/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
EU court bars stem cell patents when embryos destroyed, Christians hail ruling
Reuters
How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go
Kingdom People, Trevin Wax
Questions to ask your local anti-Stratfordian
more than 95 theses, Alan Jacobs
Crimes against Culture or Business as Usual?
H-Net Reviews
Why Does God Love Beards?
Slate, Brian Palmer
October 19th, 2011 | 11:23 am
Certainly the “Homosexuality Debate” could go that way. But even then, there are some tough questions to be asked.
I’d like to see Mr. Wax’s answer to a question like, “Do you agree with those – many of whom are also Christians – who wish to recriminalize homosexual behavior? Why or why not?”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-make-homosexuality-criminal-offense
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/10/19/fischer-wants-to-impose-biblical-law/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/17/staver-barber-like-locking-up-gays/
http://minnesotaindependent.com/89059/before-banning-gay-marriage-criminalizing-homosexuality-was-family-councils-cause-celebre
October 19th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
Ray,
You often protest when “atheists” in general are linked to the bizarre, the outlandish, or the extreme. Your objection is usually a valid one. Characterizing any group by focusing on its most marginal members incurs the risk of accusations of stereotyping or cherry picking.
j’accuse, I’m afraid. The opinions you cite are no part of mainstream Christian thought, and you do a disservice to the dialog here by creating the impression that it does.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
I’m disappointed to see the Slate article linked here. I found it a misleading and unhelpful piece. In referencing Doctors of the Church, it should have pointed out that their comments were very likely more influenced by the general society of their days than anything Biblical or theological. In discussing Jewish beliefs regarding beards, it should have referenced the relevant passages in Leviticus.
Finally, this passage is ridiculously misleading. It implies that the Amish are following a tradition of the ancient Israelites, when the examples it mentions are of uncircumcised gentiles who actually oppressed the Israelites:
“the recent attacks are consistent with the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition of forcibly shaving an enemy to emasculate him. The Ammonites humiliated the emissaries of King David by shaving their beards. In the Book of Judges, Samson loses his strength when his hair is cut.”
October 19th, 2011 | 2:22 pm
david c –
The structure of my question was designed to highlight a difference between Mr. Wax and others. My whole point is to give him a chance to differentiate himself from the people who advocate re-criminalizing homosexuality.
On the other hand… are you really going to say that Bryan Fischer, and the American Family Association of which he’s spokesman, are fringe figures with no influence?
October 19th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
Yes I really am saying that. I have never heard of Bryan Fischer and “have you stopped beating your wife” or “prove you don’t hate gay” folk arguments are not conducive to any sort of civil discourse.
We could play this silly game forever. I could cite numerous examples of hateful, stupid, misleading, and extreme things said by various “leading” atheists and ask you to disassociate yourself and atheism from every one of them, and then where would we be.
The AFA is not a church. It is not a denomination. It is not representative of my views or the views of most of the Christians I know on this issue. If you want to argue that the re-criminalization of homosexula behavior is a general or mainstream Christian sentiment – cite me a major denomination that says anything of the sort. Just one. I’ll wait….
October 19th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
david c –
Did you note in my question that I didn’t say that this was an exclusively Christian pursuit? The AFA is not a church, as you note – it’s a lobby, and a fairly influential one. (You did note the recent hubbub about them at the Values Voters Summit, attended by all the Republican candidates except Huntsman.)
Does opposing de-criminalization count?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/02/us-vatican-homosexuals-idUSTRE4B13QA20081202
Not hard to find related sentiments on this very site, anyway:
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/after-the-proposition-8-decision-antonin-scalias-prophetic-words/
October 19th, 2011 | 5:35 pm
Yes I really am saying that. I have never heard of Bryan Fischer and “have you stopped beating your wife” or “prove you don’t hate gay” folk arguments are not conducive to any sort of civil discourse.
But “prove you don’t hate gays” is the basis of the gay rights argument.
Once you get rid of that, there really isn’t much left.
They used to say that “all they wanted” was to be allowed to live their life and not be persecuted. But now that
October 19th, 2011 | 5:36 pm
their behavior is legal and laws exist protecting against hate crimes, they want more.
October 19th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
Blake –
Gonna quote anyone in particular on that, or just “they”?
