First published in the Chicago Free Press on Dec. 12, 2007
It is clear to nearly everyone that fundamentalists--Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy--are the chief obstacle to equal freedom for gays and lesbians.
It would not be so irritating if they limited their religious practice to their own lives--not participating in homosexual acts, not inviting known gays into their homes, praying privately for the salvation of homosexuals, etc. But they generally try to go much further and impose their anti-gay religious doctrines on society at large.
Just as they try to have biblical commandments posted in courtrooms, seek taxpayer support for their charities, oppose stem cell research, and oppose use of the HPV vaccine because it could encourage sexual activity, so too they oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military and all attempts to have the government treat gay couples equally.
They oppose non-discrimination laws that apply only to government policy, oppose "hate crimes" laws that include gays, claiming that they would hamper freedom of speech, and oppose anti-bullying laws for schools, believing it is their children's god-given right to bully little gay children.
Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave the game away when he explained that gays should not serve openly because homosexuality is immoral and the military should not countenance immorality within its ranks. So all these policy arguments for keeping gays out of the military are mere window dressing. The real reason is the religious doctrine that gays are immoral.
What if anything can we do about this? It seems to me that we have three options.
1) We can continue to make our secular arguments, appealing to civil rights, equal freedom, "fair-mindedness," analogies to other minority groups, etc., hoping that they will persuade more people through sheer repetition.
2) We can try to do better at generating and promoting religiously-based arguments for homosexual non-immorality and gay-supportive policies, hoping that those might persuade people who are not evangelical inerrantists. At one time the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sponsored a Religious Round Table to do this, but it never seemed very articulate or effective. Too bad.
3) We can mount a sustained effort to counter religious literalism and inerrancy themselves. This would include pointing to holy book inconsistencies, contradictions, easily demonstrable errors, readily apparent barbarisms, etc., with the aim of weakening the hold of literalist thinking. Religious belief of any sort is too often given a free pass in this country. But nothing in our tradition of religious tolerance precludes forceful criticism.
Increasingly, I find myself leaning toward adding the third option to the other two. I am encouraged to think this can be productive by two facts. One is the recent publication and substantial sales of books attacking religion by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. No doubt many thoughtful Americans are appalled at religious influence in our current government.
The other encouraging fact is the increasing number of people who claim to have no religion or express no religious preference in public opinion polls, and the decline in regular attendance at religious services over the last three decades among younger Americans (age 21-45), most noticeably among the growing number who remain unmarried.
How to carry out such an initiative is worth discussing. One possibility is protesting preachers, politicians, and other prominent figures who make anti-gay statements. People who have no discomfort with picketing could include that as an option. Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal suggests protesting at upcoming U.S. appearances by the Pope. Would that be helpful?
I have a former-fundamentalist friend who seems to enjoy visiting fundamentalist blogs and websites and posing textual and other religious difficulties for them. It is hard to do this persuasively unless you know the bible really well, but if you do, that would be a possible option. Rarely will you have an effect on the original writer, but you might on other people visiting the website or blog.
Another possibility is writing (e-mailing) to correct newspaper writers who unthinkingly assume the truth of biblical stories, whereas we know that many are merely myths and legends with no historical basis. Randall Helms' book Gospel Fictions is a particularly good source of information.
I'm sure people can think of other ways. Those are just a start. The important point is to counter the pro-religious monopoly of public discourse. Fundamentalist and biblical inerrantist views are not forces for good. They are devices for achieving power and manipulating whole populations. They are divisive, promote fanaticism, and afflict more than they comfort. They must not be allowed to continue to control our lives.
Corvino, John
{ 81 comments }
← Previous Comments
Thanks for the warning, CP. I haven’t seen the “Independent Gay Forum” following the path of, say, freerepublic. But maybe I haven’t seen enough!
First, torture doesn’t work.
Correction. Systematic torture, as practiced by Saddam Hussein, does not work. Techniques such as waterboarding, when applied selectively to people with useful information, DOES work, as seen in the case of the operative who then provided information that directly led to the breakup of several plots, saving lives, and also the capture of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of Americans.
The entertaining part, Charles Wilson, is that you support the former and oppose the latter, even though Saddam Hussein tortured infinitely more people for far less reason that the CIA ever even thought of doing.
Second, it’s bad for your image, especially when you’re the United States.
Hardly. According to leftist gays and Democrats, al-Qaeda, despite being one of the largest practitioners of torture in the world, and groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency, all of whom torture as a matter of course, remain popular world-wide, with millions of people supporting them and with millions in aid flowing to them from liberal European nations that tsk-tsk over “torture”.
You are in favor of torture, as long as the torturers are heterosexual, it occurs inside of a military facility, and there are no safe words.
As I said, my take on torture is simply this; if waterboarding a terrorist produces information that would disrupt plots and attacks, lead to the capture of other al-Qaeda operatives, identify and directly assist in capturing the lead planner of the 9/11 attacks, and save lives, then it is better to waterboard them than not to do so.
You, on the other hand, completely oppose torture in any case, even when it allows terrorist plots and attacks to continue, terrorist operatives to remain concealed and uncaptured, the lead planner of the 9/11 attack to remain free and to operate unhindered, and that people die as a result — and even when it involves waterboarding a single terrorist operative, even one who had already been implicated in the attempt to blow up LAX in 1999 and who was operating an al-Qaeda safe house.
In short, I think saving lives is more important. You prioritize bashing Bush, even to the point of not caring whether or not people die because of it.
Techniques such as waterboarding, when applied selectively to people with useful information, DOES work, as seen in the case of the operative who then provided information that directly led to the breakup of several plots
A CIA officer (who was contradicted by an FBI agent) made that claim. It’s only a claim. North Liar Forty, you made a claim, too. You wrote that Sen Maria Cantwell “said” that Mark Foley was a pedophile. Your claim was a lie. Maybe the CIA officer’s claim is also a lie.
even though Saddam Hussein tortured infinitely more people for far less reason that the CIA ever even thought of doing.
Right, and what did the Bush administration do after the U.S. military occupied Baghdad? It re-opened Saddam’s torture chambers under American management. It justified it by pointing to Iraqi torture, thereby handing Saddam a victory: Your president allowed Saddam Hussein to change American values.
Now, contrast this with World War II. The Japanese military made no pretense of abiding by the Geneva Conventions in any way, shape, or form. Their battlefield conduct made Saddam, and separately, al-Qaeda, look like Cub Scouts. If anyone could have been justified in torturing Japanese captives out of pure anger and revenge, it would have been the United States Marine Corps.
But what did the United States do? It set a firm policy of humane treatment of Japanese captives, at least those who would surrender rather than be killed. And those prisoners provided a wealth of actionable, battlefield information without even being subjected to the S&M that you love so much, or waterboarding, or anything like it.
Losers torture, and torturers lose. And liars — like you, North Liar Forty — support torture. And they even dare to call themselves “moral” as they do it. One of the many sad things about this is that you won’t be around when the next Americans are tortured, and that torture is justified as being no different than what the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unpatriotic? Immoral? Unamerican? Go to the nearest mirror and have a good, long look, you lying hypocrite.
A CIA officer (who was contradicted by an FBI agent) made that claim. It’s only a claim.
Unfortunately, that same FBI officer also insisted before that the person who was waterboarded was mentally deficient and provided no useful information whatsoever at any time.
Now that FBI officer is spinning and desperately trying to insist that the person did provide useful information, but…but…but….
Next:
But what did the United States do? It set a firm policy of humane treatment of Japanese captives, at least those who would surrender rather than be killed.
You may wish to read The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh, which contains passages such as the following:
“It was freely admitted that some of our soldiers tortured Jap prisoners and were as cruel and barbaric at times as the Japs themselves. Our men think nothing of shooting a Japanese prisoner or a soldier attempting to surrender. They treat the Jap with less respect than they would give an animal, and these acts are condoned by almost everyone.”
“Before the bodies in the hollow were “bulldozed over,” the officer said, a number of our Marines went in among them, searching through their pockets and prodding around in their mouths for gold-filled teeth. Some of the Marines, he said, had a little sack in which they collected teeth with gold fillings. The officer said he had seen a number of Japanese bodies from which an ear or a nose had been cut off.”Our boys cut them off to show their friends in fun, or to dry and take back to the States when they go. We found one Marine with a Japanese head. He was trying to get the ants to clean the flesh off the skull, but the odor got so bad we had to take it away from him.” It is the same story everywhere I go.”
Not surprising, given that Admiral Frank Leahy, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had stated in 1942, “…in fighting with Japanese savages, all previously accepted rules of warfare must be abandoned.” Furthermore, as I cited above, Diplomat Among Warriors, by Robert Daniel Murphy, provides ample documentation of the use of torture on German POWs.
Thus, if you were applying your theorems fairly, you would scream that these actions prove that FDR allowed the Japanese to “change American values”, you would castigate the United States as “losers” in World War II, and you would claim that US soldiers were “immoral”, just as you are doing now.
But again, you’re not applying your theorems fairly; you’re simply Bush-bashing.
One of the many sad things about this is that you won’t be around when the next Americans are tortured, and that torture is justified as being no different than what the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So let’s compare here.
You and your fellow liberals say that waterboarding, not killing, a known terrorist operative, who had assisted in numerous plots against the United States, including 9/11, and who provided information that allowed the disruption of other plots, the capture of the lead planner of the 9/11 attacks, and the saving of numerous lives…..is morally equivalent to, and provides justification for, sawing off Daniel Pearl’s head on live TV for the crime of being American and Jewish.
Pearl’s torture had no information-gathering value whatsoever; it was pure, sadistic murder, done merely because of what he was. Yet you scream that that is “morally equivalent” and “justified” by waterboarding a person who had already helped make possible the deaths of thousands of Americans to get information to prevent the deaths of thousands more.
Again, Charles Wilson, I think saving lives is more important. You prioritize bashing Bush, even to the point of not caring whether or not people die because of it and saying that sadistic murders of American citizens like Daniel Pearl are “justified”.
Yes, North Liar Forty, some American soldiers tortured Japanese captives, and some shot wounded prisoners. But that wasn’t policy, and there are many, many more contemporaneous accounts of humane treatment of Japanese captives and the information they provided as a result of that humane treatment.
In WW2, the U.S. military did not re-open Nazi or Japanese prisons in occupied areas, fill them with enemy combatants, and torture them at the direction of the White House’s orders transmitted through the chain of command. Nor did the United States trot out its lawyers to call the Geneva Conventions “quaint” on the grounds that our enemies didn’t abide by them.
Nope, it took failures like you and your president to do that. Tell me, North Liar Forty, when did you come to so bitterly hate every single thing America has ever stood for?
You and your fellow liberals say that waterboarding, not killing, a known terrorist operative, who had assisted in numerous plots against the United States, including 9/11, and who provided information that allowed the disruption of other plots, the capture of the lead planner of the 9/11 attacks, and the saving of numerous lives…..is morally equivalent to, and provides justification for, sawing off Daniel Pearl’s head on live TV for the crime of being American and Jewish.
Torture is torture, no matter what the reason. Same goes for murder. I find it interesting that Log Cabinettes and other assorted wingnuts continually point to Pearl’s fate as justification for torture. There are lot of tragedies in this war, and one of them is that people who bleat about “morality” have willingly allowed Third World savages to determine American values. You really never had much confidence or faith in your own country, did you?
By the way, what evidence do you have that your president’s torture policy, and its implementation, has saved any lives? Sure, that’s what they’ve claimed. But where’s your evidence? Is it the same place where you keep the evidence that Sen. Cantwell “said” that Mark Foley was a “pedophile”?
The sad fact is that you approve of torture, as long as the torturers are heterosexual, as long as it occurs in a military facility, and as long as there are no safe words. That’s some pretty hard-core S&M that you’re into, m’boy.
Tell me, is that what your buddy Carl Rove is into as well?
Yes, North Liar Forty, some American soldiers tortured Japanese captives, and some shot wounded prisoners.
Which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed originally.
Even more hilariously, in your next paragraph, you claim that the US did not torture enemy combatants — after just having admitted that US soldiers did torture Japanese captives.
Furthermore, you ignore that the head of the Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Frank Leahy, stated directly that “all previous rules of warfare must be abandoned”.
