First published at 365gay.com on October 29, 2007
It wasn't the first time an audience defied expectations. This time it was in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. I was there with Glenn Stanton, my "debate buddy" from Focus on the Family, to discuss same-sex marriage. The only thing we knew about Rhinelander before arriving was that its number one cause of death is bar-room brawls-or so we had been told by several Wisconsinites, who warned us of the small town's "redneck" reputation.
"Bar-room brawls?" Glenn joked. "I suppose that has heterosexuality written all over it."
"Oh, we gays have them too," I responded. "We just call them 'hissy-fits.'"
Unlike most of our university debates, the Rhinelander event was advertised primarily to local residents, rather than students, and when we arrived we noticed lots of gray hair in the audience. An older crowd in a redneck town-Glenn's territory. I braced myself.
Then the Q&A began, and one audience member after another attacked Glenn. I kept waiting for a critical question directed at me. Nothing.
After about an hour of Glenn's getting grilled while I fielded softballs, I turned to him and announced, "Well, Glenn, this has been exactly the right-wing audience we expected in rural Wisconsin!" The audience howled with laughter.
"Are you sure they didn't bus you guys in from Madison?" Glenn quipped back. I could tell that he was weary and that he appreciated the lighthearted moment.
The following week we debated again in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the same thing happened. I found myself wanting to stand up and shout, "This is the deep South, people. You're supposed to be on HIS SIDE!"
It's not that I'm complaining. I do these debates to convince people. Not to convince Glenn (although I'd like to think my time with him has had a positive effect). And not to convince ideologues, who have made up their minds and won't budge no matter what. I do them to convince the fence sitters-folks who show up curious about the issue, eager to listen, willing to engage arguments. So when people agree with me, I should be happy, and I am.
But…
But there are plenty of people who don't agree with me. One merely has to look at voting patterns to realize this. Last November, Wisconsin voters passed an anti-gay marriage amendment 59-41%-and much of that majority came from more liberal towns than Rhinelander. Even college students are far from unanimous in supporting marriage equality. Which means that opponents are either not showing up, or not speaking up, at our debate events. Either way, I miss the opportunity to engage them.
Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselves-even if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error" (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. That's why I'm willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again.
It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. "Any critical questions for me? Please?" I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing "last call" at the bar: "Last call…last call for traditionalists…" Finally, a woman took me up on my challenge-sort of:
"I'm a religious conservative," she began gently. "And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven't spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn't feel like we would automatically be shouted down." She didn't offer any question-just that observation.
I was both impressed and surprised-impressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice.
Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: it's one thing to silence your opponents; it's quite another to convince them. And sometimes-perhaps often-silencing is done at the expense of convincing.
The social pressure that makes certain views "taboo" has its uses. But political reality indicates that it's not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriage-certainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortable-not less-in voicing their opposition to us.
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
“Sure you can. You just have to do a lot of amending.”
LOL!!! That’s priceless.
She shows you an example of how your “majority rules” theory doesn’t apply, due to constitutional protections, and you tell her she can always amend the constitution. LOL.
Ok, I want to amend the constitution to make it illegal for anyone to use a blogger handle named after old 1970′s Nick Nolte movies. How far do you think I’d get?
Equality is already protected under the constitution, no amending is necessary. All that was required was for gays to line up at the courthouse to file their licenses, which they were doing. Then conservatives got cute and decided to pass a bunch of laws against it. Those laws are not holding water. State by state are slowly throwing them out.
I think Christians are not by any means required to give you any more respect than you do them when you mock their beliefs and their religion. Since you can namecall and bash them, I think they are perfectly justified in namecalling and bashing you.
Hmm. Leaving aside the eye-for-an-eye logic that is specifically NOT Christian (Jesus H. having added quaintisms like “forgiveness” and “loving your enemies” to the mix) there is the question of who is “you.”
So, North Dallas Thirty, if Gay #1 insults Christians, does this give any Christian the moral right to insult gays in general, or Gays #2 through 9 million? How badly do you hate yourself? That is if you’re gay at all. Are you gay?
Also, what sort of “bashing” were you referring to? Is this verbal “bashing?” I ask because you also used the word “insult,” which would seem to cover verbal bashing. Therefore, it’s reasonable to suspect that you were referring to physical bashing.
Please tell us, North Dallas Thirty, when and where gays have physically “bashed” Christians on account of their Christianity. And if this had been done, would it give all Christians the right, in your view, to bash a gay person at random?
Your endorsement of violence is worrisome in itself, but I’d like to get a more specific understanding of it.
She shows you an example of how your “majority rules” theory doesn’t apply, due to constitutional protections, and you tell her she can always amend the constitution. LOL.
She can.
The right of the people to amend the Constitution is specifically protected and outlined in it — and they have done so several times throughout the country’s history.
If Karen wants to amend the Constitution to allow her to put me in jail for no reason, she is more than able to do that, provided she gets the votes. The fact that she, or you, likely would get nowhere with your proposed amendment has no bearing on the fact that you have the right to attempt to do it if you so please, and that if you get the required amount of votes, you can amend the Constitution.
The reason gay leftists tend to recoil from this notion is because it runs logically counter to their hatemongering towards the majority of people in this country; rather than give up their hate rhetoric and seek to NOT alienate people, they pretend that the Constitution is an immutable document that cannot be amended.
So, North Dallas Thirty, if Gay #1 insults Christians, does this give any Christian the moral right to insult gays in general, or Gays #2 through 9 million?
That depends.
Did Gay #1 happen to be a gay person who insulted Christians, or were they a gay person who insulted Christians AND claimed they could do it because they were gay?
If it was the former, no. But if it was the latter, yes; since so many gays claim their homosexuality as justification for their antireligious bigotry, that seems perfectly logical.
Please tell us, North Dallas Thirty, when and where gays have physically “bashed” Christians on account of their Christianity. And if this had been done, would it give all Christians the right, in your view, to bash a gay person at random?
Here’s one, and here’s the more famous ones.
And as above, it depends; if people are going to justify these actions against Christians based on their homosexuality requiring them to do it, it seems silly for Christians not to view all gays as enemies.
How badly do you hate yourself? That is if you’re gay at all. Are you gay?
Ah, I see…..because I don’t agree with your views on religion and politics and the culpability of gays in their behavior, I cannot possibly be gay myself.
I’m not anti-religious because I’m gay, ND30. I’m anti-religious because religion – or at least the Abrahamic religions – have continuously shown themselves to be essentially incompatible with rational, enlightened society.
The fact that you think that religious dicta have no less merit as arbiters of right and wrong than reason just goes to show the problem.
You’re right that the consitution is amendable. Gay-haters certainly have the ability to amend the constitution to make it crystal clear that equality doesn’t apply to us, that the lessons of Loving vs. Virginia have NOT been learned. They *shouldn’t*, however.
It would not be merely difficult to amend the constitution to put you in jail, it would be WRONG. It would be against the principles behind the constitution – principles of enlightenment and reason.
The argument has never been “Do the anti-gays have the power to keep our marriages illegal?” It has always been “Is it right for them to do so?” They claim it is right because we are immoral and anti-social. I say they’re wrong, that I’m NOT immoral or anti-social. My arguments are based on reason and logic and equality – the laudable principles enshrined in our founding documents – and theirs on the Bible. I win. And I’m not going to pretend I don’t win because it “alienates” them.
“if people are going to justify these actions against Christians based on their homosexuality requiring them to do it, it seems silly for Christians not to view all gays as enemies.”
You have it so incredibly backwards. Why wouldn’t we gays see all Christians as enemies, given all that has been done to gays in the name of God? One priest gets punched during a demonstration, and all of a sudden we’re the cause of all the enmity between the two groups? Ridiculous. If a bullied kid strikes back, he’s wrong to resort to violence – but he’s not also suddenly to blame for the bully’s actions!
What a piece of work North Dallas Thirty is: claims to be gay, but thinks it’s perfectly okay for Christians to engage in gay bashing. I thought that sort of self-hatred had gone out of style, but apparently not in Texas.
Gamespy has given Mario Galaxy a perfect review, saying that the only thing that may deter players would be a dislike of the platforming genre in general.
First, Karen:
I’m not anti-religious because I’m gay, ND30.
And then a post later:
Why wouldn’t we gays see all Christians as enemies, given all that has been done to gays in the name of God?
So in one you claim you aren’t, but then you go on to justify anti-religious behavior based on sexual orientation.
And I can tell you why gays wouldn’t view Christians as enemies; because there are gay Christians.
Much to your chagrin, I’m sure.
They claim it is right because we are immoral and anti-social.
Heaven only knowswhere they get that idea.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
So, in other words, if you think children shouldn’t be dressed up in fetish gear and taken to a sex fair to “show off”, you’re “close-minded”, “conservative”, and antigay.
“Reason, logic, and equality”, my foot. More like, “I can do whatever I want because I’m gay – and you cowering people will shut up and not criticize me because if you do, you’re homophobic“.
