Some conservatives, I’m one, recognize that there are people on the right whose conduct and rhetoric contribute to the poisoning of our political discourse, but believe that people on the left are much worse. Some liberals acknowledge that there are people on the left who contribute to the poisoning, but believe that folks on the right are much worse. I suppose it’s natural to have an exaggerated sense of the faults of one’s political opponents and a diminished sense of the faults of one’s allies.
We see a bit of this in a column by liberal writer Dana Milbank published by the Washington Post in the wake of the shooting of a Family Research Council employee by someone angry at the organization for its stand on marriage and sexual morality. But to his very great credit, Milbank pulls no punches in directly and sharply criticizing people and institutions on the liberal side for smearing as “bigots” and “haters” those who disagree with them.
In fact, Milbank goes so far as to say that “the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, is right to say that the attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end.” The entire piece is worth reading. Milbank’s central claim is sound. But beyond that, his making it displays impressive integrity. He surely knows that it will earn him a hefty share of the abusive rhetoric he rightly deplores.
August 17th, 2012 | 9:55 am
We make a deal: We liberals and libertarians stop calling bigots people who oppose equall rights for our fellow citizens (regardless of gender) and you conservatives stop calling sinfull the practize of homosexuality. Ah, of course, tou wouldn´t, because you are convinced that homosexuality is a transgretion against the will of God and the “natural order”. But then why should liberal and libertarians who are ethically convinced that denying equall rights to fellow citizens on the bases of gender should put aside our conviction that is unethicall and bigoted to act in such manner?
August 17th, 2012 | 10:05 am
I absolutely oppose anyone who would call someone a hater or a bigot for supporting traditional marriage.
The actions of the Family Research Council, however, go way beyond that. Senior officials (Peter Sprigg) proclaim their liking for “exporting homosexuals” without being fired, and without as much as a public reprimand. The same man advocates jailing homosexuals, and still, to this day, he has a senior position within the FRC.
Worse still, the FRC spent $50,000 to oppose a Congressional bill aimed at stopping a law in Uganda that would prescribe the death penalty for gay people in Uganda. We even have Tony Perkins himself saying that the Ugandan gay death penalty bill would “uphold moral conduct”, and condemning Barack Obama for criticizing it. Mr. Perkins, surely you, as a pro-lifer, should know that killing innocent people is nothing like upholding moral conduct – that it is, in fact, the exact opposite thereof.
There is more than this, but brevity prevents me from writing more. If I, as a lukewarm supporter of same-sex marriage and a very militant atheist, can condemn people for calling supporters of traditional marriage bigots and haters, why can fair-minded supporters of traditional marriage not condemn the FRC for its actions?
August 17th, 2012 | 10:15 am
I would probably agree that calling “pro-marriage groups” hateful is not a good thing, but it is not clear to me that all the groups that oppose same-sex marriage are “pro-marriage” groups. Many of them are anti-homosexual groups who, understandably, oppose same-sex marriage. I think it is possible for people who oppose same-sex marriage to do so purely on the grounds that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign did not support same-sex marriage, and I certainly don’t remember gay-rights groups calling them hateful.
Keep in mind that of the 30 states that currently ban same-sex unions, 20 ban civil unions, with 2 of those 20 banning any legal union between same-sex partners. This goes a great deal farther than saying marriage should be between only a man and a woman. NOM and FRC opposes civil-unions.
Of course, gay-rights groups are not happy with “pro-marriage” organizations (and I include here the Catholic Church) that promote the ideas that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, against God’s law. But I don’t think purely religious disapproval is at the core of many opponents of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I think there is an undercurrent in many of the “religious” condemnations of homosexuality that belies a visceral revulsion (hatred?) that is not present in statements against cohabitation, remarriage after divorce (adultery in the eyes of the Catholic Church), or even out of wedlock birth. And even the pro-life movement in general has nothing but compassion for women who procure abortion. I think it is impossible to deny that among most opponents of same-sex marriage, there is a special animus against homosexual “sinners” that simply doesn’t exist against heterosexual “sinners.”
And of course the popular arguments against same-sex marriage one sees in forums like this often demean gay people, basically stating that a sexual relationship or marriage with a same-sex partner is equivalent to incest, pedophilia, or bestiality. It seems to me even devoutly religious people who condemn homosexuality should be able to see a distinction between a sexual relationship between same-sex adult partners and a brother and sister or an adult and a child. But it is often insisted that the argument for same-sex marriage, if accepted, leaves no defense against polygamy, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia.
The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a lot of hatred of gay people, and the “pro-marriage” groups and those who support them cannot claim to be “hate free” any more than the gay community can.
It does seem to me that there is a clear implication in Robert George’s post that the language of some in the gay-rights movement is to blame for the incident at FRC, and I am not sure that can be reconciled with Anna Williams post The Tiller Parallel or Matthew Schmitz’s piece Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Not To Blame for FRC Shooting, although I am still not complete sure what Schmitz is trying to tell us.
Robert George may be correct that calling “pro-marriage” groups hateful should end, but of course unlike Dana Milbank, George might be suspected of taking political advantage of the FRC shooting, since he is not a disinterested party, being himself deeply involved with a number of “pro-marriage” organizations.
August 17th, 2012 | 10:55 am
Per:
“Of course, gay-rights groups are not happy with ‘pro-marriage’ organizations (and I include here the Catholic Church) that promote the ideas that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, against God’s law.”
Promote ideas? The Catholic Church promotes ideas? Since when? The more you speak David, it is obvious the less you understand about the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches. It teaches Among its many teachings is Moral Law. From the catechism:
ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW
“1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.
“1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.”2
“Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
“1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
“1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: ‘For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.’4
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm
It is the gay-rights groups (and yourself) who *promote ideas*. Ideas like homosexuality is sinless, natural and in perfect keeping with God’s law. There is no basis in Moral Law for the ideas you and gay-rights groups *promote*.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:00 am
We make a deal: We liberals and libertarians stop calling bigots people who oppose equall rights for our fellow citizens (regardless of gender) and you conservatives stop calling sinfull the practize of homosexuality.
Are you willing to condemn vegetarians as hateful and bigoted for not wanting to let meat eaters eat meat in their kitchen?
Would you condemn vegetarians for opposing “meat-ins”, where angry, obnoxious meat-eaters deliberately smeared animal products in their presence with no other goal than to make them feel intimidated and violated?
Your double standards are wrong. All people have the right to their own beliefs about what is sinful or immoral, and that has to include Christians.
The Dalai Llama argues that homosexuality is wrong, and I don’t see anyone accuses him of being a hater. Please stop singling out Christianity as a group that must submit to your beliefs or else deserves to be called “hateful” and “bigoted” and anything else you care to project onto them.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:00 am
Maximillian exporting homosexuals? It was not the FRC that told me I should be deported because they didn’t like my religious beliefs that was your liberal friends. FYI I am the third generation of my family born in Milwaukee you liberals can’t deport me. It was not the FRC on newsvine last year cheering because people in Texas were losing their homes to wildfires that was your liberal friends because we were considered responsible for the congressional representative from Minnesota. So please FRC couldn’t possibly treat you worse than the liberals of the US treat anyone they don’t agree with.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:27 am
One has to situate calling the National Organization for Marriage within the context of academic Queer studies definitions of heteronormativity as an evil to be destroyed within society. In this struggle, gay marriage is only the first step, in that it establishes a precedent that will enable an onslaught to be carried out in schools, institutions, and the culture at large. Wikipedia has a good definition of what heteronormativity is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity), and the political and cultural struggle at emerges from it.
The major problem as I see it, is that queer theory is hidden away in academe, yet forms one of the motors of gay activism. It needs to be brought forth into the light so that people can see what it is and discuss its validity. Otherwise groups that support the traditional family will increasingly be called hate groups and no one will know the reason why.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:35 am
I absolutely oppose anyone who would call someone a hater or a bigot for supporting traditional marriage.
The actions of the Family Research Council, however, go way beyond that. Senior officials (Peter Sprigg) proclaim their liking for “exporting homosexuals” without being fired
Militant homosexual groups such as “Bash Back!” have been known to be openly hateful to the point of inciting violence – do they deserve to be shot, or is that “different” because you sympathize with their hatred?
Like it or not, militant groups on both sides of controversial issues have the right to their opinion (even if it’s an opinion that their opponents view as hateful) up to the point where they’re breaking a law – and if they go past that point, it’s for officials acting in the name of the law, not individual vigilantes, to correct them.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Maximilian: “Worse still, the FRC spent $50,000 to oppose a Congressional bill aimed at stopping a law in Uganda that would prescribe the death penalty for gay people in Uganda. ”
Due to a lack of reading comprehension and desire to deal in truth, progressive websites have for days peddled the lie that Chick-Fil-A supported the Family Research Council’s support of legislation which OK’d gay-killing in Uganda. A lie that took all of two seconds to debunk:
The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it – rather to change the language it contained and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill.
FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality – nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.
………………..
What? So you mean the story about Chick-Fil-A supporting gay-killing is complete and utter hogwash? Of course it is. Do you expect any of the many websites to print retractions? No, you don’t.
Do you expect homosexual activists to continue to propagate the lie?
Of course you do. We all expect that from people engaging in a smear campaign.
Maximilian: “We even have Tony Perkins himself saying that the Ugandan gay death penalty bill would “uphold moral conduct”, and condemning Barack Obama for criticizing it.”
Given that promoting homosexuality as normal is immoral and harmful, Perkins objects to it.
However, Perkins has never said that homosexuality should be a capital offense. Maximilian is completely distorting Perkins’ position.
The Uganda bill stipulates the following:
“Aggravated homosexuality” is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders.”
“Aggravated homosexuality” therefore mostly refers to heinous crimes of sexual abuse and other offenses that have serious consequences for the victims.
The Uganda bill does not stipulate the death penalty for all homosexuals as liberals claim.
One can agree or disagree whether capital punishment is warranted for any of the acts it lists.
But the FRC has never advocated for the death penalty for homosexuals.
August 17th, 2012 | 11:57 am
Promote ideas? The Catholic Church promotes ideas? Since when? The more you speak David, it is obvious the less you understand about the Catholic Church.
Mrs. Jackson,
I hereby amend what I said as follows, with deletions in italics and replacements in bold:
The meaning does not change.
August 17th, 2012 | 12:05 pm
Nancy Jenzen, I don’t know what your irrational comment is supposed to mean. Are you justifying senior FRC employees saying that they would like to export homosexuals from the US? If you are, perhaps you should not be surprised when people don’t like your religious beliefs.
Here’s the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6JuKnXJGTc
August 17th, 2012 | 12:10 pm
On the shooter:
“Corkins, who graduated from George Mason University in Virginia with a master’s degree in education and human development in 2006, had recently been volunteering at The D.C. Center for the LGBT Community, a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Washington.”
Education and human development with a specialization in domestic terrorism.
http://www.masoncountydailynews.com/news/national-news/37194-family-research-council-shooting-fbi-details-heroism-of-guard
August 17th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
The Left never recognizes its own intolerance; they assume this quality is solely confined to the Right. They are quick to paint with a broad brush, which would be the equivalent of traditional marriage proponents pointing to the desecration of the Eucharist that some gay rights activists have engaged in as typical of all gay activists. They will never concede this point because they cannot — it is the foundation of all their beliefs: that those who support traditional marriage and traditional beliefs are racist “hate” mongers.
August 17th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
George might be suspected of taking political advantage of the FRC shooting, since he is not a disinterested party, being himself deeply involved with a number of “pro-marriage” organizations.
Please – in what way is it inappropriate for someone who is deeply involved with “pro-marriage” organizations to be concerned about, write about, or otherwise show interest in an attack on the sort of group he himself identifies with?
August 17th, 2012 | 12:26 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
I hereby amend what I said as follows, with deletions in italics and replacements in bold:
Of course, gay-rights groups are not happy with “pro-marriage” organizations (and I include here the Catholic Church) that promote the ideas teach that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, against God’s law.
The meaning does not change.
Every parent has the right to teach their child their values, including their beliefs about what is and is not sinful, what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior, etc.
Gay rights activists are the ones who are trying to teach other peoples’ children their own views, against the will of the parents. They want to make it the law of the land that the schools must and should usurp the parents’ beliefs, teaching all children the gay rights activists’ values over and instead of the parents’ values.
It is the gay rights side that is rejecting “live and let live” in favor of violating other peoples’ boundaries, forcing their beliefs onto others, and behaving inappropriately.
August 17th, 2012 | 1:01 pm
Let’s be serious. The SPLC has not labeled the FRC a hate group because it is “pro-family.” It labeled it a hate group because the FRC has, in SPLC’s view, repeatedly propagated known falsehoods about gays and lesbians. There are many pro-marriage groups that have not received the “hate group” designation from the SPLC, so it’s tendentious and not reflective of a serious reading of the facts to push back as George does in this way.
Milbank concedes that the SPLC is right about FRC’s misdeeds, but he believes that doesn’t legitimate lumping FRC into the same category of awfulness as the KKK. I don’t know what the right category would be—the SPRC, in using a “hate group” designation, is trying to get at what attitude towards gays and lesbians could possibly motivate an organization to do the sorts of things that the FRC has done.
August 17th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
Publius, you made the exact same claim in a previous article, that it’s all about traditional marriage. If you are truly sincere, then you have an ally in me – I do not want people to call people who merely advocate traditional marriage to be called bigots or haters. But soon thereafter, you said that FRC’s statements about exporting and criminalizing homosexuals are also not hateful, and that their support for the infamous Uganda bill is just a group advocating its position.
It seems to me that advocates of traditional marriage should make up their mind. Do you want to advocate for preserving traditional marriage and not be called bigots and haters? Fine. That is completely just, and you have an ally in me. But you can’t expect people to just sit by and not condemn comments advocating exporting and criminalizing gay people, or to say that supporting a bill providing for the death penalty for gays is not hateful.
August 17th, 2012 | 1:14 pm
Per:
Of course, gay-rights groups are not happy with “pro-marriage” organizations (and I include here the Catholic Church) teach that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, against God’s law.
Thanks for making the change David. Now, because you state “gay-rights groups are not happy with ‘pro-marriage’ organizations” please show us -nay teach us- exactly us where in God’s law homosexuality is not sinful and natural?
You do need to show this to us to help us better understand the almost deadly unhappiness the LGBT volunteer expressed the other day at the FRC. As well as better understand the daily unhappiness from the gay-rights groups directed towards “pro-marriage groups.”
August 17th, 2012 | 1:41 pm
“I think it is impossible to deny that among most opponents of same-sex marriage, there is a special animus against homosexual “sinners” that simply doesn’t exist against heterosexual “sinners.”
David N.
I do deny this. Vehemently. It is a psychological projection on your part that amounts to slander. It is not at all “self-evident” as you seem to believe and it would behoove you, when making such a charge to present some sort of evidence other than mere assertion. Certainly there are ~some~ pro-marriage folks (religious and otherwise) who bear an irrational animus toward homosexuals. But that’s not what you said. You said “most” and asserted that it was motivated by “visceral revulsion”.
David, when people are motivated by genuine hate (“visceral revulsion”) how do they generally behave? The answer: usually with violence, rhetorical, actual, or both. Hate looks like Westboro Baptist, like Floyd Lee Corkins, like Anders Breivik, like lynching, Kristallnacht, 9/11.
On the other hand, “opposition to” or “disagreement with” that comports with responsible membership in civil society looks like what happened here in North Carolina. 61% of voters here went to the polls and voted for the traditional definition of marriage. That’s 1.3 million people. Is it really your contention that “most” of them were motivated by “visceral revulsion”?
Let me give you another example to chew on. The Presbyterian Church (USA) — the (2.3 million member) denomination in which I serve, recently voted to uphold the definition of marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Which is to say that it affirmed “traditional marriage”. This in a mainline denomination that can best be described as generally “moderate to liberal”. A denomination which recently changed its ordination standards to allow for the ordination of avowedly gay, non-celibate clergy. Does that sound like it was motivated by irrational animus?
Additionally you say: “I think there is an undercurrent in many of the “religious” condemnations of homosexuality that belies a visceral revulsion (hatred?) that is not present in statements against cohabitation, remarriage after divorce (adultery in the eyes of the Catholic Church), or even out of wedlock birth.”
This too, is a rather incendiary charge. One that requires evidence far above the absurdly low standard of “I think…” Kindly point us to places where the “undercurrent” language in the literature of those denominations and organizations which support the traditional understanding of marriage betrays a particular animus against homosexual behavior per se?
Please understand what I am asking David. You have made some very serious charges. Charges that if true would put the lie to the explicitly stated motivations and intentions of a great many religious folks. Charges that, if true, would mean that almost any church or organization that upholds traditional marriage could be termed a “hate group” since a majority (your ‘most’) of its members are motivated by a disguised but discernible “visceral revulsion”.
August 17th, 2012 | 1:50 pm
#1. The Marxism underlying the feminist/homosexual “gender” movement requires that you vilify your opponent as part of its oppressor/oppressed dialectic.
#2. Activist courts bitten by the same ideology (above) have been far to willing to trample the law in a results oriented jurisprudence
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/conciliating-hatred–2
Both these reasons contribute more to “hate” than the SPLC..
August 17th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
Every parent has the right to teach their child their values, including their beliefs about what is and is not sinful, what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior, etc.
Blake,
I would not go quite that far. I would not want to see young people taught by their parents that all sex was dirty and shameful. I would also not want to see parents teach their children that it was okay to appear in child pornography so they could make money off of them. What you are really saying is that all parents have a right to teach their children what they want, but you have limits in mind.
It is the gay rights side that is rejecting “live and let live” in favor of violating other peoples’ boundaries, forcing their beliefs onto others, and behaving inappropriately.
Sorry, it was not “live and let live” before the gay rights movement. Society as a whole (church, television, movies, school, etc.) taught every child that homosexuality was an “abomination.” It used to be the case that the last person a teen boy or girl realizing they were gay could confide in was a teacher, parent, or clergyman. They had nowhere to go.
August 17th, 2012 | 2:32 pm
It is good to keep in mind that not everything that is legal is morally right. A parent may have the right to teach his child all sorts of things, even disgusting things, but that does not make it right.
August 17th, 2012 | 2:34 pm
Robert P. George: some of those contemporary criers of “Hate!” also describe a piece of cooked chicken between two slices of bread as a “hate sandwich.” What could these people possibly know of hate? Perhaps we should treat them with mercy for they are indeed pitiable.
August 17th, 2012 | 2:37 pm
Readers here may be familiar with the Family Scholars blog — run by David Blankenhorn.
Barry Deutsch is an advocate of SSM who has been guest blogging at Blankenhorn’s blogsite. Deutsch poses as one in favor of civil discourse. That pose is fraudulent. His mask slipped long ago.
The stated views of Deutsch are relevant to the topic of George’s article. And that deserves to be highlighted now because of the prominent perch that Blankenhorn has given Deutsch at the respected Family Scholars blog.
Deutsch often crossposts at both Family Scholars (under the moniker, Barry Deutsch) and at his own blogsite (under the moniker, Ampersand). However in this example he did not provide a link from Family Scholars to his own blogsite. He did provide a link from his blogsite back to Family Scholars. The discrepancy has not been corrected. Below I provide links to both blogsites so that readers can compare and contrast — especially the comments written by Deutsch/Ampersand at the different blogsites.
Here is what Deutsch/Ampersand said at his own blogsite — in the context of his disagreement with Robert P. George on marriage:
[Quote]
There’s no reason any particular person needs to be polite to them if they don’t want to be. [...] If someone else, on their own blog space or whatever, wants to curse people like Mr. George out in every way they can, I don’t object to that. Especially if that person is lgbt, then I think it’s entirely understandable if they don’t accord Mr. George or his fellow thinkers any respect at all.
[/Quote] [Footnote 1]
That is what he wrote for his SSM supporters. His approach to comments under his own blogposts at Family Scholars has been more guarded. He holds up a mask.
In response to the recent shooting, here is what Deutsch/Ampersand wrote:
[Quote]
This reminds me of the importance of not demonizing those who disagree with us, not even on issues we’re the most passionate about.
Lately, I’ve been thinking that that is really the reason to practice civil debate; not to change minds or score points, but so that all of us have a context in which we have to address those we disagree with, and sometimes those we are furious at, with the respect due to them as fellow human beings.
[/unQuote]
Compare and contrast. The mask slipped sometime ago. But he still hides behind it when making his remarks as a guest blogger at Davide Blankenhorn’s Family Scholars blog.
In the first comment, Deutsch/Ampersand invoked gay identity politics as innoculating the incivil behavior of SSM supporters. His more guarded approach in his blogposts and in his comments at Family Scholars very much depends on hiding this animus behind a mask. But even at that he is prone to excusing the very thing he pretends to rise above.
This is not a matter of degree, as he might hope to portray it, but a matter of his undermining civil discourse in every way he can. The basic problem, as his latest comment reveals, is that his approach uses discourse on marriage as a means for venting rather than as the venue for engaging the actual disagreement.
So the above provides a case study on the matter. Over the years Deutsch/Ampersand has relied on double-standards and a mask. It is a very common approach among SSMers far and wide. He is not all that uncommon, really.
The SSM campaign teaches its supporters to rely heavily on sentiment arising from half-truths. They imagine that their mask is their entry card to civil discourse.
The SSM campaign strikes a moralistic pose but then flees the substantive moral debate. The SSM campaign demands rule of law but then depends on the abuse of judicial review. The SSM campaign insists that the marriage idea must be rejected as bigoted and hateful but then demand that the SSM idea be arbitrarily granted the special status of the marriage idea. The SSM campaign revolts against the very notion of substantive difference between marriage and non-marriage and yet agitates for special treatment regardless of the lack of a substantive difference between their SSM idea and non-marriage.
Always the rehtoric raises the volume on sentiment and shouts down the content of the actual disagreement in the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea. This is at root the problem with the pro-SSM rhetoric and propaganda: it attacks marriage and makes no case for SSM. It evades the actual disagreement. It pushes to the top of priorities their own dependence on gay identity politics.
And from that much violence — both in rhetoric and in deed — is promoted against society. That they are so afraid of beng held morally accountable for their own rhetoric ought to be apparent in their use of the mask.
August 17th, 2012 | 3:17 pm
David, when people are motivated by genuine hate (“visceral revulsion”) how do they generally behave? The answer: usually with violence, rhetorical, actual, or both. Hate looks like . . . .
david c.,
I said visceral revulsion. Hate was a question, not an assertion.
How many people are comfortable seeing two men kiss? Suppose there is a movie with a man and a woman having an illicit affair, and that movie has a sex scene in it—let’s say R rated, fairly explicit, but well short of pornographic. How many people who go to the movies are disturbed by seeing fornication or adultery depicted? Now, let’s say it is a movie about two men. How many people who wouldn’t bat an eye at the heterosexual scene would be somewhere from uncomfortable to disgusted with two men in a very equivalent scene?
That’s 1.3 million people. Is it really your contention that “most” of them were motivated by “visceral revulsion”?
Yes, I bet most of them find the thought of two men or two women having sex anywhere from mildly unpleasant to downright disgusting. There are a lot of gay characters on television. How many of them do you see kissing, let alone in bed together?
This too, is a rather incendiary charge. One that requires evidence far above the absurdly low standard of “I think…”
Making a charge is making an assertion. Saying “I think” is giving my impression. I don’t have to give proof of what I think. You might ask me why I think something, but you can’t reasonably say, “How dare you say you think that!”
Kindly point us to places where the “undercurrent” language in the literature of those denominations and organizations which support the traditional understanding of marriage betrays a particular animus against homosexual behavior per se?
I can speak about the Catholic Church, since that’s the tradition I grew up in. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity.” I think you would acknowledge that grave depravity is very strong language. It is possible to search the entire Vatican website using Google, and the words grave depravity are used only for homosexuality. Another favorite of those who argue against homosexuality from the Bible is abomination.
Let me ask you, since perhaps my impressions really is wrong. Do you think that the people you know who consider homosexual sex to be sinful think of it as equivalent in wrongdoing to sex before marriage? A very large majority of all Christians in this day and age have sex before marriage. How many people do you think would vote to outlaw it? It’s my understanding that when Catholic couples arrange with a priest to get married, generally they are cohabiting, and the priest either takes it in stride or asks them to live apart while they prepare for marriage. Now, suppose, instead of the majority of Christian young people cohabiting before marriage, the majority of Christians experimented with homosexuality. Do you suppose people would say, “Well, homosexual fornication is no more wrong than heterosexual fornication”? I think probably most Christians who think homosexual behavior is a sin think it is in a special category—not the same as a guy and his girlfriend having sex.
Charges that, if true, would mean that almost any church or organization that upholds traditional marriage could be termed a “hate group” since a majority (your ‘most’) of its members are motivated by a disguised but discernible “visceral revulsion”.
On the contrary, I think in our culture it is extremely common to have a learned (or perhaps even in some ways innate) visceral revulsion of sexuality that is different from your own. Let me admit here that I personally feel very uncomfortable around such people as transvestites, transexuals, markedly effeminate men, or markedly “butch” women. It is a visceral reaction. There’s nothing rational about it. I don’t think they are sinners. It is rare that I deal with such people, and I try to be nice and not to think ill of them or discriminate against them. If I were hiring a new employee, and a very effiminate man or very masculine woman applied, I would have to make a very conscious effort to make sure I judged them on their ability to do the job, not on their personal mannerisms and appearance.
Things have changed a lot over the last fifty years, but I don’t think it is outrageous to say that while heterosexual cohabitation, divorce, and out of wedlock births have become far from shocking, homosexuality still has a certain stigma and shock value that other behavior considered sinful no longer has. There are, I am sure, many people who wish that homosexuality were more stigmatized and that premarital sex and out of wedlock birth could be re-stigmatized. But many people in general are used to premarital sex and out of wedlock birth in a way that they are not used to homosexuality.
August 17th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
It seems likely that the same mental health issues that cause same-sex attraction also cause histrionic personality disorders. Even Hollywood can’t help noticing that disproportionately many so-called “gay people” have a penchant for wanting to pose as persecuted, marginalized victims of diabolical conspiracies of fanatics. The shrill, excitable, constantly over-reacting homosexual drama queen is a stock character even in the hyper-sensitive movie business.
In everyday life, this is seen most clearly in the constant comparisons the movement’s activists make between themselves and African-Americans, and between their demand to redefine marriage and the Civil Rights movement. The language about “hate” and “bigots” and “injustice” is largely borrowed from this analogy.
To some extent, this is just clumsy politics; the rightness of the Civil Rights movement is almost universally conceded; who wouldn’t try to appropriate it? It is also likely that they enjoy the screaming, self-righteousness and self-pity that such a role calls for. But it is also probably largely attributable to an inability to perceive how inappropriate, even offensive, comparisons of this sort are.
For a group of predominantly upper-middle-class, white men, many of whom have experienced virtually no obstacle to becoming among the most influential in their chosen professions, to whom virtually every demand has been freely conceded for four decades, and whose sensitivities the media and education sectors protect with such rabid jealousy that the entire dictionary of family relationships has had to be rewritten on their behalf; for this group to compare themselves to African-Americans in the post-war South or to Jews under European fascism or to indigenous Americans driven from their lands strikes sane people as deeply offensive.
But one should remember that in most cases it is probably an effect of mental imbalance. When a “gay” “rights” activist calls you a “hateful” “bigot” the most charitable thing is to ignore it, just as you would if somebody with Tourette’s Syndrome hurled an obscenity your way.
August 17th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Sorry, it was not “live and let live” before the gay rights movement. Society as a whole (church, television, movies, school, etc.) taught every child that homosexuality was an “abomination.” It used to be the case that the last person a teen boy or girl realizing they were gay could confide in was a teacher, parent, or clergyman. They had nowhere to go.
Gays have always had a culture. It’s not that they have nowhere to go, it’s that they don’t like that they can’t go wherever they want, whenever they want.
Oscar Wilde wasn’t persecuted for being gay. He was persecuted for deliberately causing scandal. There’s a difference.
“Live and let live” means that I can teach my children what I believe to be good and right, and you can teach your children the same. You have no right to my children. You have no right to force me to accept your views of what is right and wrong. If you want me to believe that homosexuality is harmless and victimless, prove it. Don’t just demonize me for allegedly demonizing you. I don’t care how you live, until you start coveting what I’ve got.
You don’t have the right to behave any way you want, or to have your behavior treated with respect.
How would you feel if an incestuous couple pedophile accused you of being the equivalent of a terrorist because you refuse to respect their preferences?
