to come to mind? Somebody is a little obsessed.
Reminds me of the time my ex-husband suddenly announced out of the blue, "Honey, I haven't been unfaithful to you."
And if sexual perversion is the worst sin, how come it didn't make it into the ten commandments?
"Don't be gay," as I recall, is in the same section of the Bible as "Don't eat calamari." So yeah, it's a big, big sin.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | July 16, 2007 10:27 AM
"Think for a moment for a few words to describe yourself. Would "definitely not a homosexual" be one of the first phrases to come to mind?"
Nope, I describe myself as "definately not an atheist"
Posted by: Dahan | July 16, 2007 10:27 AM
JCP,
Whatever your disagreements with murderers may be. your charge of closet-case is baseless, and undermines your own position.
-mbp
Posted by: Mike P | July 16, 2007 10:28 AM
Except I spell definitely correctly.
Posted by: Dahan | July 16, 2007 10:28 AM
There's as good a chance of getting me to stop eating squid as there is sleeping with men. Both are far too fun and far too tasty.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 10:30 AM
Er, JCR*
I hate it when typos ruin jokes.
Posted by: Mike P | July 16, 2007 10:30 AM
I note the suspect is also accused of using the victim's credit cards.
Did God order him to loot the dead too?
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2007 10:31 AM
If he'd said Satan told him to kill the homosexual he'd go to prison, but saying God told him to makes it more likely he'll just be declared mentally ill (the irony of it probably being delusional is slightly funny).
The thing that irritates me is that Mangum's religion and Cummings' homosexuality doesn't really matter. Mangum commited premeditated murder on another human being. I'm not sure about Texas law, but doesn't that mean he should get the death penalty?
Posted by: Berlzebub | July 16, 2007 10:34 AM
Mike,
My assessment of the perp in question isn't baseless at all. I've run into enough closet-cases in my time to identify one at a distance. Straight men have no issue with gays, and in fact we appreciate the reduced competition.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 16, 2007 10:34 AM
Mike P: Thanks for pointing that out. It always annoys me when people pull out the "He's a closet case" argument in discussions about hate crimes or antigay nutbags. Obviously, there are exceptions (Ted Haggard is a recent example). But unless there's evidence to support the claim, it's just mindless rhetoric. It leads me to think things like, "Gee, look at all these vocal atheists. I bet PZ is a closet Christian."
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2007 10:35 AM
I meant to add: In this case, I'm more willing to entertain the notion that the perp is gay, simply because of his apparent obsession with the issue. My point was that I see the argument so often that it's hard to take it seriously.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2007 10:38 AM
JCR,
Eh, I was just trying to harken back to your comments in the previous post about racism aboard the U.S.S. Hate-Muslims. The same way you can identify closet-cases is the same way PZ (and lotsa folks) see those cruise attendees as racists. Pointing out the probable does nothing to undermine one's position.
-M
Posted by: Mike P | July 16, 2007 10:39 AM
The Bible is definitely pro-gay. At least two homosexual relationships are condoned. So this guy studied while drunk.
Posted by: Louis | July 16, 2007 10:43 AM
Brian,
Ack, sorry to disappoint you, but that's actually not the point I was trying to make--though I'm sympathetic to it.
Frankly, from the sounds of it, though, it seems to me like Mr. Mangum found hisself at a gay bar by his own volition, obtained some company for the night, and then had second thoughts of the murderous kind.
Posted by: Mike P | July 16, 2007 10:45 AM
I'd say it's a pretty solid argument given the "definitely not a homosexual" comment. You'd think it would go without saying, given his ostensible motivation.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 16, 2007 10:45 AM
Louis,
D+J is first, what's the second one?
Posted by: Spam Sink | July 16, 2007 10:51 AM
I wonder if he ate shrip wearing a bi-material suit.
Posted by: Tom | July 16, 2007 10:52 AM
Spam Sink:
ruth and naomi
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 10:54 AM
Seems like I'm not the only one here who came to think of the the closeted, gaybashing colonel Fitts in American Beauty, who when postal when someone realized he might be gay. The fact that he described himself as "Definitely not homosexual" was a hoot, despite the context.
Posted by: forsen | July 16, 2007 10:56 AM
went postal, that is... duh
Posted by: forsen | July 16, 2007 10:58 AM
Disclaimer: IANAL
If Magnum used Cummings' credit cards after the murder, then this case could possibly qualify as capital murder under section 19.03(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code; according to section 12.31, if convicted of a capital felony, he would face either the death penalty (if the prosecution sought it) or life without possibility of parole.