October 20th, 2011 | 9:08 am
You know, Blake, the first abolitionists didn’t generally think that the ‘Negro race’ could or should have equality with the ‘white race’. As the country lawyer Abraham Lincoln put it:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Proposing the abolition of slavery was already a pretty radical notion. Going further and proposing letting ‘Negroes’ vote, or intermarry with whites would – did – lose audiences. Only people who focused solely on abolishing slavery could make progress.
Now, you don’t have to agree with any kind of analogy between Emancipation and racial civil rights on the one hand, and rights for homosexuals on the other. But the pattern – less radical notions proposed first, then others pushing more radical notions – can certainly be generalized. Nor does it require duplicity on the part of anyone.
Do you think that anti-abortion activists are being duplicitous when they push for greater and greater restrictions on abortion, with the ultimate goal of banning it entirely? Is this a dishonest tactic?
On this very site we have John Loughlin lamenting how “We have passed from decriminalizing homosexual behaviour to the active promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.”
But that’s not an argument against decriminalizing homosexuality. If there’s an argument against same-sex marriage, it has to be made on its own merits.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:53 am
Blake –
They used to say that “all they wanted” was to be allowed to live their life and not be persecuted.
Gonna quote anyone in particular on that, or just “they”?
There you go again, saying that whatever I say is no good cuz I haven’t jumped to provide you with the right kind of quotes.
It’s a variant on the “you are assumed to hate gays until and unless you prove you don’t”. In this case, I am assumed to be lying – or at best making things up – until I prove I’m not.
And Ray Ingles does it to me so often, I’m beginning to assume it is his gut reaction to “truth hurts”.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:59 am
You know, Blake, the first abolitionists didn’t generally think that the ‘Negro race’ could or should have equality with the ‘white race’.
You’re so fond of links and proof, why don’t you go and find me a few links showing where it’s a crime for a man with “gay genes” to marry a straight woman.
October 20th, 2011 | 11:04 am
Blake –
Since I never claimed that… I’m kind of at a loss to understand why that would be my responsibility.
October 20th, 2011 | 11:08 am
Blake –
When you attribute positions to someone, it’s usually a good idea to be able to substantiate the claim. For example, when I said that some people support re-criminalizing homosexuality, I provided… quotes of people saying that. I also provided quotes of people opposing decriminalization.
I’ll grant you haven’t provided me with ‘the right kind of quotes’, since you haven’t provided any at all.
October 20th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
Proposing the abolition of slavery was already a pretty radical notion. Going further and proposing letting ‘Negroes’ vote, or intermarry with whites would – did – lose audiences.
That must be why George Washington gave his slaves their freedom.
Because he knew that a hundred years from now, someone was going to have the radical notion that maybe slavery is wrong.
How sad that you have to rely on such a lame analogy. You really can’t support your point, except by making an obviously ridiculous analogy to a situation that is different in every significant way?
You really think nobody can tell the difference between discriminating against a race vs. discriminating against people who choose a particular type of behavior?
Blacks were discriminated against. Gays are not being discriminated against: what they want is not equal access to something they are not allowed full participation in. They have that already.
What they want is not equal access but accommodation – the right to have the rules changed so that they can participate and not have a conflict with their desire to participate in incompatible behaviors.
You insult blacks by comparing your make-believe suffering to their real sufferings.
October 20th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
Blake –
I’m used to you ignoring past threads, but this is a new record. All I have to do is repeat what I wrote in this very thread earlier today:
“Now, you don’t have to agree with any kind of analogy between Emancipation and racial civil rights on the one hand, and rights for homosexuals on the other. But the pattern – less radical notions proposed first, then others pushing more radical notions – can certainly be generalized. Nor does it require duplicity on the part of anyone.”
Relative comparisons are tricky – but this is an absolute statement, and the latter clause is false. Leaving aside beatings and all that, look at the links in the first comment of this thread.
October 20th, 2011 | 3:49 pm
Relative comparisons are tricky – but this is an absolute statement, and the latter clause is false.
If I’m wrong, provide links.
Make sure that whatever you link to is “discrimination” in the same sense that blacks were discriminated against – institutional and independent of behavioral choices.
October 20th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
I’m used to you ignoring past threads, but this is a new record. All I have to do is repeat what I wrote in this very thread earlier today:
Repeating something doesn’t make it true.
Your argument appears to go something like this:
Sorry, but my only response to that is:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Propositional-Revised-3rd/dp/0130258490/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319140415&sr=8-1
October 21st, 2011 | 9:03 am
Blake –
Er… no.