I’m beginning to see that you must be one of those people who is purposefully obtuse, ND30.
I didn’t say we should act like Christians are our enemies, I was pointing out the absurdity of you saying that since one priest got punched, all gays somehow deserve what we have gotten from Christians over history.
I know there are gay Christians. Like I said, the fact that I think Christianity is dumb has nothing to do with this, since no one was on stage at that debate saying “Christianity is dumb”.
You talk in circles, going nowhere, only trying to muddy the waters. Why are you so convinced that gay people are evil?
Straight couples have done far worse to their children, and yet somehow when a gay couple does something trashy, it’s a reflection on MY morals. I have never taken children to “sex fairs”. It is completely stupid for you to act like some exceptionally trashy couple’s exceptionally stupid action is “proof” that *I* am immoral and antisocial.
These are exactly the kind of ridiculous arguments that they come with at these debates. They’re wrong, and that’s why they feel outargued.
I’m not doing “whatever I want” and labelling anyone who hates me for it homophobic. I’m living a perfectly normal life, doing perfectly normal things, with perfectly normal morals. Wriggle all you want, but when you say that I am a bad person, YOU LIE.
In other words, I have “justified” no actions against Christians whatsoever, regardless of my personal view that it’s a transparently false religion.
All I’ve done is steadfastly refuse to pretend that the arguments advanced against gay people hold any water whatsoever. Not in world based on reason, at least.
You can oppose violence, exposing children to sexual imagery, disturbing religious ceremonies, or whatever – all the things you seem to be so upset about – but those have NOTHING to do with being gay.
What I’m being condemned for is what I do in the bedroom with my wife. Nothing more, nothing less.
The reason people who stand up and say, “Well I just don’t agree with it, that’s how I was raised” get labelled homophobes is because they ARE HOMOPHOBES. I’m not going to jump down their throats or shout them down, but I am going to decimate their arguments, which is what a debate is THERE for.
This woman complaining that she felt intimidated wouldn’t feel so intimidated if she wasn’t going to lose the debate on the merits.
There’s nothing inherently immoral about gay sex. Just because you can’t seem to conceive of a healthy, monogamous, happy gay sex life in the context of actual marriage, if not legally recognized marriage, doesn’t mean no one else is having one.
First, Karen:
I’m not anti-religious because I’m gay, ND30.
And then a post later:
Why wouldn’t we gays see all Christians as enemies, given all that has been done to gays in the name of God?
So in one you claim you aren’t, but then you go on to justify anti-religious behavior based on sexual orientation.
And I can tell you why gays wouldn’t view Christians as enemies; because there are gay Christians.
***
ND30, you are seeing a contradiction where there is none because your interpretation of Karen’s statements is skewed. She is not saying that gay people’s perspectives on Christianity stem from some deep and inner essence that commands them to hold negative perspectives on Christians. She is saying that gays should see Christians as enemies because of the violence Christians have inflicted on them throughout history.
Now, I do not think gays should see every Christian as an enemy but I do understand the deep anger that they feel towards them. The fact is, *some* Christians *are* open-minded and really welcoming of gay people. Some gays are Christians without being self-hating.
I didn’t say we should act like Christians are our enemies, I was pointing out the absurdity of you saying that since one priest got punched, all gays somehow deserve what we have gotten from Christians over history.
And as I said, Karen, that depends; if people are going to justify these actions against Christians based on their homosexuality requiring them to do it, it seems silly for Christians not to view all gays as enemies.
Similarly, when gays use the rhetoric you espouse as an excuse for taking their children to sex fairs, it seems fully logical for their action to be generalized to you.
I’m not particularly a big believer that gay sex is immoral myself, and being partnered, I know full well of the relationships of which we are capable. But at the same time, as long as people are going to co-opt our sexual orientation as an excuse for their antireligious bigotry, trashy and perverted behavior, and whatnot, unless we speak out against them doing it, we are similarly accountable.
Think how much farther you would get if people stand up and give the example of the gay couple if you were to go, “Yes, I totally agree; for them to do that was sick and perverted, and for them to use their homosexuality as an excuse and claim that anyone who objected was ‘close-minded’ was even worse,” imagine how far you might get with people, instead of blasting them for being “dumb” and “homophobic”.
That depends.
Did Gay #1 happen to be a gay person who insulted Christians, or were they a gay person who insulted Christians AND claimed they could do it because they were gay?
If it was the former, no. But if it was the latter, yes; since so many gays claim their homosexuality as justification for their antireligious bigotry, that seems perfectly logical.
Why does ND30′s justification of antigay Christianists remind me of the ‘Judea declares war on Germany’ debacle on the boycott of German goods, as justification for the internment of all Jews in Nazi Germany?
Shame on you ND30.
Unfortunately for that logic, Xeno, there are a few problems with it:
1) That was a headline run in a single British tabloid newspaper
2) The so-called “boycott” was by no means universal among Jews
3) “Judea”, as many people pointed out, didn’t even exist
And the reason it reminds you of this is simple; the mantra of the gay left is, when in doubt, pull out a Nazi comparison.
Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to ?internment camps? that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. ?I know what happened to gay Jews who didn?t get out fast enough last time,? Rogers said.
And as for “shame”, Xeno, you might want to save that for when someone does something wrong, not when someone refuses to play into gay fantasies of Christians all being the equivalent of Nazi brownshirts.
1) That was a headline run in a single British tabloid newspaper
2) The so-called “boycott” was by no means universal among Jews
3) “Judea”, as many people pointed out, didn’t even exist
That’s exactly the point: Nazi sympathizers used this overblown story of a few Jews boycotting Germany, as an irrational justification of interning Jews. It’s the same thing as sympathizing with an irrational justification for antigay Christianists to chastise and oppress gays, simply because of the actions caused by a few radical gays.
Problem is, Xeno, the Jews who were boycotting Germany were far fewer in number and had far less mainstream acceptance within their communities than the examples I cited.
Yours is the example of a people being unfairly targeted for the actions of a radical few whose actions it publicly opposed. Mine is the example of a community being held accountable for behavior that its mainstream publicly encourages, defends, and praises.
I’m not even saying that, Janik, I’m just saying that if either group has any excuse to feel victimized, it’s gays, not Christians, so ND30 can stop throwing a little pity party for them and demonizing the gays, who – while not perfect – are FAR more likely to be the bashee than the basher.
ND30,
“gays use the rhetoric you espouse as an excuse for taking their children to sex fairs”
Are you thinking of someone else’s rhetoric? And no, that’s STILL not a reason to call me immoral for having gay sex. It’s a reason to call them immoral for taking kids to sex fairs. I am not responsible for their idiocy. I have never said “yes, that’s a good idea, taking kids to sex fairs.” Whenever asked, I say, “No, being gay is not an excuse for taking kids to sex fairs.” But no one ever asks me, for some reason. Maybe it’s because they’re too busy assuming ignorant things about me and my moral fibre.
You are reading way, WAY too much into what I’m saying. You seem to think I’m advocating… well, I’m not sure what. Something mean, for sure. Possibly yelling. Maybe hitting. Definitely name-calling. And something about sex fairs.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. Let me reiterate: I simply refuse to feel guilty for other people being wrong or put them at ease while they oh-so-nicely spout ignorant, hateful reasons for opposing my equality.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that there are actually valid reasons to oppose my equality which would make them NOT bigotted, and thus undeserving of the label.
“behavior that its mainstream publicly encourages, defends, and praises”
My gay mainstream – the one I belong to – does not encourage, defend, or praise any of the crap that you bring up. It does, however, condemn bigotry, strongly and consistently.
I’m not particularly a big believer that gay sex is immoral myself
Curious phraseology there. Are you a “small believer” that gay sex is immoral?
It’s a reason to call them immoral for taking kids to sex fairs.
Except, Karen, that you have loudly whined that no one should be allowed to call anyone else’s behavior “immoral”, and that to do so meant they were “bigots” and their reasons were “ignorant” and “hateful”.
Are you a “small believer” that gay sex is immoral?
Yes, I do believe that certain types of gay sex are immoral, just as I believe similar types of heterosexual sex are immoral.
“Except, Karen, that you have loudly whined that no one should be allowed to call anyone else’s behavior “immoral”, and that to do so meant they were “bigots” and their reasons were “ignorant” and “hateful”.”
You almost understand what I write, but not quite. You’re so close, though… keep trying.
It is *because* their reasons are hateful and ignorant that these people have no place calling me immoral, not the other way around.
Are there logical reasons to believe that exposing young children to graphic sexual imagery is immoral? Yes? It’s not based on ignorance and hate? Then that would not be the moral outrage that I am “loudly whining” about (ha!).
I do not take my children to sex fairs. I do not abuse children. I do nothing that a strictly rational person would have a problem with. So quit acting like because I am gay, I am responsible for every misdeed any gay person has ever done, and judge me for how *I* act, or I will (rightly) see you as a bigot, and I will not apologize for that or try to make you feel better about your irrationality any more than I would coddle an ignorant racist.