If, for some reason, the prosecution didn't pursue this as a capital felony and opted for charging it as a first degree felony, the punishment would be anything from life to a term of no less than 5 years and no more than 99 years and up to a $10,000 fine.
Posted by: John Bode | July 16, 2007 11:01 AM
Thanks, MAJeff
Posted by: Spam Sink | July 16, 2007 11:04 AM
Why is God in such a hurry to send some sinners to eternal damnation in hell? Doesn't he know that infinity + 1 = infinity?
Posted by: Miguel Garcia-Blanco | July 16, 2007 11:10 AM
PZ said: "Religion can be used to justify anything."
Well, perhaps, but so can any other kind of ideology such as political ideologies (i.e. Marxism), Nationalistic ideologies (i.e. Nazism), racism, and even scientific ideologies (i.e. Social Darwinism). Do ideologies make people crazy, or do crazy people seek out ideologies that justify their craziness?
Posted by: Tim Tesar | July 16, 2007 11:13 AM
You only think that comparison seems ridiculous because your analogy is faulty in being role-reversed. If instead you consider the instances of rabidly anti-atheist religionists, then quite a good case could be made that at least some of them are that way because their own faith really isn't that strong and they are afraid the atheists are right after all. They are very vocally atheist-phobic because they are closet atheists themselves.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2007 11:16 AM
I think this counts as a terrorist attack. Has the religious fundamentalist aspect as well.
The question now is, can we invade Texas, overthrow the government there, and setup martial law?
Posted by: daenku32 | July 16, 2007 11:17 AM
It's a real mystery why American Christian fundamentalists and Wahabbi Islam (bin Laden's sect, the state religion of Saudi Arabia (source of 14 of the Sept 11 hijackers) and the basis for Taliban beliefs) can't get along. %99 of their hatreds and justifications for violence are identical.
Posted by: anon | July 16, 2007 11:18 AM
Mike P writes:
JCP (sic),
Whatever your disagreements with murderers may be. your charge of closet-case is baseless, and undermines your own position.
-mbp
*eyeroll*
Shut up.
Posted by: thickslab | July 16, 2007 11:21 AM
Isn't this the same kind of mental illness that guided the writing of the bible in the first place?
Posted by: JamesR | July 16, 2007 11:23 AM
Actually, I do kind of think of myself as "definitely not a homosexual," when people bring the subject up. I'm also definitely not a passenger train and definitely not the Caliph of Baghdad. So what?
Posted by: mjfgates | July 16, 2007 11:29 AM
There's as good a chance of getting me to stop eating squid as there is sleeping with men. Both are far too fun and far too tasty.
MAJeff - You and me, both.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | July 16, 2007 11:43 AM
Never quite understood (various) religions' obsession with what individuals want to do with each other that really does no one any harm.
I read the news article and looked at the comments. A lot of people seem most concerned that the guy not get off lightly (i.e. not frying - to use the terminology). I guess the guy probably is mentally ill - the lines do seem blurred between true mental illness and religious devotion though. I agree with Dawkins, indoctrinating children with religion is abuse - perhaps if we didn't live in societies that apparently believe in communication with a supernatural being, this guy may have sought help before destroying a perfectly innocent stranger?
Posted by: PeterTe | July 16, 2007 11:44 AM
The problem with the closet-case argument is not that it's provably true or untrue in most situations, but that there are so many homophobes that they couldn't possibly all be gay.
And, Molly in NYC, it's also near the section of the Bible that says priests should wear clothing with bells and that is dyed with a dye made from a certain type of Mediterranean shrimp.
Posted by: Melanie S. | July 16, 2007 11:49 AM
thickslab:
*sigh* That comment was a sarcastic reference to something JCR wrote in the last thread about the National Review cruise. Basically I kept the outline of his comment and substituted words to make it relevant to this thread. It was mocking the concept, not endorsing it.
So kindly retract your eyeroll and invective.
Posted by: Mike P | July 16, 2007 11:59 AM
Melanie: you're right; not all homophobes are closet-case gays. People don't all fall neatly into "straight" and "gay" buckets -- or even "bisexual" -- buckets. Just as I have occasionally wondered what sex with a lady is like, so too have these homophobes had a passing thought about what it's like to get porked by a dude. It doesn't make them gay, but they're not smart enough to know that speculating about something is not the same thing as actually having done it.
Remember, this is the religion that brought you this gem: "if you've fantasized about a woman, not your wife, then in your heart you've already committed adultery."
Posted by: Alex | July 16, 2007 12:14 PM
It's not going to take many more of these Bible-thumping retards to make me fill my yard with lions, change my name to Nero and sign up for fiddle lessons.
Posted by: Dan | July 16, 2007 12:16 PM
.....
I'm positive I didn't read that right.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Too bad the murder happened in Brazoria County. If Mangum had committed the murder outside the bar I'd be in the potential jury pool. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I wouldn't mind a shot at this weirdo. I'm afraid there will be some sympathy for this slimeball down in Brazoria. Up here in Houston our hotshot prosecutors would have Mangum on his way to the gurney in Huntsville after a four day trial as there is a much lower ratio of godfreaks here.
Sounds like he might have a shot at an insanity defense with all that Elijah business.
Posted by: bacopa | July 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Tim very stupidly used the phrase; "scientific ideologies".
Azkyroth said: "I'm positive I didn't read that right."
Yes, the phrase "scientific ideologies" is an oxymoron. I should have said something like "ideologies that pervert science to gain respectability" (I'm sure there's a less clumsy way to say it.)
Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | July 16, 2007 12:32 PM
The guy is gay and doesn't want to deal. Sorta like when a guy rapes a girl, and kills her for wearing that "skimpy" outfit. Ya know she was just looking for it..
By the way, Az, I am positive I didn't read this,
"scientific ideologies (i.e. Social Darwinism)."
as well...
Posted by: lago | July 16, 2007 12:38 PM
Melanie -
The problem with the closet-case argument is not that it's provably true or untrue in most situations, but that there are so many homophobes that they couldn't possibly all be gay.
This is too true, but the point that they mention "I definitely not gay," the odds that they are significantly increase. Too, while there are many homophobes, the percentage that actually commit acts of violence is well within reason to assume that most, if not all of them are closet cases. Taking homophobia to the level of violence, is often indicative of a pathological internal struggle to repress who they really are. Overcompensation to "prove" they aren't gay.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 16, 2007 12:41 PM
Oy, I should have been clear that doesn't mean that everyone who commits anti-gay violence is gay, it just makes it far more likely. The violence, coupled with this guys statements, really makes it likely.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 16, 2007 12:45 PM
I can just hear Pat Robertson shaking his head in regret over the horrible murder and saying, "The only good that can possibly come out of this is that there is one less sinful person in the world."
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 16, 2007 12:52 PM
daenku32 (#43): We can't attack Texas due to some logic glitch that seems to be common in this country right now, we have to attack Oklahoma.
Posted by: mena | July 16, 2007 1:06 PM
I'm reminded of a headline from The Onion describing the LA riots: "Rioters Demand Justice, Tape Decks"
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 16, 2007 1:32 PM
I hope this guy gets a more comprehensive education on homosexuality in jail.
Posted by: HPLC_Sean | July 16, 2007 2:05 PM
Oh wow. As a gay man living in that area of Texas, this is scary as hell to me.
Posted by: Bachalon | July 16, 2007 2:39 PM
Yeah, 'cause there couldn't possibly be any liberal atheists living in Texas who might object to being "liberated" in such a fashion.
Posted by: Rational Jen | July 16, 2007 3:15 PM
There's more than a little reason to suspect that extreme homophobes are people who experience same sex attraction.
This (warning! PDF) links to a study run by Henry Adams at the University of Georgia. Those who could be described as homophobes had a tendency to be more aroused by man-man porn than man-woman or woman-woman porn. It is not just the Mark Foleys and Ted Haggards of the world that lead us to suggest this.
Like other posters have said here, straight men don't really think about gay men all that much. This guy obviously thought about them a lot.
Posted by: gex | July 16, 2007 3:27 PM
I live in Brazoria county and by sheer happenstance only 2 miles from the jail where this filth is located. I can assure you the folks here while a little nutty are not so nutty asto let him get away with this.
Posted by: Uber | July 16, 2007 3:31 PM
Except when they're in the presence of gay men. Then it's all about, "I know he's looking at me." "He'd better not be looking at me."
That may be overbroad, particularly for many of the men here. But, yeah, straight men do think about gay men, because we make them (at least in their own perception) the object of the male gaze...we make them women.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 3:31 PM
But some people aren't bothered in the slightest by that. In my slender, youthful days I used to get approached by gay men all the time (girls were never interested in me, but the boys were -- it was a little weird). After a while, I just took it for granted. Their interest wasn't reciprocated, sorry to say, but it was still sort of flattering. If they were making me a woman with their gaze, well, I don't have a problem with that, either.