You have the right to equality before the law, but not the right to call yourself a victim just because other people believe that the way you behave is bad or wrong. You yourself are doing exactly the same to them, in reverse, so it takes real chutzpah – or colossal lack of self-awareness – for you to complain. The problem with your vision of “tolerance” is that it is inherently one-way; you want others to tolerate you, but you can’t reciprocate, can you?
Tolerance is easy when we are tolerating people who don’t threaten our core beliefs. When you yourself are able to tolerate those who embrace what you believe to be threatening or evil or wrong, then maybe you would be in a better position to lecture others about how others ought to be more tolerant – except, being tolerant, you won’t. But tolerance is your value, not mine, so how come those of you who go on the most about the importance of tolerance think you’re the only one exempt from practicing it?
August 17th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
I would not go quite that far. I would not want to see young people taught by their parents that all sex was dirty and shameful.
Are there families that teach that all sex is dirty and shameful? Or only families made out of straw?
No matter: there’s a procedure for establishing what is and is not abusive.
If it’s abusive, then document how it is abusive and treat it like other forms of child abuse.
But you want more than that, don’t you?
I would ask, if it isn’t abusive, then who are you to interfere? But I know the answer: because the left covets what is not theirs, and those who carry out the will of the left have no scruples. They have turned the public schools, libraries, children’s literature, and anything else they can get their hands on into one giant proselytizing machine, concerned with nothing except teaching other peoples’ children left wing values (because if you couldn’t get at the kids, how would left wing ideology survive? And who would vote for someone like Obama?)
And the left wing appears not the least bit concerned about the fact that the resources they are appropriating were supposed to go for some other purpose, or that by using other peoples’ children they are violating the trust of those who entrusted them with stewardship over those children.
Why does the left assume that “I’m sure I’m right” gives them the power and the right to do unto others what they explicitly don’t want done unto them? They get absolutely hysterical at the very thought of Christians proselytizing in their workplace, and go absolutely nuts at the idea of a cross on public property, yet they feel perfectly free to intrude into Christian families to “correct” Christian parents in the upbringing of their children.
It’s not for you to decide what other peoples’ children should be taught about sex. Stop trying to take what is not yours.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:19 pm
Felaptop, it would suffice for them to compare themselves to gays under European fascism, as they suffered the same fate as the Jews.
In the late 1930s, Himmler created the Reichsoffice for the Combating of Abortion and Homosexuality.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:22 pm
Blake: “You have the right to equality before the law, but not the right to call yourself a victim just because other people believe that the way you behave is bad or wrong.”
Excuse me, but haven’t some Christians elevated saying ‘persecution’ as often as possible in one minute to a competitive art form? Even though they face absolutely no obstacles, and even erect barriers toward the election of atheists? Physician, heal thyself.
August 17th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
It has once again been claimed in this forum by people who should know better that the Church teaches that homosexuality is sinful. This is not true. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a morally disordered inclination, but not sinful, as homosexual desires does not involve the engagement of the will. Homosexual acts are sinful, as they do involve engagement of the will to fulfill a disordered inclination.
This distinction is extremely important to me, due to my own morally disordered inclination: severe depression. My spiritual advisor taught me over 20 years ago that my depression was/is – in addition to a psychiatric disorder – a morally disordered inclination, tracing the desires that come with it (among others, strongly desiring to stay in bed all day and/or to kill myself) to humanity’s fallen state. As such, my having depression and the desires that come with it are not sinful. However, acting on these desires to stay in bed all day or to kill myself are/would most certainly be sinful.
Unlike homosexuality, though, depression has nothing to do with sexual license, so human beings are nowhere as capable of deceiving themselves over it. That is, I have not had a tsunami of propaganda from every imaginable media outlet for at least the last 20 years telling me that since I was born this way (or at the very least, made no conscious choice to “be this way”) that I have no choice but to act on these desires, that staying in bed all day or trying to kill myself is good, natural, and normal, and anyone who says otherwise is full of hate. Thank God for that.
Have a safe weekend, y’all…
JB
August 17th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
Well can we all agree that kidnapping children from gay parents is hateful?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/bryan-fischer-kidnapping-childen-gay-parents-defense_n_1760382.html
August 17th, 2012 | 6:38 pm
“The Left never recognizes its own intolerance;”
I think there’s something quite worse. Liberals never recognize how perverse and perverted they are regarding sexuality and relationships.
This is what normalizing dysfunctional sexualities produces in society.
Society is a lot uglier and more perverted today regarding sexuality. It is also quite violent or enabling people to commit so many violations of a person’s dignity. There is a war on wholesome values. All of this is hailed as progress by liberals.
August 17th, 2012 | 7:07 pm
A denomination which recently changed its ordination standards to allow for the ordination of avowedly gay, non-celibate clergy. Does that sound like it was motivated by irrational animus?
david c.,
No, not at all. But I have to ask you this. If if you accept what Felapton and Blake say above about gay people, why in the world would you accept them as clergy? I don’t recall ever seeing you challenge anyone with an extremely unfavorable position regarding gay people. (Let me admit that this is off the top of my head. I haven’t done a count and I may be quite wrong.) But you do challenge me quite often. (And I challenge you often, too, of course.) I am not quite sure why I make you so angry.
August 17th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
“It labeled it a hate group because the FRC has, in SPLC’s view, repeatedly propagated known falsehoods about gays and lesbians. ”
The more we look into these falsehoods that liberals claim the FRC has allegedly said, the more it becomes clear that homosexual activists take quotes completely out of context and exploit them for the most sensationalist hair-raising negative effect.
Then they go viral, being repeated by their minions in the same out-of-context way, inciting hatred and demonizing the FRC in every way possible.
Democrats claim Republicans repeat falsehoods all the time, and vice-versa, and nobody throws around “hate-group” labels. I don’t see the FRC saying anything that would be worse or more alarming than either political party (and others).
Sprigg: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.”
Roseanne Barr: “anyone who eats S*** Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ,”
Biden to primarily black audience: the GOP will “put y’all back in chains”
These are just recent examples. There are many others and many worse.
Do you remember how Carrie Prejean was attacked and vilified because she said she would not approve of homosexual marriage?
“Pageant judge Perez Hilton, the well known gossip columnist, called her a “dumb bitch . . . She gave an awful, awful answer that alienated so many people.” Hilton gave her a score of zero and bragged she lost the Miss USA title because of his action. The Miss California USA organization asked Prejean to apologize for her comment, but she refused.”
Did she say that homosexuals should be “exported?” Did she say homosexuals should be put to death?
No, but by the virulence that hit her you would think she did. And with that intense self-righteousness that is inherent to liberals when they vilify people who don’t submit to their agenda.
Frankly, the use of “hate” labels for family organizations like the FRC is really a concerted smear campaign. Liberals may claim that they only apply such labels to a few organizations, but anyone who has been in a young, liberals environment has probably witnessed how intense their hatred of social conservatives is.
August 17th, 2012 | 7:54 pm
So Sergio, when did homosexuality become a “gender”? That sounds like a stereotype to me. Really Sergio, that’s ignorant even for you.
August 17th, 2012 | 10:53 pm
Blake: “You have the right to equality before the law, but not the right to call yourself a victim just because other people believe that the way you behave is bad or wrong.”
Excuse me, but haven’t some Christians elevated saying ‘persecution’ as often as possible in one minute to a competitive art form? Even though they face absolutely no obstacles, and even erect barriers toward the election of atheists? Physician, heal thyself.
Whether a person is or is not the victim of bullying, intolerance, unfair treatment, etc. is not something you can determine by their identity, such that if they are Christian then obviously they’re perpetrators, while if they are gays then obviously they’re victims.
If Joe bullies Susan, then Joe is a bully and Susan is a victim – and that holds true regardless of whether Joe and/or Susan are in possession of cherished “designated victim” identity status tags, or whether one or both of them are stuck with “designated perpetrator” guilt-stigma badges. If Joe bullies Susan, and Susan bullies Joe, then both are bullies, and both are victims.
August 18th, 2012 | 3:29 am
“Well can we all agree that kidnapping children from gay parents is hateful?”
Well, can we all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by homosexual parents are abominable?
http://www.hicktownpress.com/pedophile-frank-lombard-sentenced-to-27-years/
August 18th, 2012 | 3:55 am
Felapton: “For a group of predominantly upper-middle-class, white men, many of whom have experienced virtually no obstacle to becoming among the most influential in their chosen professions, ”
It is not only that. Who are their most avid supporters? Obnoxiously privileged young people, who have never had any responsibility, who are profoundly manipulable, impressionable, and impulse-driven, and whose little heads believe that license to act out on any of their sexual whims or fetishes equals an affirmation of liberty against some horrible repression. What is this horrible repression? A world which imposes ethics and boundaries – that is the world of proper adulthood.
Thus, for such liberal sexuality supporters, an ethical life is an “oppressive” one, and it must be destroyed, because the license to pursue any and all perverted and dysfunctional sexual dynamics is not allowed in an ethical world.
It is really disgusting to see such people appropriate the language of the Civil Rights movement that had to fight against the horrors of slavery and a Jim Crow environment.
Take this other example:
“Campus Pride — the largest organization of LGBT college students nationwide — says that it intends to use Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s recent comments as leverage in its decade-long effort to remove the fast-food chain from college campuses.”
According to these students’ “every conservative is a hater” ideology, what makes a bad person? A homosexual who has sex with strangers and infests society with STDs or an upstanding citizen who opposes homosexual marriage? The upstanding citizen, obviously.
The term “ethics” has no meaning for people with a homosexuality agenda.
August 18th, 2012 | 4:22 am
Maximilian: “Felaptop, it would suffice for them to compare themselves to gays under European fascism, as they suffered the same fate as the Jews.”
There is no end to the ridiculous propaganda that gets repeated about homosexuals in Germany.
Homosexuals did not ever suffer the same fate as Jews under the Nazis.
Only a tiny number of homosexuals was ever sent to the camps. They were not being hounded to be exterminated like Jews were.
There were several homosexuals within Nazi ranks and among the general population that supported the Nazis.
Several of these cases of homosexuals that were sent to the camps had a political motivation behind it. Several of these prisoners did not die in the camps, they were released.
How disingenuous it is to say that this small number of prisoners can be equated to the genocidal horror against Jews.
Moreover, the period’s most notorious homosexual, Ernst Rohm, was Hitler’s best friend, and became so powerful due to so much support that he almost came to displace Hitler as head of the Nazis.
The number of clergy that were persecuted and killed by the Nazis is approximate to the number of homosexuals killed.
August 18th, 2012 | 7:00 am
[...] Calling Pro-Marriage Groups Hateful Must End – Rob. P. George, Frst Thngs/First Thghts [...]
August 18th, 2012 | 12:30 pm
That those critical of the west’s response to the AIDS point out the successes of Cuba and other countries that quarantined the virus isn’t an attack on homosexuals, it’s a question of what was the most effective method. Neglect was wrong, but so too is not controlling the crisis. Netherlands, NYC and DC are learning this the hard way as they struggle to stop rising HIV cases due to the lowering risk tolerance of their communities, who somehow figure a life with HIV isn’t a penalty worth changing ones risky behavior for.
FRC did not lobby against criticizing Uganda. They lobbied against the claims of rights and criticisms against sodomy laws that pro-homosexual politicians were attaching to the bill.
FRC’s claims on homosexuality’s involvement in promoting pedophilia is fact based, not hatred. See their claims here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3.
I can tell you as a teen, I was most certainly targeted and courted by members of the homosexual community who had infiltrated my school. When I did go to the youth festival recommended, the organizers and volunteers hit on us and picked some of us up. These infiltrators are still there. Just 2 years ago a 16yo kid I worked with was being pressured by his teacher, this time not to “look into”, but to actually have sex. If you look at the scope of sexual disordered from the ‘normal’ H.S. senior boys preying on new freshmen girls to the more disturbing S&M clubs. Each demands this type of recruiting of new flesh. Homosexuality is no different in that regard.
August 18th, 2012 | 12:34 pm
HarrietJ: The more we look into these falsehoods that liberals claim the FRC has allegedly said
Then show these falsehoods to be false. You haven’t done so yet.
HarrietJ: Do you remember how Carrie Prejean was attacked and vilified because she said she would not approve of homosexual marriage?
I do. That was disturbing. But this in no way proves that the FRC is not a hate group.
HarrietJ: “Well can we all agree that kidnapping children from gay parents is hateful?” Well, can we all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by homosexual parents are abominable?
Or any parents. I also disapprove of child molestation when the victim is a girl. It’s interesting that you uttered not a word in condemnation of AFA’s Bryan Fischer advocating kidnapping the children of gay people.
HarrietJ: There were several homosexuals within Nazi ranks and among the general population that supported the Nazis.
Name these “several homosexuals”. Roehm we already know. He was killed by Hitler.
August 18th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
Blake: Whether a person is or is not the victim of bullying, intolerance, unfair treatment, etc. is not something you can determine by their identity, such that if they are Christian then obviously they’re perpetrators, while if they are gays then obviously they’re victims.
Well have you argued, sir, in opposition to a point no one made.
What I said was that there are many Christians who have elevated accusing random people of “persecution” to an art form, when they are not actually being persecuted. So if you are opposed to people making a victim out of themselves (indeed, you say that they do not even have a right to do that), perhaps you should start with these people.
August 18th, 2012 | 1:46 pm
To be clear, Harriet, the Uganda bill goes much further than you think. It imposes the death penalty for people who have been convicted of gay sex more than once, even between consenting adults without HIV.
In fact, it even imposes the death penalty on straights who have been convicted more than once of not turning in their gay friends, family, or colleagues.
Here’s a guide to the bill:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/kill-the-straight-friends-of-gays
And, if you prefer, in video format:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/uganda-kill-everyone-video
But don’t take anyone’s word for it. Read the bill yourself.
August 18th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
“Well, can we all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by homosexual parents are abominable?”
Did you happen to see that part about the 27 year prison sentence?
Yes, pedophiles should go to jail. And, in that case, justice was served.
Your comparison of what is undisputedly an evil crime to advocating kidnapping of children from gay parents is why people think”pro-family” advocates are bigoted and hateful.
Because many of them are. The comment above is Exhibit A.
August 18th, 2012 | 3:34 pm
Well, can we all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by homosexual parents are abominable?
HarrietJ,
This is a typical way to smear a minority group. A gay man abused his adopted child, and that is reprehensible, but by bringing it up in this manner, your intent is to imply that homosexuals are child abusers. In your mind, it counts against gay people when a gay person does something wrong, but it does not count against heterosexuals when a heterosexual does something wrong. In Texas a high school teacher was recently convicted of having sex with five members of the high school football team, including group sex with four of them. Does this reflect badly on women? On heterosexual women? Should women not be high school teachers?
August 19th, 2012 | 8:38 am
Imagine an activist for racial tolerance, an opponent of racist hate groups, were to one day become unhinged and do something awful, like walk into a KKK-sympathizing organization and start shooting people.
Then imagine a headline on a blog somewhere, written in response to the shooting: “Calling Supporters of Southern Culture Hate Groups Must End.”
See any problems with the logic here?
August 19th, 2012 | 8:43 am
Blake: Whether a person is or is not the victim of bullying, intolerance, unfair treatment, etc. is not something you can determine by their identity, such that if they are Christian then obviously they’re perpetrators, while if they are gays then obviously they’re victims.
Well have you argued, sir, in opposition to a point no one made.
What I said was that there are many Christians who have elevated accusing random people of “persecution” to an art form
It’s the SPLC that has elevated accusing innocent people to an art form.
It has literally hijacked the term “hate group” – a term that everyone thinks refers to those who advocate, incite, or perpetrate domestic terrorism – and is now using it to slander groups that
(1) fall under a much reduced definition of what constitutes “hate” (e.g. replacing “domestic terrorism” with “tells lies” – conveniently ignoring the fact that “telling lies” is, first of all, not the same thing, and second of all, is already covered under the law by “slander” – though of course we can all see why the SPLC would prefer to simply call them a hate group instead of actually trying to prove them guilty of the crime of slander, can’t we?);
(2) even if we accept the reduced definition, it still is not clear that the FRC is guilty of anything, except on the SPLC’s say-so, because the SPLC commits two further dishonesties:
a) it presumes to take a controversial issue, label their side “the truth”, and the other side therefore “dishonest” – when in fact the real lie is to pretend that their narrative equals established fact. That is more begging the question: the narrative they submit as “true” is precisely what is being argued (which is why it is controversial) and their real actions here are not to protect innocents from hate, but to protect partisans from being subject to legitimate political debate.
b) even if it were true that the SPLC has the truth on their side and the FRC is wrong (a fact, I must emphasize, that is not “proven” but merely asserted), by what right does the SPLC dare to claim that the FRC is motivated by “hate”, as opposed to presuming they are merely wrong?
It is clear that by the SPLC’s reduced definitions of “hate”, the SPLC is very, very lucky they only deal in “hate” that “targets” left wing groups, or else they would themselves be hoist by their own petard.
As far as your absurd double-standard claim about Christianity: it is, of course, no doubt true that “some” (unnamed) Christians claim false victim status – there are literally millions of Christians alive right now, and it would be astonishing if they were all of them exempt from a very normal human temptation, and false victim status is not always a thing of malice; sometimes it’s something people do when they’re just upset (they genuinely feel themselves to be attacked). So if you’re not seeking to use that claim the way you appear to be trying to use it, I don’t know why you bother bringing up something that is both obvious and irrelevant.
And I call it a double standard because, of course, if you want to be fair about it, you would also point out that not only is it true that “some” gays also claim false victim status, but also that there are many more documented instances of gays falsifying fake evidence in support of false hate crime charges being filed over the last decade than any other group has filed. Does that say anything at all useful about whether gay claims should be viewed as trustworthy or whether gays as a group should be viewed as less than credible? I don’t think it does.
August 19th, 2012 | 10:58 am
Blake, speaking of being hoisted on one’s own petard:
You say, “It is clear that by the SPLC’s reduced definitions of ‘hate’, the SPLC is very, very lucky they only deal in ‘hate’ that ‘targets’ left wing groups, or else they would themselves be hoist by their own petard.”
Yet with a cursory glance at their website, I find:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party
and
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/fall/extremist-media
You’ve yet to show any evidence whatsoever that you’ve actually read what the SPLC has to say about labeling the FRC in particular a “hate group.” They have made specific claims; you’ve refuted none of them. Instead, you’ve attacked a straw man. Any chance you’ll do your homework next time?
You can start here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council
August 19th, 2012 | 1:12 pm
It has literally hijacked the term “hate group” – a term that everyone thinks refers to those who advocate, incite, or perpetrate domestic terrorism – and is now using it to slander groups that . .
Blake,
Let me add a bit to what Charlie Collier says above. SPLC says, “Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.” I don’t think anyone would claim that WBC advocates, incites, or perpetrates domestic terrorism. The Supreme Court last year upheld WBC’s free speech rights in an 8-1 decision. I think SPLC characterizes WBC correctly. Its agenda is to spew hate, not foment violence.
Would you say Westboro Baptist Church is not a hate group? It seems to me you are the one trying to hijack definitions.