Torture is torture, no matter what the reason. Same goes for murder.
So gay liberals like yourself would prosecute a police officer who shot a suspect who was spraying a schoolyard full of elementary school children as a murderer.
After all, you claim that there is no justification whatsoever for killing another person — “murder is murder”.
There are lot of tragedies in this war, and one of them is that people who bleat about “morality” have willingly allowed Third World savages to determine American values.
Which is the greater American value, Charles Wilson; my belief that American lives are worthy of protection over those who criminally try to murder Americans, or your belief that American lives should be sacrificed rather than torture terrorist operatives who have already participated in and assisted plots that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans to obtain information that disrupted other plots, spared lives, and directly led to the capture of the other plotters who murdered Americans?
Again, Charles Wilson, I think saving lives is more important. You prioritize bashing Bush, even to the point of not caring whether or not people die because of it and saying that sadistic murders of American citizens like Daniel Pearl are “justified”.
Oh, and by the way, since this thread really has nothing to do with torture, if you want to continue to scream at me, you can do it by email. Otherwise, continuing just drags matters further and further off topic and allows obscuring of the main issue.
Which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed originally.
North Liar Forty, you keep lying. What I originally wrote was this:
“But what did the United States do? It set a firm policy of humane treatment of Japanese captives, at least those who would surrender rather than be killed. And those prisoners provided a wealth of actionable, battlefield information without even being subjected to the S&M that you love so much, or waterboarding, or anything like it.”
Did individual personnel depart from the policy? Of course. That sort of thing happens in every war. But the U.S. policy was firm, and it was very widely observed. By contrast, you are in favor of torture and so is your failure of a president.
Furthermore, you ignore that the head of the Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Frank Leahy, stated directly that “all previous rules of warfare must be abandoned”
I’d need to know more. I’m not going to make a judgment based on one fractional quotation given to me by North Liar Forty, whose stock in trade when he is on the Internet is to tell lies and to twist and misrepresent anything anyone else says. I will further note that, regardless of what Adm. Leahy might have said, the U.S. never abandoned the Geneva Convention until your failed president did so.
So gay liberals like yourself would prosecute a police officer who shot a suspect who was spraying a schoolyard full of elementary school children as a murderer.
North Liar Forty, I never wrote or suggested such a thing.
you claim that there is no justification whatsoever for killing another person
Not all homicide is murder, North Liar Forty. Look it up.
Which is the greater American value, Charles Wilson; my belief that American lives are worthy of protection over those who criminally try to murder Americans, or your belief that American lives should be sacrificed rather than torture terrorist operatives who have already participated in and assisted plots that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans to obtain information that disrupted other plots, spared lives, and directly led to the capture of the other plotters who murdered Americans?
The bottom line is this: You are in favor of torture. In favoring torture, you betray your hatred for everything this country has ever stood for, your ignorance of our history, and your utter lack of confidence in America. Not to mention the utter phoniness of your “morality.”
Oh, and by the way, you wrote that Sen. Cantwell “said” that Mark Foley was a “pedophile.” She never said it. You made up that lie. How often do you make up lies, North Liar Forty, and why?
Watching the volley of vitriol over archaic ancient texts and their value/demerits to gays and lesbians only confirms Harris’, Dennet’s, Hitchins’, and others claim that religion is the source of division and separation.
Israel separate from Hittites, Israel separate from Palestine, Saved separated from Damned, Straight separate from Gay, Goats separate from Sheep, Sunni separate from Shia, Orthodox from Heterodox, Protestant from Catholic, Scientology from Psychiatry, etc., etc.
Unlike other divisions, religious divisions have the mark of a divine authority not only to sanction the divisions, but to conquer the apostate, heretic, Other. All three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are at the center of more primitive superstitions and physical conflict in the world, that it surprises many that 200 years into the Age of Enlightenment that so much darkness prevails.
Cast off the scales of superstition and metaphysics and behold the awe and majesty of what is for existing, despite human’s best efforts to destroy it.
Aha! So you are on the side of the terrorists, are you?