Nowadays even the gay men don't look twice at my grizzled old face, which is a little bit sad, although it's more honest advertising, since I wouldn't be interested now, either.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 16, 2007 3:42 PM
Sadly, I get the opposite response.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 3:44 PM
I believe this is why Dan Savage claims homophobia is essentially misogyny. And why women shouldn't go out with men who are homophobic.
Posted by: gex | July 16, 2007 3:46 PM
PZ said -
But some people aren't bothered in the slightest by that. In my slender, youthful days I used to get approached by gay men all the time (girls were never interested in me, but the boys were -- it was a little weird). After a while, I just took it for granted. Their interest wasn't reciprocated, sorry to say, but it was still sort of flattering. If they were making me a woman with their gaze, well, I don't have a problem with that, either.
While I can't say that girls weren't interested, I certainly attracted the attention of a lot of men. Had about the same reaction. I was just happy that folks thought I was cute.
Sigh, now I have to settle for being kinda cute and chubby. . .
Posted by: DuWayne | July 16, 2007 3:53 PM
Given this happened in Texas, chances are this guy will get a reduced sentence for "doing the laaard's work."
"Southern Culture" has no redeeming qualities.
Posted by: anon | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Wow.
I was going to riff on the concept that most straight men get over the discomfort MAJeff mentioned when and if they realise that all gay men aren't looking at them. I was even going to borrow a Brent Butt joke about how it can hurt one's self esteem as a straight man to not get hit on at a gay bar. The punchline was going to be something along the lines of "I may be straight, but I've got feelings too. Would it kill a gay man to tell me I've got a cute ass once in awhile?"
And then I remembered the subject of this post and how homophobia is alive and well in North America.
It is both disgusting and sad that the answer to the punchline is, Yes. Sometimes.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 4:02 PM
There is probably some guy named Bubba in the Pen who's gonna make this guy his bitch and trade him around for a carton of cigarettes, so he'll be doing some pole smoking too. Prison football - making a tight end into a reciever; now THAT is irony.
Best C&W prison songs never written ; "It's Hard to Relax Your Sphincter When You're Cryin'." & "The Pillow Chewin' Blues."
Posted by: Jsn | July 16, 2007 4:10 PM
The Bible commandment isn't against killing, it is against murder. That is: against a killing that isn't justified somehow. It isn't 'murder' if 'God'[subject to human interpretation, natch] says to kill! How's that for subjective morals, eh?
[quote]Closet case goes berserk with self-hatred. Film at 11.[/quote]
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Posted by: Eric | July 16, 2007 4:14 PM
Amazing how rarely I hear anyone on either side of discussions on issues of sexual preference express this sentiment. I cannot immediately think of any broad trait of an organism that operates as if controlled by a strict binary switch, but the one thing many pro- and anti-gay rhetorical camps seem to agree on is that "deep down" everybody is one or the other. This kind of reductionism accomplishes nothing positive, and much that is negative.
Bingo. Human brains do weird things. They constantly visualize even things that are obviously bad ideas just as experiments. For instance, people I know who are afraid of heights tell me they are not afraid of accidents, but are instead slightly obsessed with the idea that they will jump despite themselves. We have behavioral filters that prevent most of those odd simulations from gaining traction, but the implication is that even people who genuinely aren't gay are highly likely to have the occasional stray thought they don't particularly want to share. Non-bigots can go on accepting themselves without incident. It's no big deal, particularly with something totally innocuous like gayness. Bigots, on the other hand, worry deeply about what those thoughts might Mean.
Thus I'll certainly stipulate that not every gay-basher is a true closet case, but it's a fair bet that all of them have a few uncomfortable thoughts they think they need to compensate for. The nature of obsession, of course, is that the more one fixates on a thing, the more likely one is to have those uncomfortable thoughts, which makes the causality of a Ted Haggard much more difficult to establish than it may appear on the surface. It may be downright impossible to untangle whether the urges led to the hatred or the other way around.
To a religion that insists imagining something is as wicked as doing it, being human is a horrifying experience. No wonder they believe everybody is necessarily a sinner. The part of their own brains that is in a sense alien to them is perceived as an extrinsic evil force with a foothold in their minds. It is the "Satan" they believe they cannot fight back without the help of a "Jesus." It makes for an interesting metaphor for mental processes when viewed from a great distance, but is quite irritatingly neurotic close up.
Posted by: Gelf | July 16, 2007 4:15 PM
There is also a third gay relationship that was affirmed by Jesus himself, who said some are born gay.