My argument goes more like:
An entirely legitimate movement that you agree with progressed in stages where more and more ‘radical’ ideas were proposed.
Therefore, a movement can’t be bad simply because it engages in similar behavior.
October 21st, 2011 | 10:49 am
My argument goes more like:
An entirely legitimate movement that you agree with progressed in stages where more and more ‘radical’ ideas were proposed.
Therefore, a movement can’t be bad simply because it engages in similar behavior.
That isn’t logically sound, either.
And it continues to make the same basic mistakes. You still are using speculation and superficial (rather than substantive) differences to suggest that A and B are equal.
If they’re equal because they’re “radical”, then why should I also not assume that every other “radical” idea that is currently mocked is also a legitimate civil rights movement?
You can’t do it that way. There is no way to piggyback on someone else’s civil rights movement, for just the same reason you can’t use A’s murder trial to prove the guilt or innocence of B.
If A = discriminating against someone based on a passive trait like skin color, ethnicity, or hair color, and B = discriminating against someone based on behaviors, then you can’t logically say,
based on something superfluous like “both movements were ridiculed”. or “both movements are radical”. (NAMBLA is ridiculed, too, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate civil rights movement. The Human Extinction Project is radical, but I don’t think it’s a legitimate civil rights movement, either.)
One more complaint: “they are equal because they are both radical” isn’t even accurate: as I’ve already pointed out, the idea that slavery is wrong was never “radical”.
However much people may have indulged in hyperbole, the idea that all men are equal – and that this applied to Africans as well - was known to the Founders, caused at least one of them angst (which we know because George Washington is on record as having angsted over the dissonance) and was ignored and justified for economic and political reasons.
I will even go further and say that THIS is what makes the civil rights movements of the mid-20th century special, and is THE real reason these movements are worthy of “white man’s shame”: because WE KNEW. We had principles, we articulated them – and we knew we were betraying them.. THAT is the power that Martin Luther King Jr. summoned, in his “I Have A Dream” speech – his “Dream” was nothing more and nothing less than a reiteration of “We hold it to be self evident…”.
That is also the power that Gandhi held over the British – and why Gandhi’s great ideas of nonviolence would not work against the Nazis: because the Nazis’ violence was perceived as legitimate, and not contradicting their deeply-held core beliefs.
The civil rights movement had and has a legitimacy that your movement has yet to establish. Quit trying to use someone else’s legitimacy as a means of avoiding the substance of the argument (even though we know you can’t really answer to the substance, because kinship really is NOT a choice, and cannot BE a choice, and there is no way to make gender irrelevant for children but not for lovers, is there?)
October 21st, 2011 | 10:52 am
Nazis’ violence was perceived as legitimate
I said this wrong: I should have said “the Nazis perceived their violence as legitimate”.
October 21st, 2011 | 11:34 am
Blake –
No, I am saying that if they are unequal, it’s not because of the reason you gave on October 19th, 2011 at 5:35 pm.
October 22nd, 2011 | 2:27 am
No, I am saying that if they are unequal, it’s not because of the reason you gave on October 19th, 2011 at 5:35 pm.
The only way the gay rights movement has anything genuine or substantive in common with the civil rights movement is not in that gays are similar to blacks during the civil rights movement, but rather that the children of gays are similar to blacks under slavery.
– They are treated as chattel, traded for cash.
– Their guardians are totally preoccupied with their own needs and wants, to the point of minimizing the very personhood of the child.
– We are told the child is happy and well cared for, and this justifies violating the child’s rights and treating the child in ways that would be a violation if the children had full personhood.
– Their guardians casually destroy and rearrange their family ties.
– Their guardians casually destroy and reassign their identity.
– They are treated as if they exist only in relation to their more important guardians – as if their own wants and needs are simply irrelevant – and this is justified by pointing out that, without the benevolence of their caretakers, they’d be living in want, so they should accept what they are given instead of expecting to compare themselves against those other kids over there (to whom different rules apply).
October 22nd, 2011 | 8:28 am
[...] then Slate asks why God loves beards. (H/T First Thoughts) Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. « Now [...]
October 24th, 2011 | 9:33 am
Blake –
How often, and at what percentage? Anything like as often as heterosexual surrogacy and such?
No evidence of this is presented. None whatsoever.
(Nor can you point to any evidence this is false.)
Which, again, you can’t point to any evidence for that doesn’t apply equally to many heterosexual couples.
No evidence again. Long on accusation, short on support.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact