Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.
Who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage?"
The label fits. Sexual orientation, on its own, is not relevent to equal access. However, it is very relevent to the bigoted, majority population, who often don't see their objections as intolerance.
"separate but equal" is always an easy pill to swallow, but asking yourself why we insist on the "separate" part is a bit more difficult.
The specific "behaviors" that separates gay from strait, bothers me at a physical reaction level, and I can understand how I might infer other traits from that. That is prejudging, and I am guilty as most. But using those prejudges to put up social restrictions is bigotry, and if I don't want to be labled as a bigot, I have that choice to make.
Finding ways to rationalize restrictions to the group that wants to restrict is easy. Telling that restricted group, or myself, that it isn't based on intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own is a bit more difficult.
Especially without "God's word" in a secular society. Otherwise, atheist and non-Christians might not have an equal access to government benefits. Boy scouts?
Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?If "marital sexual conduct" is "designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children", then I would venture a guess than the vast majority of married heterosexual conduct is "non-marital", and "marital sexual conduct" is not a requirement of marriage.
If gay-marriage was the accepted law of the land, this rationalization of bigotry would be just as weird, obvious, and pointless as racial bigotry is today. But we aren't ready to grow up just yet.
Lots of potential equivocations and terms needing careful definition here, eric, especially "prejudiced" and "intolerant." From that, it follows that the application of the term "bigot" is at best fuzzy and at worst completely, shall we say, prejudiced. In fact, you're not showing how this is any different from the hijacking of civil rights language that I wrote about. You're using the same words, without putting real content in them.
I don't have time right now to go into that further, though.
American heritage, via Answers.com
Bigot:One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Predudice:
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b.A preconceived preference or idea.
2.The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
intolerant:
1. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
3. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
Should save some time.
Ummm... Ok. An earlier post of yours disappeared. Five minutes earlier it was
Lots of potential equivocations and terms needing careful definition here, eric, especially "prejudiced" and "intolerant." From that, it follows that the application of the term "bigot" is at best fuzzy and at worst completely, shall we say, prejudiced.
I don't have time right now to go into that, though.
...without the hijacking sentence. I guess I need to let your posts age a bit before I respond, otherwise they might change. 
The gay rights movement is not limited to SSM, though. There are also issues of e.g. gays in the military, where the parallel is very apt.
Tom,
As Eric says, the opposition to SSM is not on utilitarian grounds.
There are no credible social scientific reasons to oppose equality of gay rights, especially not in comparison with other, far more risky liberal principles like gun ownership, alcohol consumption, or smokers' rights. And I'm sure a lot of laws in a lot of U.S. states had to be chucked out when the civil rights movement triumphed in the 1960's.
This leaves only non-utilitarian intellectual concerns and homophobia as causes of opposition to equality for homosexuals.
Now what fraction of those opposing gay rights do so to cloak their homophobia? 25%? 50%? 75%?
There are two good reasons to think that the percentage is high.
First, the non-utilitarian concerns are limited to narrow, inconsistent interpretations of ancient texts that were written when bigotry was the order of the day. That's why some sects don't find Biblical orders against homosexuality any more convincing than Biblical orders concerning genocide, slavery, adultery, atheism, polytheism or disobedient children.
Second, homophobes are almost never going to admit their condition. They're going to shroud it in non-utilitarian claims or on false utilitarian ones. Many who opposed the black civil rights movement were able to do so using scripture, claims of natural order, and false claims about people of (recent) African descent.
I speak as someone who once rationalized against gay rights. It's easy to fall into. Much homophobia is rooted in male sexual insecurity, specifically, the fear that publicly straight men will be "converted", exposed as gay (as many vocal opponents are gay), or considered gay for their associations or acceptance of gays.
Anti-gay bigotry is alive and well in America.
As for religions losing government funding or tax exemption, I say "It's about %*#@ time!" Religious institutions have a right to their homophobia, but not to my tax dollars.
doctor (logic),
You toss around the term 'homophobia' very freely.
What is this supposed disease?
And have you any evidence to support your claim below?
Much homophobia is rooted in male sexual insecurity, specifically, the fear that publicly straight men will be "converted", exposed as gay (as many vocal opponents are gay), or considered gay for their associations or acceptance of gays.
Eric, thanks for the definitions. The definition of "tolerant" there needs to be nailed down better than it is, I think, because we need to be sure whether we're saying:
a) when we encounter persons who differ or disagree with them, we treat them as having equal human worth in spite of our agreements, or
b) all human values and beliefs are to be treated equally.
The term once meant (a) quite unequivocally. Now it typically means (b). The definition you gave here could go either way.
But enough of that. The question now is, under whichever definition you choose, why is it that those who oppose SSM are experiencing such intolerance, that our free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion are being threatened as they are?
This was one of the two main points of the blog. The other main point was that framing the gay movement in Civil Rights terms is illegitimate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anybody responded to either of those.
doctor(logic),
I was expecting to see accusations of "homophobia" in response to this. It's a standard term that usually lacks content. You've at least tried to put some analysis to it, though as Charlie says, there is precious little evidence beneath what you wrote. It is, in fact, quite prejudiced against the opinions of people whose beliefs are based in centuries of history, not just in religious texts but also in experience and wisdom regarding what keeps a culture and country stable.
But it's ironic that a fear or disagreement on one side of the issue should be labeled a phobia. What label should we put to the Senator's fears about "writing discrimination into the Constitution," considering that discrimination has always been in it? How about hetero-culture-phobe?
Sufferers of this phobia never going to admit their condition, either.
To say that one evidence in favor of an interpretation of homophobia is correct, because they'll never admit it, certainly goes against everything you've ever written about a commitment to evidence. It's out of thin air.
Eric--you caught me editing a comment--sorry if it confused things. I do jump past the preview stage here, and sometimes I think better of it later and I make changes to what I write. I suppose I should be more careful about that.
Eric:
You have an interesting, if not predictable, approach in touting irresponsible sexual behavior as a mere lifestyle choice while disparaging firm standards of conduct. It’s also too bad running to the dictionary didn’t permit you to delve deeper into the etymology of, say, the word tolerance which comes from the Latin tolerare and means “to put up with something evil or unpleasant.” So, given your bandying about the words “intolerance” and “bigotry,” you actually end up supporting Tom’s position in his explanation of “discrimination.” Why?
Well, either you are an absolutist about “intolerance”—which means you should be applying the rule back upon yourself and “tolerating” (meaning giving equal time to, using public funds to support, etc., etc.) things you personally “feel” are incorrect, or you water it down (Tom’s point) to make it lose meaning such that it only supports those things or ideas you believe in. In either case, you’re being silly: I am definitely intolerant of Nazism, pedophilia, stealing, pornography, slavery, cancer, alcoholism, bad manners, homosexual acts, and—yes—atheism. I’m not equivocating amongst all of them (because all are treated in varying ways), but I am lumping them together as clear “undesireables.” I’m also intolerant of certain cultural practices that are not ordered to the good of man: British authorities in India WERE justified in banning the practice of suttee, where a widow was immolated on the funeral pyre of her husband. Anyone would be justified in trying to stop the largely African-culturally-based practice of cliteroctomy.
Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects crimes against humanity such as slavery and gassing of innocent Kurds, of which the previous “gloriously secular” century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus… which is precisely what you’re suggesting when you equivocate between racial bigotry and intolerance of homosexual acts. Astonishingly, in a society that prides itself on its openness and welcomes even shocking candor into public discourse, some things are somehow understood to be off limits. Among them, thou shalt not speak of sexual difference, thou shalt not criticize homosexuality in any way whatsoever, and thou shall never acknowledge that the culture of the Koran is at war with the twin civilizations of the Bible.
Now, if you want to bend the meanings of perfectly understandable words such that “pornography” becomes for you “art” or “freedom of expression,” or people who oppose homosexual acts as being “bigoted,” then by all means exercise your e-lungs. But doesn’t the very fact that there is a HUGE disagreement indicate that these “baddies” are not—as you imply—self-evidently “goodies” or at the least reducible to individual choice? Doesn’t it also miss the point that while you may champion such individual “choices” as being harmless, that in the aggregate the effect on society can be horrendous?
Homosexuality acted upon is perhaps the only sin whose practitioners are organized and boast publicly of their activity. Imagine, for example, a group demanding moral acceptance for adulterers or embezzlers or pedophiles… oops! I forgot: Europe has already descended into that pit with the latter “disenfranchised” group.