Posted by: Louis | July 16, 2007 5:01 PM
I am an older gay man and whenever I hear someone start off a conversation by saying "I'm not gay" my gaydar goes way over the red safety line. This excuse is also used by friends of "I'm not gay". In the early 80s I was on a church committee that was looking for a replacement for our last priest. One of the candidates was someone I knew when I was a teen. He belonged to a group of men who preyed on teen boys. Although she was not given as a reference I called his church organist. I told her who I was and why I was calling. The very first words out of her mouth were "He's not a homosexual". She then said that people said he was a homosexual just because he lived in a large house outside of town with several teen-age boys. He wasn't gay; he just had a ministry to teen boys. In spite of my efforts he was elected rector. We left the parish and the priest was arrested two years later and, I think, he is still in jail.
Posted by: wrpd | July 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Really interesting post, Gelf.
Posted by: jeccat | July 16, 2007 6:14 PM
"And if sexual perversion is the worst sin, how come it didn't make it into the ten commandments? "Murder" is in there, though. This fellow who studied the Bible for "thousands of hours" seems to have missed that."
Sorry, but the murderer is right. Homosexuality is punishable by death, it's unjustifiable murder that's against the law. However, there's a lot of justification. That's why you should never trust someone who says, "because the bible says so." Because the bible says a lot of the stuff like this.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | July 16, 2007 6:23 PM
And while not the majority (one hopes) Reconstructionist Christianity seeks to reimpose that penalty.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Gelf -
I think that very few people indeed, fall into an absolute of gay or straight, but most do tend very strongly in one or the other directions. That said, I do agree that it is important that people recognize this, as too few do. It would certainly help people be considerably more accepting of those who's preferences are not their own.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 16, 2007 6:48 PM
In trial he'll say that the guy made a pass at him and he felt threatened. Then he'll get a couple years and probation. It's all very depressing.
Posted by: pablo | July 16, 2007 6:50 PM
IANAL but as I recall, California recently enacted a statute barring the "gay panic" defense. Any lawyers out there know if other states have?
It's been amazingly effective over the years, and I fear Pablo is right.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 6:55 PM
Leviticus 18:22: Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.
This doesn't say to me that you can't have sex with a man as well as a woman, just that you can't do 'em both the same way. Easy to avoid!
The only situation where it might get a little sticky is if your lover is a post-operation transexual who identifies with their pre-op gender.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 6:58 PM
Its a reasonable guess that religious interest in sexuality started as a way of strengthening tribes and other social groups. Homosexuality was frowned upon because it didn't produce children. Women's sexuality was seen as needing to be controlled to ensure they produced children within the tribe, and that they didn't cause confusion and conflict by producing offspring with other men besides their official partners.
Posted by: tim gueguen | July 16, 2007 7:06 PM
You're lover still gets death. And xians wonder why we think they're crazy.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | July 16, 2007 7:10 PM
Your lover, that is. You're lover might not be covered.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | July 16, 2007 7:12 PM
Tim,
Your assuming they had a clue as to how reproduction worked. The Greeks of that era believed that men kept ejaculating into a woman until there was enough to form a human. Let's not assume they had some kind of modern knowledge about reproduction. Indeed, there are peoples around the world who've institutionalized same-sex behaviors while still managing to reproduce themselves.
My question is just this: Who the fuck cares what Leviticus says? And if you do, why on earth should I pay any attention to the ignorant ramblings of a bunch of ancient desert nomads?
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 7:14 PM
I'd suggest that only becomes an issue when groups begin practicing intensive agriculture at which time high fecundity becomes a benefit rather than a detriment. Among hunter-gatherer societies which favour child-spacing an a heavier input of resources into children who've survived past the age of five, the more members of the tribe to assist with child-rearing and knowledge transmission, the better. Even armed with some knowledge of non-agricultural society family-planning methods, this is still speculation on my part.
My point is that non-universal behaviours such as the proscription against homosexuality are hard to justify using a biological basis.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 7:23 PM
On the other hand, Stan Ridgway actually did write "Don't Drop The Soap (For Anyone Else But Me.)"
I've only ever been goosed once, in the Castro. Kept me cheerful for weeks.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 16, 2007 7:28 PM
OK, I'm getting pissed at the straight guys here. WHY IS IT ONLY WOMEN THAT WILL GRAB MY ASS OR FLIRT WITH ME IN PUBLIC!!! I can't get any gayer!!!!!
Posted by: MAJeff | July 16, 2007 7:31 PM
MAJeff, it's all about not caring whether they like you or not. You get groped by women because you could care less. Straight guys get groped by men. Just pretend the men you want are women.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | July 16, 2007 8:24 PM