Also, “Certain types of gay sex”??
Sex with minors, especially those placed in your care is not a “certain type of gay sex”. That implies that it is a mostly, if not solely, gay phenomenon.
You really buy the BS that they’re selling, don’t you? You really think that the “3% of the population commits 30% of molestations” claims are God’s Honest Truth, no foolin’.
Meanwhile, in a review of 50 male children who had been victims of sexual abuse:
37 (74%) had been molested by men who were in *heterosexual* relationships with the child’s relative.
3 were molested by women. 5 were molested by both parents. Only ONE of the perpetrators could be identified as possibly homosexual in his adult behavior.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41
So, even if the men who abused those boys were closeted homosexuals, the data would indicate that child abuse is a problem of gay men IN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, not gay men in general. And more likely, most of those men would not be attracted to an adult man at all – and the gender of the child is incidental, just a matter of opportunity.
You have no excuse for being ignorant of these matters, and of the way that stastistics get mutilated in the effort to rationalize gay-hate.
Are there logical reasons to believe that exposing young children to graphic sexual imagery is immoral? Yes? It’s not based on ignorance and hate?
Sorry, Karen; that’s being judgmental based on your personal morals, which are not allowed into public policy, remember?
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.
“They will see more than the kids with moms and dads in Iowa,” said Beuschel, who wanted to expose his children to San Francisco’s diverse community. “Every parent has to decide for themselves what is right for them. And I respect that. And we decided that this is right for our children”………
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
You see? By denying these children this, you are stunting their growth and interfering with the rights of parents to do as they see fit. Furthermore, you are imposing your “close-minded” moral values on other people as a matter of public policy and shame, which you have insisted you have no right to do to anyone.
Why do you insist on imposing your hateful and ignorant beliefs on these people? Don’t you realize that you’re stunting the education of their children and making them grow up less diverse? How dare you do such a thing to them?
Sex with minors, especially those placed in your care is not a “certain type of gay sex”. That implies that it is a mostly, if not solely, gay phenomenon.
Please note what I actually said:
Yes, I do believe that certain types of gay sex are immoral, just as I believe similar types of heterosexual sex are immoral.
ND30,
You can’t do this:
Gay sex = abusing children
Karen = someone who has gay sex
Therefore, Karen = abusing children.
So, calling child abuse “gay sex” in the context of justifying people’s moral problems with MY life is a dirty big lie. And I don’t understand why you – a self-proclaimed homo – would perpetuate it.
My judgement about exposing children to explicit sexual imagery is not analogous to the Self Annointed Arbiters of Morality’s judgement about gay sex. I’ve explained why several times. You can try and try to build a little hypocrisy case here, but the fact of the matter is this:
There is a strong logical case to be made against exposing young children to explicit (and violent!) sexual imagery (I am assuming that this is what happened at this fair, otherwise… what IS the problem here?)
There is no such case to be made against what I do with my wife in our bedroom. NONE.
I didn’t make up logic, son. It’s not my little self-justifying invention. Some things are right, others are wrong: the Christians are right about that much. What they don’t understand is that REASON is the only RATIONAL way to make that call. If they want to make it based on something OTHER than reason, they should be prepared to be called IRRATIONAL.
The other day, this Catholic guy told me this:
“Your God is named Reason. Just don’t pretend that your religion is any more reasonable than mine.”
I could only laugh. I think he doesn’t understand the meaning and origins of the word “reasonable”, and I think neither do you.
Jeez…ND30 is on this thread making the same exact discredited arguments that he is one thread up.
I think this is called trolling. He’s completed sidetracked the original topics and gunked up the threads. One thread topic is Obama’s campaign, and the other is about gay marriage. Yet ND30′s posts are all the same – gay people are immoral, are molesters, bad parents, and spread AIDS.
Except here, he’s added an outdated link about some ACT-UP activits protesting a catholic priest who supports Operator Rescue’s violent efforts to harrass and bomb abortion clinics.
What’s funny though, is that he recycles some of the same links for different arguments. Which is really head-scratching.
ND30, do you want me to find some new links for you? I’m sure I can google and find some bad gay people somewhere, or doing something inappropriate. It would help you out, because no matter how you slice it, dude – that Mario Cuomo quote is just plain outdated.
And this declaration was pretty weird:
“I’m not particularly
a big believer that gay sex is immoral myself, and being partnered, I know full well of the relationships of which we are capable. But as long as people are going to co-opt our sexual orientation….”
LOL. That says it all.
Dude, nobody is trying to co-opt your sexual orientation. Believe me, nobody wants anything to do with whatever is going on at your house. And no one knows exactly what your orientation is anyway,… including yourself. I’m not sure what you think being “partnered” is, but likely it looks a lot different than the life the rest of us are leading.
Folks, this is a troll. Let’s declare this sucker dead and move on. If we make real social progress for gay rights we can prevent some of the shame, self-hatred and anxiety that we’ve heard here from this one guy. As far as his issues go, I’m not his psychologist or his mother, it’s not my job.
Agreed, Samantha.
It’s a personal weakness of mine that I can’t resist trolls. I just hate seeing all that garbage sitting there, unrebutted.
The really terrible ones I can let go… it’s the ones that try to look sane that I can’t stand.
I will steel myself, though. No more responses to ND30! Bad Karen!
I think it’s important to respond to NDT. Something tells me he’s one of these evanglical, ex-gay types who will portray a lack of response as agreement with his outrageous accusations.
Yeah, NDT, it’s wrong to have sex with kids. I don’t thing that’s what “Asking” was asking you about. I was struck by that wording of yours. You wrote that you’re “not a particularly big believer that gay sex is immoral.”
This implies that you might disdain gay sex in general. Do you disdain gay sex between consenting adults? Yes or no? And don’t set up strawmen, i.e., answer by telling us that you disapprove of circuit parties, or porn, or three-ways, or bath houses, or promiscuity, ’cause that’s not what I’m asking about.
I’m asking about gay sex itself. I don’t want to know exactly how you do it, either. Generally speaking, NDT: Yea or nay?
Dude, nobody is trying to co-opt your sexual orientation.
Wrong.
Look at the quote from the Folsom parents.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Or the molestation case (emphasis mine):
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
Denial, Samantha, although you’re very good at it, is hardly an intelligent or effective coping mechanism.
Criticizing people who co-opt homosexuality in this matter is far better, but also requires you to admit to your family that there ARE gay people who molest children and carry out sexual acts in front of them.
Meanwhile, to Karen:
There is a strong logical case to be made against exposing young children to explicit (and violent!) sexual imagery (I am assuming that this is what happened at this fair, otherwise… what IS the problem here?)
There is no such case to be made against what I do with my wife in our bedroom. NONE.
Problem is, Karen, what goes on in your bedroom is being used, as I showed above, to justify people who dress children up in fetish wear and take them to sex fairs, or who molest foster children.
And what I thought most entertaining were Samantha’s last two statements.
And no one knows exactly what your orientation is anyway,… including yourself. I’m not sure what you think being “partnered” is, but likely it looks a lot different than the life the rest of us are leading.
Of course, Samantha; since I disagree with you, I can’t possibly be gay or have a partner. Since I criticize the behavior of other gay people, I certainly can’t be one myself.
Impeccable logic. Very rational.
If we make real social progress for gay rights we can prevent some of the shame, self-hatred and anxiety that we’ve heard here from this one guy.
I doubt it.
Mainly because, Samantha, you’re still under the delusion that you can buy self-esteem through statute and that you can force people to like you through lawsuits.
The plot gets thicker!
Not only won’t NDT answer the question of whether he personally disdains gay sex, but he writes the following:
Karen, what goes on in your bedroom is being used, as I showed above, to justify people who dress children up in fetish wear and take them to sex fairs, or who molest foster children …
Karen’s bedroom NDT? What about your own? Do you have gay sex? Do you disdain having gay sex?
Gah, can’t do it.
No, ND30, in those examples gayness is being used to justify:
1) hypothetically – the belief that gay people shouldn’t raise children.
The fair-goers said that some people thought they (as gay people) shouldn’t have children, and that those were the “same” people that thought they shouldn’t take their kids to the fair.
While that’s not quite true, they never said “We can do this because we are gay.” They just think “those people” are wrong about BOTH things.
2) The erroneous belief that gay people deserve less scrutiny in foster care situations by virtue of their gayness.
This is the problem of the people who should have investigated the claims. Gay people aren’t saying “We’re *allowed* to molest children, cause we’re gay!” Straight people are saying, “I’m afraid to investigate reports on gay people because I’ll seem bigotted!” But they’re wrong – any claims should be investigated.
Gay people have not justified anything in either of these situations like, “We are allowed to do whatever we want because we’re gay.” You’re either a liar or a fool.
I hate to ruin your tirade, Charles Wilson, but I do not disdain gay sex between two consenting adults in private. Indeed, I quite often have it myself.