What you propose is a truly distorted attitude towards tolerance—which has been reduced to something of a weasel word. (As Chesterton wisely quipped, tolerance “is all that remains after a man has lost all his principles.”) Of course, all human beings should tolerate the foibles and weaknesses of their fellows. But by “tolerance” you really mean something else, don’t you? You mean “never being judgmental”… except if it supports your judgments. But this makes it a much more debatable proposition, doesn’t it… something you’re not comfortable with, are you? Your infatuation with words such as “bigotry,” “discrimination,” and “tolerance” is severely limiting to real discourse. In effect, the only things we must be tolerant of are people’s sexual choices, or perhaps their choices about such life issues as abortion or euthanasia.
You embrace a misplaced “tolerance” that sees family forms as equivalent and refuses to condemn variants as dysfunctional. Interestingly, this helps the privileged of society who can better cope with or weather the moral confusion you promulgate and protect their children from the worst. (Need I remind you of Hilary taking Chelsea out of public schools because she knows damn well what condition the public schools are in? And this coming from the woman who opposes school choice for minorities. Go figure.) Sexual freedom and political correctness for the advantaged have come at the price of broken families for the vulnerable—and that’s called “bad faith.”
Your bringing in racial bigotry as a comparison against those people opposed to homosexual acts is a cute canard. No one is able to change their race: it’s part of their nature. But we have LOTS of cases of people wanting to, going through the process, and being healed of the disordered behavior known as homosexuality. That you may choose to ignore such uncomfortable facts is to your discredit, but here are the references to organization that help people who WANT to be helped (what are you going to do, try to shut them down to satisfy your view of reality?): NARTH and Exodus International.
I suggest it’s your own, personal bigotry against those who hold a different view (primarily Christians) that should be rethought and put in check so that you yourself can aspire to live up to the mantra of “tolerance” you seek to impose on others.
DL: most of what was just presented applies to you as well. Moreover, again I put it to you: your moral relativism does not permit you to rail against others: neither do you have an objective basis by which to do so, nor do I (and many others) give a hoot about your subjective moral “feelings.” And, please, answer Charlie’s question: back it up with clear references your allegations and claims. This I’ve got to see.
Don't have much time for a follow-up right now, but check out the Wikipedia's entry on Homophobia, and this 1996 study linking homophobia with homosexual arousal.
Tom, Charlie, Holopupenko, you've never encuontered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuality? You've never seen "homo" (or worse) used as an insult in school where, say, "boozer" or "womanizer" never was?
As you'll see in a post I just put on the blog, "homophobia" is used for much more than those who have irrational fears of homosexuality. You've pretty much admitted as much yourself. But it puts everyone who gets labeled that way together in the same bucket. Because it covers so much territory it is really a useless word, apart from its powerful (though illegitimate) political effect.
DL:
Okay, let's play your moral relativism game: You mean to tell me you've never heard of Christians being maligned in the public square... called "Fundies," "left their brains at the entrance to the church," "theocratic fascists"... and how about Richard Dawkins's lovely characterization of Christians as "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked"? I'd be happy to supply you with daily examples of hate speech against people of faith--especially of Christians.
Yes, what you say does happen. But why ascribe to an entire group of people that which a foolish anti-charity fringe do? Isn't THAT the definition of bigotry? There are nuns and priests whose entire lives are spent in hospitals helping to care for those infected with HIV (yes, I can provide you references). I don't see you helping out in that regard.
Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding. Even the strange lot (Lanier) at Edge.org worry about the non-authoritative, corporate nature of that source of "facts" (cough). Also, I can offer you lot's of conter-studies at NARTH and Exodus International to the one you provide. It seems (again) your fishing for "evidence" in support of your pre-conceived notions. And, yet again, all we're left with is "he who is the strongest wins in the end."
Tom,
Your argument seems to me to contain a number of non sequiturs and at least one false claim.
As you say, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the Bible is not an infallible source of truth. The world was not created in seven days. The Bible is not even an infallible source of moral truth. In Leviticus parents are told to kill disrespectful children. Thus from the fact that the Bible condemms homosexuality, it does not follow that it's wrong. More work - much more - needs be done to fill this argumentative gap.
But let us assume for the sake of argument that homosexuality is immoral. Now let us ask whether its immorality entails that we ought to deny the rights the law confers upon partners in marriage to homosexual couples. My contention is that, if this is entailed, we would have to likewise deny a multitude of basic rights to other sinners. Gluttony is a sin. But do we not show our approval of gluttony if we allow those who are obese to buy high fat, high calorie foods? Liars are sinners. But do we not show our approval of their mendaciousness when we allow them to speak? To write? To publish?