August 19th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
Robert George says: But beyond that, his making it displays impressive integrity. He surely knows that it will earn him a hefty share of the abusive rhetoric he rightly deplores.
Of course, by extravagantly praising someone on the left for his integrity and bravery for taking what he (George) believes to be a morally correct stand, George is essentially bashing the left as a whole. I wonder how George would like to be praised for being someone or the right who has great integrity and courage for standing up for the rights of Muslims and risking the opprobrium of the right wing.
August 19th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
“Well, can we all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by homosexual parents are abominable?”
Just as thoroughly as we can all agree that organizations handing over children to be sexually abused by heterosexual parents are abominable.
But do we know of any groups that deliberately do this? And if not, then what’s your point?
August 19th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
Let me add a bit to what Charlie Collier says above. SPLC says, “Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.” I don’t think anyone would claim that WBC advocates, incites, or perpetrates domestic terrorism.
So, in other words, “hate group” is the new “racist” – you take a word that everyone agrees means something bad (KKK, neo-Nazis) and redefine it so that you can use it to describe someone who merely offends you – misleading people into thinking those who offend you are guilty of what the word used to mean, because of course people don’t realize that you’ve changed the meaning of the word.
The left really does rely on fallacies of ambiguity for all its talking points, doesn’t it?
August 19th, 2012 | 5:02 pm
You say, “It is clear that by the SPLC’s reduced definitions of ‘hate’, the SPLC is very, very lucky they only deal in ‘hate’ that ‘targets’ left wing groups, or else they would themselves be hoist by their own petard.”
Yes, the SPLC would count as a hate group, if they were to be measured by their own definition of hate group.
However, I am glad they’ve decided to include a token left wing group. Last I had heard, they “weren’t set up” that way:
August 19th, 2012 | 5:11 pm
You’ve yet to show any evidence whatsoever that you’ve actually read what the SPLC has to say about labeling the FRC in particular a “hate group.” They have made specific claims; you’ve refuted none of them.
That’s because they’ve redefined “hate group” to mean something like slander, only with lower standards.
Saying something that makes you cry does not make someone a hate group.
IT IS A LIE to pretend that FRC belongs in THIS GALLERY..
August 19th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
Blake: It’s the SPLC that has elevated accusing innocent people to an art form.
It would upset me if the SPLC would accuse innocent people. Can you name those innocent people, so I can set the record straight at once?
Blake: It has literally hijacked the term “hate group” – a term that everyone thinks refers to those who advocate, incite, or perpetrate domestic terrorism
As I pointed out before, Blake, that is your own, personal definition of a hate group, which would exclude the Nation of Islam. Not sure if that is what you want.
Blake: and second of all, is already covered under the law by “slander”
Not true. Only slander against individuals is covered, not against entire groups. If I accuse a particular Jew of poisoning wells, he can sue me. But if I accuse Jews in general of poisoning wells, no one can.
Blake: As far as your absurd double-standard claim about Christianity: it is, of course, no doubt true that “some” (unnamed) Christians claim false victim status
Then I suggest that you start convincing these people, who have no case to make for presuming that they are being “persecuted”.
Blake: And I call it a double standard because, of course, if you want to be fair about it, you would also point out that not only is it true that “some” gays also claim false victim status
What is the proportion of gays vs. Christians claiming victim status whose claims are false. In my experience, an infinitesimal percentage of Christians residing in Western countries claiming persecution were wronged in even a small way.
August 19th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
you take a word that everyone agrees means something bad (KKK, neo-Nazis) and redefine it so that you can use it to describe someone who merely offends you
Blake,
Are you saying that the Westboro Baptist Church is not something “bad”?
August 20th, 2012 | 6:23 am
I always thought the Red Sox and their fans were just fellow citizens peacefully exercising their rights, including the right to express opinions with which I disagree. How blind I was.Thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, I now realize what should have been obvious all along – the Red Sox and their followers are a hate group:
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/alert-splc-boston-red-sox-are-hate-group.html
August 20th, 2012 | 10:38 am
David: Maybe people feel “visceral revulsion” because they find it revolting. Of course, not everything one finds revolting ought to be found so — but as everyone in all culture in the history of the world has found sexual acts between people of the same sex to be unnatural and at best a vice, even if they allowed it in certain circumstances, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that accepting homosexuality without revulsion is healthy or good. In fact, as it is a recent and purely Western phenomenon, it is perfectly reasonable to insist that people who want it to be accepted as natural and healthy PROVE it is so, rather than just saying so over and over again, despite mountains of empirical evidence and (again) all of human history saying otherwise.
August 20th, 2012 | 11:09 am
Senator: I have not visited your blog, but let me point to this. You talk about one’s right to express opinions. Did you know that the Uganda bill praised by FRC’s Tony Perkins would not only mandate the death penalty for gay people, but even criminalize the opinions of people who disagree with Tony Perkins on the issue of homosexuality? Yeah, a real hero for free speech he is.
August 20th, 2012 | 11:11 am
Gail Finkle: but as everyone in all culture in the history of the world has found sexual acts between people of the same sex to be unnatural
What an extraordinary statement. All the tens of billions who ever lived, in all cultures?
August 20th, 2012 | 11:31 am
Maybe people feel “visceral revulsion” because they find it revolting.
Gail Finke,
Yes, exactly.
Of course, not everything one finds revolting ought to be found so . . . .
I don’t see that this is a matter of ought and ought not. If I find the practice of eating snails to be disgusting (which I do), who is to say I am wrong?
. . . . it is not at all unreasonable to assume that accepting homosexuality without revulsion is healthy or good.
I would say that feeling revulsion at some kind of practice, sexual or otherwise, has nothing to do with whether that practice is immoral or not. Take my example of the two movie scenes, one depicting heterosexual fornication or adultery, the other depicting homosexual sex. If the average moviegoer finds depictions of heterosexual fornication or adultery erotic and depictions of homosexual acts disgusting, surely his or her feelings of revulsion are not relevant to making moral judgments. Suppose a peeping Tom were to spy on an elderly, obese married couple having sex and find it revolting. The couple themselves might be very much in love and their sexual encounter might be something not only moral, but in some sense even sacred. Just because the average person might find the couple’s lovemaking humorous or repellant says nothing at all about its morality.
Feelings of revulsion are very common in situations that have nothing to do with morality at all. While we may occasionally feel both visceral revulsion and moral disapproval together, it is a serious mistake to accept visceral revulsion at a practice as a reliable signal that the practice is immoral.
But I am glad you at least agree with me that many people do find homosexuality to be disgusting. I was surprised that david c. came down so hard on me for suggesting that to be true.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
Blake:
“Are you willing to condemn vegetarians as hateful and bigoted for not wanting to let meat eaters eat meat in their kitchen? ”
Depends. are vegetarians in the active buisness of forbiding the rest of morals to eat meat?
“The Dalai Llama argues that homosexuality is wrong, and I don’t see anyone accuses him of being a hater.”
Again it depends. is the Dalai Lama in the active buisness of denying gay people equall rights as are opposers of SMS marriage?
Is not simply thinking homosexulity is a sin…is trying to turn that belief into a compulsory law to deny gays equall rights before the law.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:54 pm
David N.,
You write: “No, not at all. But I have to ask you this. If if you accept what Felapton and Blake say above about gay people, why in the world would you accept them as clergy? I don’t recall ever seeing you challenge anyone with an extremely unfavorable position regarding gay people. (Let me admit that this is off the top of my head. I haven’t done a count and I may be quite wrong.) But you do challenge me quite often. (And I challenge you often, too, of course.) I am not quite sure why I make you so angry.”
David,
I had prepared a longer response detailing specifically why I disagree with your “opinion” that “most” denominations and individuals who stand in opposition to SSM are doing so based on “visceral revulsion” or irrational opposition. But it seems to me that this discussion (at least between you and I) has taken something of a different turn — one which probably needs to be addressed if we are ever to engage in anything like a fruitful dialogue. I apologize, in advance, to the other readers/posters here as this will likely read like a private discourse and not a public discussion of the sort that FT readers might find interesting and or edifying.
David, you begin my placing my responses in with those of Felapton and Blake and asking me to justify myself in terms of their responses. What is it in my responses to you that requires that I defend myself based on terms that others have set? I may be (and in fact, am) in agreement with some of what both those posters say, but I am not beholden to them for my position. If you wish to address their concerns or the way that they have expressed them, then the most fruitful course, it seems to me, is to take that up with them individually. I am not responsible for their views, nor for the manner in which they have expressed them. My positions are my own and I would appreciate having them taken as such.
As to your question as to why I would “accept” self-avowed practicing homosexuals as ordained clergy, I think you are under some sort of misimpression. How I “feel” about gay clergy within my denomination is not the issue. At my ordination I took certain vows, including those that declare my willingness to further the “peace, unity, and purity” of this denomination. This denomination has decided (wrongly in my view) that open homosexual ~practice~ comports with ordination to the ministry of worship and sacrament. As stated, I believe that action was wrongly taken. It is one of our founding principles that “councils may err” and that individual conscience is not bound by those errors. And so, frankly, I am in the midst of something like a vocational crisis. The denomination I have been called to serve in gospel ministry and to which I have pledged something very like obedience has taken a position that I believe to be fundamentally at odds with a Biblical understanding of both human sexuality and the practice of ordained ministry. The question then, which confronts me, is whether or not I (as a number of my friends and colleagues have done) should disavow my ordination pledges and leave the denomination, or (for love of both the people and the church to whom/which I have been called) remain as a servant to those in the pews and an advocate for an orthodox, Biblical understanding of the issues to hand?