Watching the volley of vitriol over archaic ancient texts and their value/demerits to gays and lesbians only confirms Harris’, Dennet’s, Hitchins’, and others claim that religion is the source of division and separation.
Ah yes, because we know gays and lesbians NEVER fight over anything but religion, and if we were all enlightened secular and antireligious leftists, we’d never fight at all.
Right.
Rosendall: “A few of us in DC have talked about organizing a purification ritual in the new baseball stadium after Benedict (whom Frank Kameny aptly calls Maledict) says Mass there.”
How Jewish fundamentalist!
The Gay Species wrote, “How Jewish fundamentalist!”
Pardon me, but (1) where is the Jewishness? and (2) where is the fundamentalism? Also, you do realize, don’t you, that I was kidding?
This was an interesting post. Too bad it devolved so quickly into silliness in the discussion. Back to Paul’s original point, he’s right that the real battle for cultural change has to be taken directly to the religious traditions and institutions that provide the theological and ideological underpinnings of heterosexism. The one thing I would add that hasn’t come up in the discussion is that there are people who have been working at that for decades. Lesbian feminist theologians like Beverly Harrison and Carter Heyward, gay theologians like Gary Comstock, activists like Mel White and those who maintain Soulforce, the indefatigable Troy Perry, founder of Metropolitan Community Churches (which, by the way is the still the largest lgbt organization of any kind anywhere in the world) and many other scholars, activists, clergypeople who have struggled against huge odds to develop new ways of doing faith. These folks have had little support from the major national organizations until very recently, but they are coming around a little bit. Some statewide organizing has taken root as well. In NY, Pride in the Pulpit has been effective in organizing progressive clergy around marriage and other issues so that the NYS Catholic Conference and the fundamentalist evangelicals aren’t the only religious voice at the state capital.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “Again, Varnell isn’t commenting out of anything rational or consistent regarding imposing views on others via the government; he’s merely trying to rationalize his antireligious bigotry, not realizing that there are those of us out here that see his hypocrisy in creating and applying standards to religion and religious behaviors that he and his fellow gay leftists won’t even apply to themselves and their own community.”
There’s a difference between a believer and his/her beliefs. One can respect a believer without respecting his/her beliefs, and a lack of respect for religious beliefs does not constitute bigotry. Bigotry is about a lack of respect for people, not a lack of respect for beliefs (or arguments).
None of us is under any obligation to respect anyone else’s beliefs or arguments, religious or otherwise. Religion is not above rational investigation and criticism -I think this really Varnell’s point. My criticism of religious influence on public policy would go further than Varnell’s, however, since religion -like all belief in the supernatural -is irrational. It isn’t just fundamentalism or the belief in “biblical inerrancy” that is irrational, but any form of belief in the supernatural. And in turn, all forms of irrational belief -including religion – are an undesirable and potentially dangerous influence on public policy. What we need are governments that are free from the influence of irrational thought.
Ashpenaz wrote “I wish the gay community would admit that it’s public behavior has caused many of the problems it now has. Bill Cosby made a simiar case for the black community in his book Come on, People. I want to write a book making the same points to the gay community called Come On, Girlfriend. Do you think anyone other than Andrew Sullivan would buy it? Would you?”
Gay people are not responsible for homophobia. Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality, and it has nothing to do with gay people. Modifying our behavior will do nothing to stop or mitigate homophobia. In fact, even if every gay person lived his or her life in accordance with the apparent desires of the homophobes, it would do nothing to mitigate homophobia. Every gay person could become completely celibate, all the gay bars could close, the pride marches could all end, every gay person could spend Friday and Saturday nights at home praying over some religious text, never touch another drop of booze, and never again listen to dance music, and homophobia would not stop. Homophobia is not about gay people.
I would put it this way, Sugar Rush; your second point completely negates your first — inasmuch as you invoke the very same irrationality in the second that you decried in the first.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “I would put it this way, Sugar Rush; your second point completely negates your first — inasmuch as you invoke the very same irrationality in the second that you decried in the first.”
You must have misunderstood my post. Both of the points I made were to decry irrationality -the irrationality of belief in the supernatural in my first point and the irrational fear of homosexuality in the second point. In fact, the two are often connected, i.e.; the irrationality of religious belief is often invoked as the basis for homophobia.
Not at all. You misunderstood my point — which is the fact that your criticism of irrationality makes no sense in light of your irrational characterization of people as “homophobes” and your insistence that gays have never done anything wrong or engaged in any bad behavior whatsoever.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “You misunderstood my point — which is the fact that your criticism of irrationality makes no sense in light of your irrational characterization of people as “homophobes” and your insistence that gays have never done anything wrong or engaged in any bad behavior whatsoever.”
Homophobes most certainly do exist -I don’t see how you hope to dispute this. As far as “your insistence that gays have never done anything wrong or engaged in any bad behavior whatsoever”, this is a straw man fallacy of logic (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html for a description of this fallacy). That is, I never said anything of the sort -you’re criticizing a statement I never made. My point was that gay people are not responsible for the irrationality of homophobia. Simply put, the responsibility for homophobia rest with the homophobes, not with gay people.
I agree with ND30 that there is no such thing as homophobes. Finally, someone has had the balls to stand up to the liberal left’s insistence that gays are victims of hate…plainly it is the straights who are the victims of the bad behavior of disease-spreading homosexuals…and rightfully so, might I add. I also agree with ND30 that American Christians are the most abused minority in the history of the world and that liberals are responsible for pot-holes and black ice.
My point was that gay people are not responsible for the irrationality of homophobia.
Irrationality, no.
But unfortunately, gays have a problem determining what is and what isn’t rational.
For instance, it is perfectly “rational” for gays to dress up children in slave gear and take them to sex fairs to “show off”. It is perfectly “rational” for thirty-five-year-old HIV-positive gays to have unprotected sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV. It is perfectly “rational” for gays to demand sex from their coworkers, and then retaliate against them for refusing to give it.
Because what do gays call it when those behaviors are criticized and called out?
The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.
Or for the kids in slave gear:
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.
Or, perhaps the best example of using screams of “homophobia”:
The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.
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’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
Ah, it’s the new year and the North Liar Forty keeps it up. Tell us, North Liar Forty, did you find the evidence for your lie that Sen. Maria Cantell “said” that Mark Foley was a “pedophile?”
See, if you think you can make up crap like that and just waltz away, then there’s nothing you won’t make up on the fly, is there?
For instance, his claim that people think it’s “rational” for kids to be in slave wear, or have unprotected (or any other) sex with 35-year-olds, etc.: No one in any of those links called the behavior “rational.” Not that it matters to North Liar Forty, who comes by his moniker, uh, rationally.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “But unfortunately, gays have a problem determining what is and what isn’t rational.
For instance, it is perfectly “rational” for gays to dress up children in slave gear and take them to sex fairs to “show off”. It is perfectly “rational” for thirty-five-year-old HIV-positive gays to have unprotected sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV. It is perfectly “rational” for gays to demand sex from their coworkers, and then retaliate against them for refusing to give it.”
Such events are not the cause of homophobia -homophobia long precedes such events. Homophobia ran far stronger during the 1950s than it does today, but gay people during the 1950s had almost no visibility. No gay pride marches, Folsom Street Fairs, etc. Homophobia has nothing to do with the behavior of gay people.
And why the odd presupposition that gay people somehow should suffer collective guilt? If this were true of gay people, why wouldn’t it also be true of straight people? Are straight people also somehow collectively accountable for the behavior of every other straight person? Both gay people and straight people have committed acts far more extreme than any you have described in this thread. After all, there are both gay murderers and straight murderers. So how is it rational to hold an entire group of people accountable for the conduct of others simply because they share a common sexuality?
Gay people and straight people are equal. Neither you nor anyone else can provide even one rational reason to single out gay people as a whole and subject them to adverse selective treatment.
See, if you think you can make up crap like that and just waltz away, then there’s nothing you won’t make up on the fly, is there?
Which is why those stories are linked and referenceable.
Which, as your rant demonstrates, is rather wasted effort on my part.
And now to Sugar Rush:
So how is it rational to hold an entire group of people accountable for the conduct of others simply because they share a common sexuality?
Because, Sugar Rush, in each of the examples I cited, excuses were made for the behavior on the basis of the sexual orientation of the person committing it.