Problem is, as I have pointed out, that that is being used as an excuse for things that are a) not private, b) not adults, c) not limited to two, d) not being practiced with any responsibility whatsoever, and in some cases, e) not consenting.
And in response to Karen, why, oh why, would people EVER get the idea that questioning what gay people do was “bigotted”?
And why, oh why, would that couple ever get the idea that anyone would support what they were doing because “the bigots” didn’t?
Probably because they can reliably count on anyone who would question gays’ behavior being shouted down as a “bigot” by other gays?
Problem is, as I have pointed out, that that is being used as an excuse for things that are a) not private, b) not adults, c) not limited to two, d) not being practiced with any responsibility whatsoever, and in some cases, e) not consenting.
There are 300 million people in America. Roughly 210 million of them are 16 years of age or older. This means that there are , according to Kinsey’s numbers, about 6 million people of whom we could say, for all intents and purposes, they are homosexual. There are another 12 million people of whom we could say, for all intents and purposes, are either bisexual or have had meaningful involvement in same-sex relations.
Roughly 2% of the general population consists of sociopaths. Presuming an even distribution across sexual orientations (falsely, perhaps, but I’ll take the approximation for these purposes) there are 120,000 gay sociopaths and another 240,000 sociopaths who are bisexual or have had significant same-sex involvement.
I’m not an expert, but then neither are you. So I’m going to wing it and suggest that a much higher than normal percentage of molestations, rapes, and other deeply whacked-out behaviors can be traced to sociopathology.
In no way do I, and I think the vast majority of gay people, condone child molestation, rape, and so on. In particular, I think rapists are weaklings and I think molesters, especially of really young (i.e., prepubescent) are sick people.
Now go tell your friends, and especially the right-wingers you have joined with, that, while they might greet the thought of homosexual relations with distaste, there is a night-and-day difference between homosexual relations and those sociopathic behaviors we’ve mentioned.
Now, let’s ratchet down a tad and deal with things that are unappetizing (three- and more-ways) and sad (hyper-promiscuity). Those things aren’t sociopathic, they’re unappetizing and sad. They shouldn’t be lumped in with molestation and rape, either. This doesn’t mean I condone them, it means that I have a brain and can make distinctions based on observations, values, and experience.
Rapes and molestations can spread HIV, but you don’t educate your way out of those things. You enforce your way out of those things.
Hyper-promiscuity, a category into which I’d include those multi-ways, is a tougher issue. I don’t find them more appetizing than you do, and I am fully aware that they are vectors for transmission of venereal diseases of varying kinds. But that’s not the only reason I find them unappetizing. I’ve seen hyper-promiscuity, and I find it depressing, and maybe even soul-crushing depending on the particulars.
There, I would take a multi-layered approach: part exhortation and education on the deeper issues, and part urging of people to at least use protection. But frankly, these things go deeper and their roots spread wide. There are no simple prescriptions; that’s not my way of saying that anyone should give up, but rather my way of suggesting some realism and some tolerance for human weakness.
Yes, one can drive a truck through the word “tolerance.” Right-wingers hate that word. They are all stick, no carrot. I don’t happen to think that works, and in many cases I think it can be cruel.
You’ve pointed out problems, and in essence I agree that, at a basic level, the problems are at least some of those you’ve identified. But I object to your broad-brush linkages, and to your accusations that anyone who doesn’t share your slashing outrage doesn’t care.
Or, to put it a different way, there are different kinds of problems: Acts of God or chance (depending on your view of that whole question); chronic failings of flawed human beings; and problems that any idiot should have seen coming and prepared for.
It’s easy to call every new HIV infection a problem that any idiot should have seen coming and prepared for. At some level, I think so myself. But another voice, the one of experience and occasionally some compassion, even for twisted wingnuts among us, tells me that there are chronic problems mixed in.
So, NDT, you go right ahead and tell everyone else what shitheads they are. Heap your scorn upon those not so smart as yourself. And, as you do so, hope that you will never find yourself in a position where you need anyone’s mercy.
Karen what happened! lol.
I know Wilson is responding because it’s annoying him, but give it up. The guy is weird, period. All his arguments are not only ridiculous and repeating like a broken record, but they’re boring at this point as well.
Would you argue with someone who had downs syndrome? It’s just as bad, and I would end up feeling just as foolish if I did.
It’s easy to call every new HIV infection a problem that any idiot should have seen coming and prepared for. At some level, I think so myself. But another voice, the one of experience and occasionally some compassion, even for twisted wingnuts among us, tells me that there are chronic problems mixed in.
Then one would think it would be far more productive and easier to minimize the ones caused by idiocy first and THEN go after the chronic-problem ones — especially when you are talking about an infectious disease, and especially since idiocy is far easier to stop than a chronic problem.
Normally I would agree, Charles Wilson; however, after years of dealing with the gay community, what I have figured out is that, if AIDS is spread 95% by unprotected sex and 5% by drug abuse, the money, focus, and horror message will be on drug abuse.
Normally I would agree, Charles Wilson; however, after years of dealing with the gay community, what I have figured out is that, if AIDS is spread 95% by unprotected sex and 5% by drug abuse, the money, focus, and horror message will be on drug abuse.
If you’ve become this cynical and alienated, then maybe you need to stop, take a deep breath, and take a long look in the mirror. This sounds like your problem, not “the gay community’s” problem.
There are real problems, and their persistence is no reason to stomp all over those who are trying. After all, we still have crime. Do we say that everything the police do is worthless, and that the police don’t care about crime? No, what we do is say that, at some level, crime is a chronic issue. We also continue to improve law enforcement, while trying to remain realistic.
You’re burned out, NDT. Sorry you hate gay people so much. You ought to try and change that.
This is priceless. You have a group of gays ripping a gay activist to shred’s for having a debate with the opponent.
What many of you fail to realize is that the gay minority does not have the votes to achieve it’s goals. It is necessary to have these debates or discussions. We need to work at changing the electorate, one heart at a time.
It can be a long lonely road sometimes, but there is no other way.
Sure we can get angry and frustrated sometimes. We can have minor policy disputes with people in the community but we need to stand together and press on.
Thank you John for what you are doing. From the bottom of my heart, thank you!
Joe, you are completely missing our point. The problem is not the debate. I debate all the time. I love debates. Debates are necessary (and fun!)
The problem is John’s attitude, that we aren’t being NICE ENOUGH during these debates because we are saying to those who oppose gay marriage, “You’re wrong, and here’s why.”
John wants us to pretend that logic isn’t on our side, to act like opposing gay marriage is a completely reasonable thing to do. Won’t do it, sorry.
In an abortion debate, I can understand the other side’s position, but disagree. There’s an logical, ethical case to be made for both sides. Not so in this case. What does he want from us? It’s not OUR fault that their opinions, with the light of logic shined upon them, make them look like bigots.
Karen,
John does tell people they are wrong if they are. I’ve heard him lecture…have you??
He wants us to pretend logic isn’t on our side? Get a grip lady. His whole premise is based on the superior logic of our side.
Maybe you haven’t actually heard his lecture or debate? Or perhaps the sign language interpreter couldn’t make it?
Boy, wouldn’t you feel like an idiot if I really were deaf.
I know that John debates logically and rationally.
So what is his point? This lady shows up to his logical and rational debate, and is scared to get into it.
So he comes back and lectures all the OTHER gays about how we shouldn’t be so mean. It’s OUR fault that she was scared. HE debates correctly, all of us just yell and scream and cry “bigot”. WE need to stop silencing her.
But we don’t. We aren’t. He’s falling for their persecution complex. They have every opportunity, during the course of the public debate on this matter, to make it abundantly clear that their views don’t come down to bigotry. But they can’t! Because they do!
So John can stop wishing the rest of us gays would just shut up so HE can do all the talking and fix everything.
This woman feels done wrong by only because it’s more pleasant to feel done wrong by than to feel wrong.
If you’ve become this cynical and alienated, then maybe you need to stop, take a deep breath, and take a long look in the mirror. This sounds like your problem, not “the gay community’s” problem.
Um, no.
You see, the issue here, Charles Wilson, is that the gay community is spending the bulk of the money to fix 5% of the problem — and then, when that is pointed out, claim it’s the problem of those pointing it out, rather than anything being wrong with it.
Probably because gays still can blame the straight world for making them use drugs.
Karen-
I am a bold person, and I would think twice before espousing a conservative view point in that forum.
I have seen view points threatened with physical violence and had trash thrown on them.
Maybe that was part of the lady’s concern. Even if her opinion is inferior, that s a great thing. John can easily refute it and leave an impression on all those at the forum.
Oh, and the answer to your question… wouldn’t I feel like an idiot…
the answer to that is no.
Let it be noted that Joe is afraid of pro-gay old people.
the gay community is spending the bulk of the money to fix 5% of the problem
The gay community is spending the money? Really?! Okay, come on NDT, what’s your real beef?
← Previous Comments