Now, I can tell you how I “feel” about that. I am sick to death of it. It is shredding the unity and comity of our denomination and we are hemorrhaging members as a result of conflicts like these. But my calling is not about me or my feelings. My calling is to serve Christ and God’s people in the ministry of word and sacrament, regardless of my feelings. Thus, for the time
being at least, I remain. The church I serve has decided that we are to include openly gay clergy amongst the ranks of my colleagues. I owe them the same respect and collegiality that I would grant (in obedience to a higher standard than “feelings”) to any of my fellow clergy. And I believe I have, in fact, comported myself properly in this respect. Better, in point of fact, than a great many of my colleagues in this denomination, who stand on the other side of this issue (by whom I have been called everything from an “ignorant fundamentalist” to an “advocate for injustice” to a simple “hater”).
As to your not being able to recall ever seeing me
“challenge anyone with an extremely unfavorable position regarding gay people”, – surely you recognize the nature of that statement? Have I “stopped beating my wife”–type queries aren’t going to get us very far David. I have have readily acknowledged that there are indeed some “haters” of homosexuals numbered among the ranks of professed Christians and have said so numerous times. The fact that I don’t spend a lot of time condemning those folks, it seems to me, should not be used as evidence that I therefore must ~agree~ with them. It should be clear that I don’t. And it is just that sort of logic chopping that I find frustrating when trying to engage with you.
Which leads to the final issue and that is your statement that you don’t understand why you “make me so angry”. Let me put this as clearly as possible. I am not angry with you David. I ~disagree~ with you and a great many of the positions you take here on FT blog. You are, by far, the most prolific poster here on this blog. The fact that I have disagreed with you more than almost anyone else here can be ascribed primarily to that and that alone. I am sorry that you read my responses as angry, my writing style on blogs is assertive and direct and I can understand that it discomfits you, but it is certainly not personal nor founded in any sort of animus. It is some (many?) of your opinions that I find objectionable and (at times) inviting a response. I rather enjoy a lively discussion, (as “iron sharpens iron”) when I have time for it. The fact that your posts invite more traffic from me than anyone else could be read more charitably — not as anger but as a compliment to the provocative nature of opinions. Might I suggest that you read them that way?
August 20th, 2012 | 1:12 pm
David N. wrote:
“But I am glad you at least agree with me that many people do find homosexuality to be disgusting. I was surprised that david c. came down so hard on me for suggesting that to be true.”
I did not “come down on you” for suggesting that, David. I ~disagreed~ with your that it is revulsion which is the ~primary~ motivation of most individuals and churches for opposition to same sex marriage.
Regardless of how I “feel” about homosexual behavior, I believe it to be objectively disordered and sinful. I believe so based on the basis of revelation and reason. Homosexual acts are a species of sexual sin. As such, they are as wrong/sinful (and no more than), as adultery, fornication etc. and I have said so, publicly – in writing, in the classroom, in the pulpit.
In the long, tortuous war over human sexuality in my denomination, what a friend of mine has called the “yuk factor” has played a more or less bit role. For you to place it center stage in the reasoning of “most” opponents of ssm is to aid and abet those who make the “irrational animus/hate” charge whether you recognize it as such or not. My lived experience tells me differently.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
As to your not being able to recall ever seeing me “challenge anyone with an extremely unfavorable position regarding gay people”, – surely you recognize the nature of that statement? Have I “stopped beating my wife”–type queries aren’t going to get us very far David.
david c.,
I do not accept your characterization of anything I said as “have you stopped beating your wife” questions. One of the things I find unfortunate about these kinds of discussions—and I include myself in my criticism—is that we choose up sides and rarely say anything to criticize those on our own side who make illogical or even scurrilous arguments. To some extent, it’s understandable not to contradict someone with whom you are in at least some type of agreement, when you and they are both disagreeing with “the other side.” But I think ultimately it is very destructive. You get “credit” for all the anti-homosexual arguments, and I get “blame” for all the pro-gay arguments.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
David,
Seriously? This is how you want to go here? I engage you openly, honestly, and at length about the disagreement that we have had and your response is to take umbrage at a single sentence? I apologize that you took offense. I felt (justly I believe) that you were asking me to prove a negative. I don’t “accept your characterization” of what I have (or have not) written either….so let’s move away from that particular swamp to something with more actual bearing upon the matters at hand.
May we move on to the substance of what I have asked or are we to continue this semantic hairsplitting — in which case I’ve got much (much) better things to do.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:57 pm
Homosexual acts are a species of sexual sin. As such, they are as wrong/sinful (and no more than), as adultery, fornication etc. and I have said so, publicly – in writing, in the classroom, in the pulpit.
david c.,
I take your word that this is what you believe, but it will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to believe this is the attitude of Christians in general or even First Things contributors and commenters. Which do you think would upset most American Christian parents more, finding out that their son or daughter in college was having sex with a member of the opposite sex, or with a member of the same sex? Reread what I said about depictions of sex in the movies and on television. Take a look at the language the Catholic Church uses to describe homosexual sex (“grave depravity”).
I would bet if you took a poll among those who opposed homosexuality and same-sex marriage and asked if sex before marriage was worse if it was heterosexual or homosexual, the answer would be overwhelmingly the latter.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:19 pm
I apologize that you took offense. I felt (justly I believe) that you were asking me to prove a negative.
david c.,
I didn’t take offense! I can’t think of anything you have said so far that has offended me. I am not upset or angry. There are other commenters here that sometimes upset, anger, and annoy me, but you are not among them.
I am not even sure which of my messages you are objecting to. If it was the one stamped August 20th, 2012 | 3:06 pm, it was as much self-criticism as it was criticism of anyone else.
My family has a long tradition of stubbornly arguing that goes back well before I was born. My mother died quite some time ago, but back in the old days, she was a very conservative Republican and I was (and remain) a liberal Democrat. We used to have screaming arguments over politics. It wasn’t personal. It turned out that some years after my mother died, to the amazement of my sisters and brother, my father revealed that he was a Democrat. He had no stomach for political arguments, and he simply never expressed an opinion. We all just assumed he agreed with my mother.
I never say anything I don’t believe (and I am sure you don’t, either) but the reason I write on blogs is primarily because I enjoy it, and also because I sometimes learn things. I am not here trying to destroy Western civilization or anything like that. Sometimes people do say things that are annoying or hurtful or just plain wrong, and I try to remain calm, hold sarcasm and drama to a minimum, and carry on. But if the displeasure ever outweighs the enjoyment, I’ll just stop and do something else.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
And worse than that, David, I remember a Newsweek poll showing that a substantial percentage think that homosexuality is worse than adultery. I can’t fine it, but a reference to the poll says that only 55% thought that adultery was worse.
August 21st, 2012 | 1:15 am
Sergio Méndez (writes)
“is trying to turn that belief into a compulsory law to deny gays equall rights before the law.”
You couldent be more wrong
All these discussions are predicated on this 180 degree twisting of the law and the law & society’s understanding of what marriage is and why it is a right to begin with.,.
Examples..
As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had –
“transmuted the “right” to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1
“only by assuming that ‘marriage’ includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the ‘right’ of same-sex couples to ‘marry’.”2
“[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the ‘fundamental’ nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3
Maintaining that marriage’s – “’fundamental’ nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an – “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4
1,2,3,4, – Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)
Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2
2 – Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
August 21st, 2012 | 9:05 am
David N,
I am going to try one last time to distinguish what you are claiming from what I am and we’ll probably have to leave it at that, since I think we’re both in places that aren’t going to move much.
First with regard to this from you: “it will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to believe this is the attitude of Christians in general or even First Things contributors and commenters.”
It is my contention that “attitude” is more or less irrelevant. My position is in fact what the majority of Christian Churches (who subscribe to the traditional Christian sexual ethic) teach and proclaim — attitude or no. It can be boiled down to “sin is sin, and all sin is an offense to a Holy God — in particular there are no particular sexual sins which are ‘more sinful’ than others.
To expand: your contention is that the teaching of the traditional Christian sexual ethic — particularly when it comes to homosexual behavior begins in or is founded upon animus, or revulsion and proceeds from thence to prohibition and sanction. It is born in feeling and then becomes enacted in “law” if you will. I think that is a fair restatement of your basic position? If not please tell me how it is not so.
Your evidence is that people are less comfortable or extremely uncomfortable even revolted by depictions of homosexual sex, and that they are not made so by depictions of heterosexual sex. I will grant that this is largely true in our culture these days. But what of it? A hundred years ago it was scandalous for an unmarried couple to hold hands or kiss in public. I dare say that there were people who would have found such displays revolting. A great many of them. The ongoing coarsening of public morays — what Daniel Moynihan called “defining deviancy down” has been one of the most singular “achievements” of the progressives of this century and the last. You have made much the same point– how one feels about a particular sexual act is not necessarily a reflection on its morality. On that at least we agree.
My own position is that feelings are not the issue, and bear only marginally on the question. The teaching of the dominant sexual ethic in the Christian church is based primarily on revelation, and natural law reasoning — not passion (feeling). It is Scripture that teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is Scripture that teaches that sin (of all kinds) — is an “abomination to God” — cf Proverbs 6:16-19 as just one example of this language among many. The teaching of the Catholic church that homosexual constitutes “grave depravity” is not as you suppose born out of a particular animus, but is in fact reflective of Biblical language — in particular places like Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
So what we have is a long relatively clear line of accepted teaching on what constitutes an orthodox Christian sexual ethic.