Examples could be compounded. The conclusion seems obvious. We very often think it right to provide people with those resources, with those rights and opportunities, that are essential to the commission of their sins. Why is this? The reason is simple: the injustice involved were we to use law, and law-enforcement, to deny these things to sinners would be simply too great. In general, it simply is not the role of the state to make judgments about the immorality of this or that form of life. (Of course the state does have an obligation to protect its citizens, but this does not imply that it must insert itself into every aspect of our lives. If I do not harm another by what I do, the state should keeps its hands off me.)
This is why I think is quite right for homosexuals in the U.S. today to feel unjustly singled out. Those religious folk who wish to deny them this basic right others enjoy - the right to marry - do not wish to deny any right to other sinners. It seems an arbitrary, indefensible kind of partiality. Sins to do with sex are, here in the U.S., viewed very differently that other types of sin. When sex is involved, some people - mostly those of a certain religious persuasion- feel it quite right for the state to involve itself in our lives, to grant or to refuse to grant certain basic rights. But if the sin is of another type, we feel that the state ought to have nothing to do with it.
Please let us be consistent, and please let us demand that the state not meddle in an individual's choice to pursue this or that vision of the good (so long as that choice does not unduly infringe upon the rights of others).
doctor(logic),
Good old wiki. Thanks for the link.
Now what fraction of those opposing gay rights do so to cloak their homophobia? 25%? 50%? 75%?
There are two good reasons to think that the percentage is high.
So, to what version of the definition/s do you adhere when you make such wild speculations that perhaps 75% of opponents of gay rights (also undefined) are dishonestly trying to cloak this disease?
Perhaps you agree with your wiki article here
There is also considerable debate over the term's usage as a label for opponents of certain categories of social policy, with the debate centering upon the question of whether such opposition is a legitimate moral stance or indefensible discrimination, and whether or not there are reasons other than fear and misunderstanding that might justify such positions. As in cases such as the Santorum controversy, many have alleged that the term is often used as a means of demonizing and silencing political opponents without regard to their actual motives; those on the other side of the debate argue that the motives in such cases are always connected with bigotry or fear.
But Tom has covered this very well in the next post.
Franklin, your argument seems to me to contain a serious non sequitir.
You argue that because some immoral acts are not prohibited by law, that therefore this one also should not be. The fallacy in that is patent.
The assumed right to marry that you think should be extended to homosexuals is self-contradictory, for marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. These days, though, we're talking about re-defining marriage as a commitment made just according to the preferences of those who want to make it. That cannot be assumed to be a right, and to use language that makes that assumption ("to deny them this basic right others enjoy - the right to marry") is disingenuous.
Homosexuals are not being unjustly singled out. If a homosexual man wants to marry a homosexual woman, they have the same rights anybody else has to do so. I say that not to be cute, but to point out that this new "right" of homosexual "marriage" has been very recently created out of thin air; it has no standing in history or law (in most jurisdictions) whatever.
I keep hearing about the injustices committed against homosexuals, but not the injustices committed in the name of gay rights against those who have a principled stand against it. I thought that was the topic I raised. Why are you ignoring it?
Well, actually it was part of the topic I raised--a major part, that is. I'm still wondering why the silence about it.
Tom,
You say:
You argue that because some immoral acts are not prohibited by law, that therefore this one also should not be. The fallacy in that is patent.
I did not argue is this way. Rather I said that some immoral acts are not prohibited by law and that, since you say only that homosexuality is immoral and offer not other reason to sanction those who practice it, you as yet have no right to deny this or that right to homosexuals.
You say also:
The assumed right to marry that you think should be extended to homosexuals is self-contradictory, for marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman.
So, then, you endorse this argument form:
Practice p has, in the past, only been engaged in by people of kind K.
Thus to say that non-Ks should be allowed to do P is self-contradictory.
This is (to borrow a term you use) patently fallacious. For the greater part of U.S. history, women could not vote. So, then, was it in some way self-contradictory to campaign for womens' suggrage? Of course not.
To say that homosexuals have a right to marry (as of course they do - like the rest of us, they can marry members of the opposite sex) is not really to the point. The right they are denied is to marry whom they wish. That's the right in play here, and to bring up another is to simply shift debate to an irrelevancy.
I'm unswayed by reference to current state of law. I think that, in this case, it's unjust and should be reformed. Here's an argument just like yours:
This new "right" - a right of black folks to live not as slave but as freemen - has been very recently created out of thin air; it has no standing in history or law (in most jurisdictions) whatever.
This could have been uttered truly in the mid-19th century. But, as I'm sure you would admit, it has absolutely no force. It does not increase one iota the justice of slavery.
Let me be clear, less I be said to have done something I did not do. I do not say that the injustices of slavery and discrimination against homosexuals is similar to this or that degree. I do not say that if one is against slavery, one must also be for gay-rights. Rather all that I mean to say is that reference to the current state of law does not bear upon the question of the real justice of a thing. It's quite perfectly possible for there to be unjust laws.
Tom,
I've not said anything about "injustices" done by homosexual activists to those who oppose them simply b/c what one says about that very likely depends upon what one says about the justice, or injustice, of current treatment of homosexuals. If one were to become convinced that that treatment constituted a grave injustice, one would likely, and rightly, be unimpressed by the protests of anti-gay-rights folks. There is no absolute freedom of speech; and I think it right to sanction (if not legally, then surely socially) those whose speach evinces gross injustice against a target minority. To my mind, attacks on homosexuals and calls to deny them basic rights is of a piece with racism and sexism. I know that some here disagree, but the issue of what to do with anti-gay speach cannot be decided before the issue of the justice of denial of basic right to gays is decided. So I chose to take up the latter first.
Franklin, re your 11:57 comment,
you say only that homosexuality is immoral and offer not other reason to sanction those who practice it, you as yet have no right to deny this or that right to homosexuals.
This was a post about the Civil Rights implications of the issues, so I did not go into the other topic you mention here. There are a host of reasons not to condone homosexual "marriage," and I may go into them at some time, but this is complex enough as it is without spreading out to cover the whole topic.
The whole relationship of morality and law is very muddled. Some say, "you can't legislate morality;" I say, "what else do we legislate?" Legislation is an encoded opinion on how people ought to behave, after all. But that's an aside; I don't want to make it essential to my argument in this thread.
So, then, you endorse this argument form:
Practice p has, in the past, only been engaged in by people of kind K.
Thus to say that non-Ks should be allowed to do P is self-contradictory.
No, I think that non-Ks certainly should be allowed to marry. Marriage is between men and women. (I practice the argument form that re-defining words in the middle of an argument is equivocation, and to be avoided.)
I reject your equation of this issue with black civil rights for reasons I have already stated in the blog post.
Re: your 12:35 post: should there be governmental action taken against racist and sexist language?
I didn't ask if it was right, but whether it should be censored. This is what is happening in many countries to those who speak out against homosexuality.
In the U.S., that's putting the "right" for gays to "marry," or for gays never to hear a contrary word, ahead of the First Amendment, the very first guarantees of freedom in the Bill of Rights. How in the world did this ever get moved to the front of the line???
Hi Franklin
You said, "There is no absolute freedom of speech; and I think it right to sanction (if not legally, then surely socially) those whose speach evinces gross injustice against a target minority. To my mind, attacks on homosexuals and calls to deny them basic rights is of a piece with racism and sexism."
Hmmm, questions.
Do you mean to criminalize disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle? Would you ban the Bible for its criticism of homosexuality, or religion altogether?
Why would our society be better if you had your way? By your own words, your plan is step #1 - gay marriage, step #2 - a gay dictatorship. Correct?
Take care
Holopupenko,
I thought your only role here was to play Superman to DL's Lex Luther? (or vice versa)
I am definitely intolerant of Nazism, pedophilia, stealing, pornography, slavery, cancer, alcoholism, bad manners, homosexual acts, and-yes-atheism. I'm not equivocating amongst all of them (because all are treated in varying ways), but I am lumping them together as clear "undesireables."
Running for office? Trying to distance yourself from those folks that are tolerant of cancer? Hearing you say that atheism is "treatable" gives me a new appreciation for the plight of homosexuals.
I suggest it's your own, personal bigotry against those who hold a different view (primarily Christians) that should be rethought and put in check so that you yourself can aspire to live up to the mantra of "tolerance" you seek to impose on others.
Thanks for your suggestion. I honestly think I came to my on conclusions about Gay rights independent of my views of Christianity, but there could be some influence I suppose. Are you saying that because I am an Atheist that I would support something simply because Christians are against it?
There are almost always theist of some sort on either side of any issue, with revelations from their god in hand to support their view. If there is no argument for a view other than something their god said, then I am rather dismissive of it. For the theist, it is the ultimate argument (God said this), for me, it is the ultimate non-argument. (santa told me).
In this case, Gay rights, I started out on the other side, if I ever thought about it at all. But, I don't think I would want to wave a magic wand and make everyone just like me. (funny how we find ourselves as the only measure of normal) When I looked for reasons why I was opposed, I honestly ran up against homophobia. It felt the same as when I discover sexism or racism in my beliefs, and I knew I was the one who had to change to fit reality.
If you have convinced yourself that Gay marriage will rip apart the fabric of society, it is hard to see how I wouldn't share your view. Your view is the normal view right now, so you don't have to convince anyone. But if people start to examine their beliefs, and how they justify them, they might conclude the same thing I did. Is there anything to fear from this examination, if your arguments are so convincing?
As Tom recognized, I don't think all opponents of homosexuality are homophobic. However, I do happen to think that the most vocal opponents are homophobes. There's just no other reason for people to get their knickers so twisted about the issue. Homosexuality presents no utilitarian threat whatsoever. It brings love and joy to those involved, but has no significant effect on anyone else.
As Franklin says, interpretation of scripture is arbitrary. Why pick on homosexuals instead of people who work on Sundays? Or instead of politicians who take money from the poor to give to the rich? There has to be some motivation for this, and it's not utilitarian.
All of this points to some non-intellectual force that's driving a vocal minority opposed to gay rights. I think that force is homophobia.
If you want to compare with the civil rights movement, ask whether there were any comparable claims made by opponents of equality in the 1960's, and whether those claims had any intellectual merit. I'm sure you'll find that there were many similar claims made in opposition to racial equality. Some could even point to ways that they would personally be hurt by allowing blacks into their schools or neighborhoods. What they failed to do was show that their pain would have exceeded the pain of discrimination felt by blacks.
In hindsight, it's clear that racists had no broad, rational claim for their social agenda.
The same is true of those who oppose gay rights. What's more important, your church's right to get my money for preaching against homosexuality, or the right of two homosexuals to be treated like any other loving couple (survivorship benefits, shared property rights, tax incentives, respect, etc.)?
Jim,
I am in sympathy with laws that ban so-called hate speech. There is no right to say whatever I wish. The law does not allow me to speak in such a way that I incite others to violence or create an immanent threat of great harm. I would likely support an extension of such laws to include speech that threatens, or is likely to create an state of affairs that will threaten, persons based solely upon their homosexuality. Saying (and meaning it) either 'Kill the nigger' or 'Kill the faggot' should be illegal.
But that point to the side, I never said that all speech critical of homosexuals and homosexuality should be legally banned. Read my post again if you think otherwise. I chose my words carefully. (I think that such speech should be, as it were, called out. People should be soundly critized for it and told that they are guilty of unjustifiable discrimination, but this is extra-legal.)
What they failed to do was show that their pain would have exceeded the pain of discrimination felt by blacks.
In my opinion, what they failed to show was that objective morality supported their prejudice. But you don't believe in that . . .
That comment about getting churches getting money by preaching against homosexuality is pretty funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
That comment about getting churches getting money by preaching against homosexuality is pretty funny. Thanks for the chuckle.I believe Westboro Baptist Church run by minister Fred Waldron Phelps is still run by donations, and tax-exempt. real funny.
And I would never dream of censuring him. Otherwise, I might not have an example of a "site that contains Gospel truth" that doesn't also have some redeaming quality to justify not paying taxes. Preaching against homosexuality is all it does. Does it do it well? I am not equipted to judge these things.
Franklin, there is a very fine line between curbing someone who incites others to violence, and "so-called" hate speech. Remember the Ohio U prof who felt "sexually harassed" because the head librarian recommended a book that criticized the gay agenda? A pastor in Canada was censured recently for criticising homosexuality on biblical grounds. It's a slippery slope, no matter how you look at it.
Eric, Rev. Phelps does nothing well except making Christians look like fools.
eric, I don't deny there's a small (very) minority out there like that. It's not representative.
Here's what I don't understand: you say that homosexuality is immoral based on your interpretation of the Bible. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But how can you justify imposing your understanding of what is and isn't moral on an entire people, an entire country? What is it that makes you think that you can define morality for everyone?
Well, here's another excellent example of how the issue has been hijacked. Who is imposing morality on whom? The homosexual agenda is to say that their version of morality should trump that of a vast majority of Americans, and that those who would criticize them should be silenced.
Well, here's another excellent example of how the issue has been hijacked. Who is imposing morality on whom? The homosexual agenda is to say that their version of morality should trump that of a vast majority of Americans, and that those who would criticize them should be silenced.The "homosexual agenda" doesn't restrict you from anything. They want to remove the restrictions "a vast majority of Americans" have placed on them, unfairly, just because of their sexual preference. Equality and freedom is supposed to be the american agenda.
Calling someones actions "immoral" is imposing a morality on someone, asking for the freedom to do the actions freely is not imposing anything.
Atheist get called immoral all the time for not doing something that the vast majority of americans do.
I guess that is why it is hard for me to "feel sorry" for the "you know you are going to hell" majority when they get checked as they are calling a minority immoral. The minority are not calling the majority immoral, just bigots, and as I said at the top, it fits the definition(s).
Eric, gays are seeking a PRIVILEDGE, which you euphemize as a "lifting of restriction". I have gay friends who buy and hold real estate as partners in a corporation, or simply as 50/50 owners. Why do they need marriage again?
Is this an issue about tax cuts and the immorality of government confiscation of wealth?
I'll provide information later to show that something actually is being imposed here.
Jim,
I have equal access to marriage, as do you. Your gay friends do not. They are restricted from it. Why do you need marriage again? It would have been just as easy as a white man to say blacks were seeking privileges during the civil rights movement. "They should be happy that they got to ride the bus, why should it matter where they sit? They want to restrict my options."
Restricted:
Excluding or unavailable to certain groups
I can go get a marriage license and marry whomever I want, for whatever reason I want, no matter what immoral acts we do as a couple or on our own... as long as we are the opposite sex. I believe we can do all the specific "homosexual acts", including "making a mockery of the sacred nature of marriage". We can even work on Sunday.
There will always be people that have a problem with other peoples lives. They can still gather in large groups and discuss old books, and reminisce how much better life was when you could just stone someone to death. There will always be a market for finger waggling, even in a purely hetro society.
If this goes to the courts, it might be decided that you can't restrict marriage based on orientation. I'm sure that will seem like an imposition, because most will not agree with the decision. Most want to restrict Gays, so it must not be a restriction, right?
Tom,
A persistent assumption in what you've written on these issues is that gay-rights-activists must inevitably call for a radical revision in current moral standards. I demur. You're right of course that they call for revision of a kind, but it's quite common for GRAs to claim that they draw upon certain basic principles of justice to which most or all of us subsribe. Their claim is thus that those who oppose them are not consistent in their moral beliefs. Those who oppose them very likely subsribe to certain basic principles of justice which have as a consequence that rights now denied gays should be granted to them. However, due simply to ignorance or to bad faith, they deny this. What many GRAs call for is not fundemantal revision but rather mere consistency.
What might such a basic principle of justice be? Rights should never be granted or withheld based upon considerations irrelevant to the possession, or denial of possession of, the right. GRAs will then argue, for example, that their homosexuality is not a relevant consideration when the time comes to draft marriage law.
I know of course that many here deny that homosexuality is irrelevant in this way. My point here is not to convince them otherwise. Rather it's to point out that the claim that GRAs call for whole-sale moral revision begs the question at issue. It is a claim rejected by many GRAs.
That's a great point, Franklin, and points straight to the real heart of the issue: how do we know what is fundamental in morality?
Without some kind of basis in revelation there isn't any solid answer to this question, so we're all left to our opinions. With God's word, we have that basis. By it we know God's character, that he is holy, loving, just, merciful, and truthful; what he says is true. He has said marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a good solid basis for this particular moral decision.
I don't say this solves the whole cultural and political problem, but it brings it back to the most fundamental issue of all: who do we take God to be?
Without some kind of basis in revelation there isn't any solid answer to this question, so we're all left to our opinions. With God's word, we have that basis.No, you don't. You have merely displaced personal moral opinions, concealing them in other facets of the problem.
Everything about God is a matter of opinion because none of it is verifiable. In fact, it's worse. Without verification, it's just a guess. Who God is, what he wants, whether he intervened(s), and what the word "god" means are, at best, all matters of personal opinion and interpretation. Theology is not science, and it's not objective. There have been no advances in theology, and there have been no technologies to show for it.
So citing God as a basis beyond personal opinion is misleading.
Commenting by HaloScan