Since these gay people are insisting that they should not be punished because that’s what gay people do, what else should people think?
North Dallas Thirty wrote “Because, Sugar Rush, in each of the examples I cited, excuses were made for the behavior on the basis of the sexual orientation of the person committing it.
Since these gay people are insisting that they should not be punished because that’s what gay people do, what else should people think?”
So what? You aren’t telling us anything here -i.e., you aren’t providing us with any reasoning. How does it stand to reason that simply because “these gay people are insisting that they should not be punished because that’s what gay people do” that every other gay person on the planet is some how collectively responsible for the behavior in question? Maybe somebody some where made excuses for their behavior because they are straight, but this wouldn’t tell anything rational as to why all heterosexuals should somehow be collectively responsible for every other heterosexual’s behavior.
Maybe somebody some where made excuses for their behavior because they are straight, but this wouldn’t tell anything rational as to why all heterosexuals should somehow be collectively responsible for every other heterosexual’s behavior.
Unfortunately for your argument, Sugar Rush, liberal gays have already made it clear that heterosexuals ARE responsible for other heterosexuals’ behavior — ergo, this example — even WITHOUT the person claiming their sexual orientation as an excuse.
Moreover, the reason you are held responsible is because you have spent more time spinning for these peoples’ conduct than you have in repudiating it. One would think that, if you didn’t want homosexuality to be associated with bad behavior, that you would vociferously reject and condemn individuals like the ones I cited for doing so.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “Unfortunately for your argument, Sugar Rush, liberal gays have already made it clear that heterosexuals ARE responsible for other heterosexuals’ behavior — ergo, this example — even WITHOUT the person claiming their sexual orientation as an excuse.”
Again, you aren’t telling us anything here. You still haven’t provided us with a rational reason as to why people should be held collectively accountable for another person’s conduct simply because they share a common sexuality.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “Moreover, the reason you are held responsible is because you have spent more time spinning for these peoples’ conduct than you have in repudiating it.”
This a another straw man fallacy -I’ve done nothing of the sort! But even if your statement were accurate, it would still be a false dichotomy fallacy of logic. Defending a behavior is not the same thing as having engaged in it or being responsible for it. Defending a behavior and being innocent of that behavior are not mutually exclusive. For example, an attorney can defend a client without being responsible for that client’s conduct.
North Dallas Thirty wrote “One would think that, if you didn’t want homosexuality to be associated with bad behavior, that you would vociferously reject and condemn individuals like the ones I cited for doing so.”
This is another false dichotomy fallacy. Not condemning the individuals you reference is not mutually exclusive with not wanting homosexuality “to be associated with bad behavior”. Indeed, a person could remain perfectly silent and still not want homosexuality to be associated with bad behavior.
You can read more about the false dichotomy fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Which, as your rant demonstrates, is rather wasted effort on my part.
North Liar Forty, what’s wasted is your effort to keep right on lying. One of these years you’ll tell the truth about something, and then we can all rejoice.
One of these years you’ll tell the truth about something, and then we can all rejoice.
And again, Charles Wilson, wasted effort; since you claim I have never told or cited the truth, you claim that every one of those hyperlinked stories I provided was a lie.
Sugar Rush, the amusing thing about this is that, in your desperate attempts to spin for your fellow gays, you more and more prove my point: gays like yourself are incapable of criticizing or holding accountable bad behavior committed by other gays and justified by those gays on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Heterosexuals have been prosecuting and punishing crimes committed by other heterosexuals for millenia. But gays like yourself are incapable of even saying that what another gay person does is a crime, instead choosing to scream that anyone who holds a gay person accountable for their behavior is “homophobic”.
That’s because, as Charles Wilson demonstrates nicely, the knee-jerk gay reaction to any bad behavior done by a gay person being pointed out is to scream that it’s a “lie”.
North Liar Forty, it’s fun to watch you lie about your lying. I never wrote that the stories were lies. I wrote that you lied about the stories. And that’s exactly what you did. Virtually everything you write everywhere on the Internet is a lie.
Someday, you’ll tell the truth. Even if by mistake, I’ll congratulate you for your blunder.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.