To sum up. From the beginning of this thread your argument has been that Christian opposition to ssm is mostly founded on animus or revulsion, and that therefore it may be defensible to call it “hate” from a particular perspective. My contention is that such opposition is not born in passion but in the received teaching and tradition of the majority of the Christian churches for nearly two millennia. And that, further, to call it “hate” is to kill dialogue and is an attempt to dismiss any who hold to traditional Christian sexual mores from polite society…
August 21st, 2012 | 11:26 am
David C: The ongoing coarsening of public morays — what Daniel Moynihan called “defining deviancy down” has been one of the most singular “achievements” of the progressives of this century and the last.
Seriously, you want to go there? Do you stand in opposition to this?
August 21st, 2012 | 12:28 pm
Maximillian,
You write: “Seriously, you want to go there? Do you stand in opposition to this?”
Sure I’ll go there, within limits. It all depends on how you define the particulars of “this”. I certainly would be willing to “go there” in some cases, others not.
I certainly am not going to surrender to some notion that the so called sexual revolution has been a tremendous boon to human progress.
August 21st, 2012 | 2:24 pm
David C.,
For example, one of the consequences of the sexual revolution is that homosexuality is no longer a crime in all 50 states. What think you of that?
Marital rape is now a crime, because women are no longer regarded as the property of their husbands. I will not insult you by asking whether you agree with this, I’ll only ask you to not forget the good things about the sexual revolution.
August 21st, 2012 | 2:44 pm
david c.,
My positions is rather simple, I think. You have said:
I take your word that this is what you believe. However, I think those who believe homosexuality is sinful, and those who oppose same-sex marriage largely take in stride, say, cohabitation prior to marriage, for themselves, for their young-adult children, and for people they know. It is not a scandal any more. In fact, Prince William, the future head of the Church of England was cohabiting with his fiancee prior to their wedding with the knowledge and approval of the current head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth. How many were scandalized? And another future head of the Church of England, Prince Charles, is now married to the woman he committed adultery with when he was married to Diana. Camilla may even become queen!
You talk of “defining deviancy down.” Well, if we take premarital and extramarital sex as deviancy, then deviancy has been defined down to the point where princes and politicians can openly live with their female companions and few are scandalized. I really don’t think the same standard applies to homosexual relationships. I sincerely doubt that if Prince William were bisexual and had cohabited with his male lover prior to cohabiting with Kate, the reaction to the two premarital affairs would have been equally blasé.
In the Catholic Church, I can point to the fact that those who are religiously married, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried are considered to be living in adultery, yet they are officially welcomed into parish life (although they may not receive communion). On the other hand, same-sex couples, who are equally sinners, are not welcomed. In fact, there was a famous incident a couple of years ago when Archbishop Chaput decreed that children of a lesbian couple could not attend Catholic school. I have said a number of times that I don’t see why same-sex couples (homosexual “fornicators”) and divorced and remarried couples (“adulterers”) cannot be treated the same in the Catholic Church. While they may indeed be in some liberal parishes, officially they are not.
All of the above (including what I have written about people’s discomfort at depictions of same-sex public displays of affection and depictions of gay sex in television and movies) leads me to conclude that probably most who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage are motivated by something more than a purely intellectual understanding of the interpretation of the Bible. As I said, I think people react to sexual expressions other than their own in a visceral or “instinctive” manner. I used my own reaction against transvestites as an example, this, I think, doing away with the notion that I think such reactions can be defined as “hate.” If I were to describe in full my own personal, instinctive reaction when I see a man dressed as a woman—particularly in cases when it is done atrociously, as it so often is—I wouldn’t come off as a very sympathetic or tolerant person. However, sometimes sympathy and tolerance have to be summoned up and willed, and “instinctive” reactions suppressed. Even for those who are able to do that, I think those “instinctive” reactions color opinions. We all have more than a little prejudice inside of us. Or maybe you don’t, but I do. Not only don’t we make dispassionate, rational decisions without the involvement of emotions. We can’t.
August 21st, 2012 | 3:26 pm
Max,
Like I said, it’s all about the content of “this”. I am glad that we agree (it appears) that the sexual revolution has been a mixed bag. I would add “at best” which would likely be a step (at least) too far for you. But i’ll take agreement where we can find it.
If in fact the criminalization of marital rape and the decriminalization of private sexual acts (whether homosexual or heterosexual) can, in fact, be ascribed to the sexual revolution, then I will not “forget the good things about the sexual revolution”.
It is my hope that you will perhaps agree with me that the explosion in the numbers of STD’s, out-of-wedlock births (and the all too often resultant social pathologies), the drastic increase in the rate of divorce, 1.2 million abortions annually, and the saturation of our culture (particularly the internet) with pornography should all be placed on the negative side of that ledger?
For me, the social costs of the latter negatives, impacting as they do millions and millions more than the former ‘goods’, lead me to at least wonder if the ‘revolution’ really has been worth it?
Could the “good” that we agree upon have been accomplished in some other less catastrophically costly way?
August 21st, 2012 | 3:34 pm
David,
Well, you’re just rehashing now, and so would I be so we should probably just move on. I am amused, however, at the idea that the great British public would be ‘scandalized’ if Prince William was discovered to be bisexual. Sir Elton John and Sir Ian McKellen beg to disagree.
Cheers.
August 21st, 2012 | 4:22 pm
David C.: It is my hope that you will perhaps agree with me that the explosion in the numbers of STD’s, out-of-wedlock births (and the all too often resultant social pathologies), the drastic increase in the rate of divorce, 1.2 million abortions annually, and the saturation of our culture (particularly the internet) with pornography should all be placed on the negative side of that ledger?
Yes, yes, not necessarily, no, no. But I definitely do agree that the sexual revolution, like any revolution, has had negative consequences. It’s the price of freedom. Freedom of speech means that people can advocate for evil ideas. Yet I would not oppose it.
Islamic theocracies have none of these pathologies you mention, and yet I would not trade all the wealth in the world for living outside such a place.
August 21st, 2012 | 5:15 pm
I am amused, however, at the idea that the great British public would be ‘scandalized’ if Prince William was discovered to be bisexual.
david c.,
It’s one thing to have bisexual entertainers. It’s another to have a bisexual king! Do you suppose if Charles had taken up with a man instead of Camilla Parker Bowles, they would look forward to having Charles’s lover as their next queen? :P
August 21st, 2012 | 5:25 pm
Max,
I value freedom as well. Very much. The devil between us would be in the details..
But, some agreement anyhow. Thanks for some good conversation. A Presbyterian pastor and an atheist having a civil conversation and reaching some concord. Who would have thought?
August 21st, 2012 | 9:02 pm
I would bet if you took a poll among those who opposed homosexuality and same-sex marriage and asked if sex before marriage was worse if it was heterosexual or homosexual, the answer would be overwhelmingly the latter.
I bet you’d be right – if they think there is something inherently disordered about homosexual sex.
For instance, if they believe that anal sex is destructive (as many do), or if they believe that homosexual encounters are repugnant to God.
I bet if I took a survey of people in favor of gay marriage, I’d find that the majority of people in favor of gay marriage have ignorant, bigoted views of religious people.
Not sure what such fictitious surveys really reveal, though, except insofar as it reveals the assumptions – and bigotries – of those who invent such non-existent surveys to “scientifically” validate our prejudices.
August 21st, 2012 | 9:17 pm
As I pointed out before, Blake, that is your own, personal definition of a hate group, which would exclude the Nation of Islam. Not sure if that is what you want.
You know what’s wrong with deliberately using fallacies of ambiguity as a tactic?
It’s that you’re spending political capital that isn’t entirely yours.
Sure, it works in the short run. You’ll be able to use language that summons up visceral imagery – white supremacist tatts and terrified prison guards and black people cowering in their house at night while the Klansmen chant outside is, of course, what hate groups are all about.
But words like “hate group”, “hate crime”, and “racist” aren’t yours to play with.
They exist because they not only were but still are needed to communicate something urgent.
That urgency is what the SPLC and its defenders are trying to steal with their lies.
Slander is serious. That is why it has to be proven in a court of law, and there’s a serious burden of proof. What the SPLC is claiming is slander, or defamation. If they believe defamation has taken place, let them prove it in a court of law.
Instead, they are squandering their credibility. What’s far worse is that they’re squandering the credibility of the entire civil rights movement.
By acting as if you’re talking about a real hate group – but secretly slipping in an asterisk, where you generously grant yourself the right to misuse the term to refer to anyone who called someone else a name – you’re using dishonesty to incite a reaction for short-term political gain.
If it ever happens that real hate groups become powerful enough that black people or gay people need to use those words, they will find that you took it upon yourself to sell their well-being.
It’s clear that this is a tactic that comes out precisely when someone knows he can’t win his argument on political merit, on substance.
Little boys crying wolf are little boys who don’t get taken seriously for very long.
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:25 am
Blake: You’ll be able to use language that summons up visceral imagery – white supremacist tatts and terrified prison guards and black people cowering in their house at night while the Klansmen chant outside is, of course, what hate groups are all about.
Well, you’re outraged without offering much of substance. Is the Nation of Islam a hate group or not? Is the very peaceful Westboro Baptist Church a hate group or not? If you answer ‘no’ to both, I will respect the fact that you won’t call the FRC a hate group. You’ll be wrong, but at least you will be consistent.
Blake: But words like “hate group”, “hate crime”, and “racist” aren’t yours to play with.
Who mentioned ‘hate crime? Other than you (twice in this thread), no one.
Blake: Slander is serious. That is why it has to be proven in a court of law, and there’s a serious burden of proof. What the SPLC is claiming is slander, or defamation. If they believe defamation has taken place, let them prove it in a court of law.
Not true. Slander is directed against an individual. Defaming an entire group does not legally count as slander. If I made the monstrous accusation that “Jews poison wells”, that would not be slander. However, if I said: “person X is a Jew who poison wells”, that would be slander.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact